HOUSE OF LORDS
Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill
1st Special Report of Session 2007–08
Crossrail Bill
Volume II: Evidence
Ordered to be printed 19 May 2008 and published 19 August 2008
Published by the Authority of the House of Lords
London : The Stationery Office Limited £price
HL Paper 112–II CONTENTS IN VOLUME II
Page
List of Proceedings 19 February 2008 Chairman's Opening Address 1 Promoter's Opening Address 3 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration 16
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation 33 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement 46
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility 59 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham 84
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham 106
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists' Touring Club 146
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society 169
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets 195 The Petition of Mr James Middleton 211
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson 222
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields 249 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association 259
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others 273 The Petition of Nicholas Morse and others 294 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others 296 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association 312
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association 321 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association Ltd 328 Spitalfields – Settlement Issues 346 Spitalfields – Noise Issues 361
CONTENTS IN VOLUME III
Page 13 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Society 372 General Issues relating to the Spitalfields area 397 Promoter’s closing statement on the settlement issues in the Spitalfields area 420
17 March 2008 The Petition of Kempton Court Residents 427
18 March 2008 Chairman’s Ruling on compliance with the Environmental Impact Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended 451 The Petition of Ms Patricia Jones 454
19 March 2008 The Petition of Canary Wharf Group Plc 488 The Petition of Trustees Of The SS Robin Trust 508 The Petition of the Association of West India Dock Commercial Ship Owners 510
20 March 2008 The Petition of Souzel Properties Ltd 520 The Petition of the City of London Corporation 530
26 March 2008 The Petition of Michael Pritchett 532
1 April 2008 The Petition of London Borough of Bexley 555 The Petition of Mr Roy Carrier 597
2 April 2008 The Petition of Mr Roy Carrier 606
3 April 2008 Statement on the Office of Rail Regulation 618 The Petition of the London Borough of Camden 619 The Petition of David Monro and Adam Scott – The House of St Barnabas- in-Soho
22 April 2008 Promoter's opening address on Crossrail services and operations, the Access Option, general railway industry issues and Bill powers 641 The Petition of Jean Lambert MEP and others 666 The Petition of Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) 682
23 April 2008 The Petitions of London Borough of Havering, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, and Brentwood Borough Council 690
29 April 2008 The Petitions of the Freight Transport Association Ltd; The Rail Freight Group; Freightliner Group Ltd; Mendip Rail Ltd; Quarry Products Association Ltd; Hutchison Ports (UK) Ltd; The Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company; Harwich International Port Ltd; and Maritime Transport Services Ltd 700
CONTENTS IN VOLUME IV
Page 30 April 2008 The Petition of Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd 751 Heathrow Western Link 784 The Petition of English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd 790
1 May 2008 The Petitions of the Freight Transport Association Ltd; The Rail Freight Group; Freightliner Group Ltd; Mendip Rail Ltd; Quarry Products Association Ltd; Hutchison Ports (UK) Ltd; The Felixstowe Dock & Railway Company; Harwich International Port Ltd; and Maritime Transport Services Ltd 805 The Petition of the Rail Freight Group 833 The Petition of the Trustees of the SS Robin Trust 835 Promoter’s Closing on railway issues 838
2 May 2008 The Petition of Smithfield Market Tenants’ Association 862
6 May 2008 The Petition of Westminster City Council 911 The Petition of Paddington Residents Active Concern on Transport (PRACT) 919 The Petition of Woodseer and Hanbury Residents Association 949
7 May 2008 The Petition of Westbourne Park Villas Residents Association 973 The Petition of Hammerson (Paddington) Limited and Domaine Developments Limited 990 The Petition of Westbourne Park Villas Residents Association 992 The Petition of Mr John Payne 1011
8 May 2008 The Petitions of the Crossrail Coalition of Residents and Petitioners; and the Residents Society of Mayfair & St James's Mayfair Action Group 1031 The Petition of Mr Leo Walters 1074 The Petition of Woodseer and Hanbury Residents Association 1076 Promoter’s Closing statement 1082
Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:19 Page Layout: LOENEW[ex 1] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
Minutes of Evidence
TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE CROSSRAIL BILL DAY ONE TUESDAY 19 FEBRUARY 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Snape, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Young of Norwood Green, L Fookes, B
MrDavidElvin QC, MsNathalieLieven QC, MrTimothyMould QC,
MrReubenTaylor andMrGwionLewis appeared on behalf of the Promoters.
WinckworthSherwood appeared as Agent.
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
1. CHAIRMAN: This is the first meeting of the principles of the Bill and, although we are not going Select Committee of the House of Lords on the to stop anybody from raising other matters, I have to Crossrail Bill. You will see that we have plaques to tell you that we are bound by the principles of the Bill say who we are and I am not going to go into details and we will not be able to do a great deal to help you. about our backgrounds because you can look us up if you want to. All I can tell you is that we have all been very carefully vetted to see that we have no 4. One of the issues that arose before was the east and interests that would possibly conflict with our ability west terminals for Crossrail. It was suggested that to make a completely impartial decision on the perhaps it should go to Reading and to Ebbsfleet. matters that are going to be raised in front of us. We There is one development about this which has of course have no constituencies like you had with the happened fairly recently on 6 February, and there is Members in the other place. a copy of this document at the back of the room, as indeed there are a lot of documents at the back of the room. At the second reading, the Minister made it 2. The purpose of these sessions will be to listen to the plain that this Bill was not going to contain Petitioners and their agents and make sure that they provisions to extend Crossrail either to Reading or have a full opportunity to present their case within Ebbsfleet or anywhere else other than what is in the the scope of their legitimate interests. They have a Bill. However, on 6 February, the Parliamentary right to be heard and the Promoters are not going to Under-Secretary of State for Transport made a object to any of them being heard. If, however, written ministerial statement which may be of Petitioners want to raise the same point as was raised interest to those who want to take this point. In in Petitions in the House of Commons, we will want relation to the line between Maidenhead and to know what has happened since then because the Reading, the Government is safeguarding a route. As Promoters, I know, have been trying to negotiate agreements and settlements with Petitioners who for the destination of Ebbsfleet, they have not raised matters then and, if there is still something safeguarded it yet, but they are in negotiations with wrong, we would like to know what it is. all concerned, including of course the local authorities, for an equal safeguarding arrangement. I think you may be interested in seeing the text of this, 3. This is a completely fresh set of proceedings and we and it is available to you at the back. come to it totally fresh; it is a new hearing altogether. However, there is perhaps one point, and you will have heard this before in the House of Commons, 5. It would not be done under this Bill, but there is a and that is that this Bill has now received a Second piece of legislation called the Transport and Works Reading in the House of Lords and in the Bill, in one Act 1992 which enables railways and other of the schedules, is a complete list of all the works that infrastructural works to be carried out under an will be authorised under it, the terminals, stations, order system with public inquiries and, if the the shafts; a huge list of things. Those are the Government decided to extend Crossrail in either Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:19 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
2 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 Chairman’s Opening Address direction or both, it would be done under that 8. There used to be an arrangement whereby all legislation and not in this Bill. Petitioners had to put in an appearance on the first day of the Committee’s session. That has been waived and it does not matter if you are not here today, 6. I think the agenda is fairly well fixed. If you are in Petitioners. As long as you turn up on the day that any doubt about it or indeed if you are in any doubt you are indicated to appear, that will be fine and, about anything else, will you please contact our when your turn comes, you can have your agent, your clerks, who are sitting on either side of me and they counsel or you can do it yourselves, but we would like will be available throughout, and they can always you please to announce loud and clear who you are explain things to you. There is also a great deal of and what the point is, what the Petition is about. paper on the table at the back of the room, and some of it, I think, will be fairly familiar to you, but there is a pretty large red binder which some of my colleagues 9. I am afraid, if you want to refer to documents, you have brought with them today and that contains a will have to produce rather a lot of them, 16 copies great deal of information which may assist you. please, not only because we all need them on the Committee, but so do the shorthandwriters, so do our clerks of course and so do the people who are 7. Now, the sittings: today we are going to finish running the visual display and, therefore, I am afraid listening to me and then I am going to ask the it is rather a lot. If you can possibly get them to us Promoters to give a factual explanation of what is in before it is your turn, so much the better because we the Bill. I do not know whether that will be finished will all then be able to look at them. by lunchtime, maybe it will, in which case this afternoon we will have the first of three presentations, 10. Now, these are in fact formal proceedings, they again factual presentations, to deal with major issues are the equivalent to a court and, as one of our which have arisen in the Commons’ hearings. This attendants has been saying this morning, no mobile afternoon we will have noise, and you will have to be phones please. alert for that because it is not an easy subject. Then tomorrow we will have compensation in the morning and then ground settlement and subsidence after 11. Hybrid bills, which is what this is technically that. Then we will start tomorrow afternoon with the called, are now extremely rare; I think the last one first of our site visits. We are going to Whitechapel was the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. We want to hear and the Spitalfields area, especially Hanbury Street, your cases, Petitioners and Promoters. You have, I where we expect to meet some of the Petitioners, and am afraid, as I have said, to stick to the principle of we will be glad to do so. On Thursday, we are doing the Bill if you wish us to do anything about it. That another site visit to the Isle of Dogs where the same is what the procedure is designed to deal with. There applies. I did not know until yesterday, but there is is going to be no challenge to the right of Petitioners going to be a third site visit a little bit later on where to appear and, therefore, as I think is a useful we are going to listen to the noise of underground customary arrangement, the Promoters will produce, trains and that will, therefore, be another before the Petition is heard, a response document opportunity. It is not necessarily the end of site visits which will give their provisional answer to what it is because, if we need to undertake more in order that the Petition puts forward. properly to appreciate what Petitioners are saying, we will of course gladly do so. Anyway, the detail of 12. In a moment, I am going to ask Mr Elvin, on the programme is a provisional one at the moment behalf of the Promoters, to give us a purely factual and is at the back of the room, so you can have a look outline of what is in the Bill. He may be going to use at that. It will give you an idea of when Petitioners are the screens for all I know, I expect he will. Later on, likely to be on and we will try very hard to stick to it, when we come to the Petitions, I think the although I cannot guarantee that it will always be so. arrangement is that, although technically the We are going to sit on Mondays from 2.30 to 4.30 and Petitioners are entitled to start, it might be more on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from 10.00 convenient if the Promoters made a short statement until 1.00 and from 2.30 until 4.30 and, as far as I of their position before the Petitioner begins. The know, it will all be here because we have all the Petitioner will then present his or her case, the electronic equipment and the papers. There is also a Promoters will produce their evidence and the website. It is called www.parliament.co.uk and this Petitioner has the final speech. We will not be giving will contain a great amount of information, but also, immediate decisions on each Petition because some I am now told, you will be able to listen to the of them may interact and have to be considered proceedings online, so you may not even wish to jointly with others, and we will of course produce a come, but that would be a pity! report at the end of the proceedings. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:19 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 3
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address
13. I think that is all I need now to say, subject to 18. My Lords, the Bill has widespread support which being corrected, and I will, therefore, ask Mr Elvin, we will refer to a little later and the almost universal on behalf of the Promoters, to give us a factual view at Second Reading was that Crossrail is a top description. It might be helpful, Mr Elvin, if you just priority now and should go ahead as soon as possible. introduce your colleagues because I know you are 3 going to share the work out and we would like to 19. Turning briefly to the Bill process, of course this know who you all are, so I will hand over to you. is a hybrid Bill, the first since CTRL over ten years ago. As your Lordships will know, a hybrid Bill is 14. MR ELVIN: My Lords and Lady, thank you for one which has features of both public and private that. My Lords, I will introduce the team first. To my Bills. There is no requirement for the Promoter to left are my learned friends, Ms Natalie Lieven and establish the need for the Bill in Committee as this has Mr Timothy Mould, and behind me is Mr Reuben been done on the floor of the House. As your Taylor and Mr Gwion Lewis. My Lords, we will be Lordship has already mentioned, the principle of the dividing the work up between us during the course of Bill cannot be questioned in Committee. Clearly the hearing the Petitions. I will be dealing broadly with Committee is to consider Petitions by those whose environmental issues, issues arising with regards to interests are particularly aVected by the Bill. railways industry, the Spitalfields area and to the extent that we need to deal with anything regarding 20. The Bill was introduced to the House of alternative routes. My learned friends, Ms Lieven Commons in February of 2005. It spent some 21 and Mr Mould, will deal broadly with the other months before the House of Commons Select Petitions and, indeed, they are going to share these Committee which heard 205 of the 466 Petitions opening remarks in due course. Mr Taylor and Mr lodged against the Bill. The other 261 Petitions were Lewis are providing general support to the three of either withdrawn or the Petitioner chose not to us. appear before the Committee usually following discussion with the Promoter. A very large range of 15. My Lords, this opening aims to introduce you to issues were raised and considered by the Commons the project in very broad terms. We will explain Committee on almost every conceivable topic. The individual aspects in more detail when we deal with Select Committee requested various amendments to issues raised by Petitioners and we are proposing to the Bill, the most significant of which were the present in conjunction with our Powerpoint slides, provision for a new station at Woolwich and an which your Lordships should also have in hard copy additional ticket hall at Liverpool Street Station. should you want to take them away and there are Both of these were brought forward through hard copies available for anyone else who may want additional provisions during the Committee process. them. 21. The Select Committee produced two sets of
16. Crossrail is a major new cross-London rail1 link to interim decisions in its final report dealing with those serve London and the South East. It will support and Petitions where they thought that further action maintain the status of London as a world city by should be taken. The House of Commons Select providing a world-class transport system. It will Committee therefore gave this Bill close and detailed allow people to travel from their homes straight into scrutiny. central London without having to change at rail termini and it will allow people to get more quickly to 22. Where Petitioners petitioned in the House of their destinations and to relieve congestion, both at Commons on the same points, and the House of termini and on the underground system. Commons dealt with their Petition, then we will be drawing this, as your Lordship has requested, to the 17. You will see this is a general route map of attention of the Committee. Of course the Committee cannot question the principle of the Bill approved by Crossrail and2 it is probably easier to see in the paper copies than it is on the screen, but you will note the both the House of Commons and your Lordships’ termini in the East and the West and in the South, House at Second Reading. The Promoter has South East. You will also see a station on there decided, as your Lordship has already mentioned, which I will draw your attention to because, for not to make any formal challenge to the locus of any reasons which I do not understand, it has been of the Petitioners, however where we believe that the omitted from some of the later maps. You will see the Petition raises issues which traverse the principle of Maryland Station there which, whilst it is shown on the Bill or otherwise go outside the reasonable scope this map and it has been shown on the remaining of petitioning on a hybrid Bill, we shall raise that in maps, has not been named but it is meant to be there. our written response to the Petitions that raise those
1 particular issues and will inform the Committee when 2 3
Crossrail Ref: P1, The Route (LINEWD-OPN1-002) Crossrail Ref: P1, General Route Map (LINEWD-OPN1-003) Crossrail Ref: P1, The Bill Process (LINEWD-OPN1-004) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:19 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
4 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address 7 we open on that particular Petition. This applies the Information Papers. I will turn to the particularly, for example, to those who petitioned on Information Papers for a moment and your Lordship the basis that an alternative route for the railway is mentioned earlier the large red bundle of those. These materially diVerent from that approved by your set out the Promoter’s position on a wide range of Lordships’ House and by the House of Commons at topics which are relevant to the Crossrail project. Second Reading where they contend that an They are intended to be a useful guide to Petitioners alternative ought to be taken. and, indeed, to all of those who are interested in or aVected by Crossrail. We will be referring to them in 23. The most significant event for the project since the our communications with Petitioners; introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons is that this scheme now has funding. We will refer to the 30. (6) We will have Petition Response Documents, funding package in due course, but the key point is PRDs for short. These are our response to matters that the project is now funded and ready to go once raised in each of the individual Petitions. They are the necessary powers are secured. The Committee sent to the petitioners at least two weeks before they can amend the Bill, but any rehybridising are due to appear in Committee and we aim to amendment cannot be approved by this Committee achieve three weeks in advance if at all possible; without referring it back to a House of Commons Select Committee, involving the project in very long 31. (7) There are environmental minimum delay. Therefore, we very much hope that matters requirements, EMRs for short, which I will deal raised in Petitions before your Lordships’ House can with later; be dealt with otherwise than amending the Bill in this way. 32. (8) The Register of Undertakings: we have compiled a register of all the undertakings and 24. I turn then next to documents which are relevant assurances that have been given. This will continue to to the Committee’s deliberations. The principal be updated up to Royal Assent and this document documents with which the Committee will become aims to be a comprehensive list of undertakings so familiar and which we will refer to during the opening 4 that people aVected by the project can go to one and, indeed, during subsequent hearings are: document and see what undertakings they can rely upon; 25. (1)5 The Bill as amended by the other House;
33. (9) The Statement of Reasons8 commended to the 26. (2) The House of Commons Select Committee House of Commons by the Minister at Third report; Reading which is published in Command Paper 7250, 9 6 which I will also return to. 27. (3) The House of Commons Select Committee Interim Decisions of July 2006 and October 2007 and 34. I turn to the need and support for Crossrail. As the Promoter’s responses to those decisions; your Lordships will be aware, Crossrail is a massive project which is designed to meet the transport 28. (4) The Environmental Statement which consists challenge facing London in the future. It has three of the original Environmental Statement and its key objectives: first of all, to support the development addenda with four Amendment of Provisions of London as a world city and its role as the financial Environmental Statements and four Supplementary centre of Europe and the UK; secondly, to support Environmental Statements with their non-technical the economic growth of London and its regeneration summaries which I will deal with in more detail later areas by tackling congestion and the lack of capacity on in this opening; on the existing network; and, thirdly to improve rail access into and within London. 29. (5) Your Lordship has already mentioned the House of Lords Select Committee webpage, 35. The concept of an east-west across London has Crossrail also has a webpage which contains all of the been around since the early 20th century. The relevant documentation in terms of the original Crossrail concept was developed following environmental assessment, the technical reports and the 1989 Central London Rail Study, carried out by 4 the DoT and others, and the alignment was 5 safeguarded in 1991. Special Report Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235 6 Crossrail Bill [HL Bill 14 (2007-08)] 7 HouseCommittee of Commons on the Crossrail Select Committee Bill on 25 on July the 2006, Crossrail HC (2006–07) Bill, First (LINEWD-OPN1-005) 235-IV, Ev 1555-1557; HC (2006–07) 235-V, 11 October 2006, Ev 8 Oral1582-1588; evidence 12 July taken 2007, before Ev 2063-2066; the House and of 9 CommonsOctober 2007, Select Ev 9 Crossrail Ref: P1, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/ 2067-68 OPN1-006) http://www.oYcial-documents.gov.uk Crossrail Ref: P1, Need and Support for Crossrail (LINEWD- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:19 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 5
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address
36. The current scheme has been developed by Cross 2001. You can see similarly the position on the London Rail Links Limited. CLRL, for short, is the other lines. company jointly owned by the Department for Transport and Transport for London that is 40. Although the increase in demand, which the table developing the project design and is supporting the shows, will in part be met by additional capacity on 10 promotion of this Bill. the underground and Network Rail networks, future levels of overcrowding will exceed those experienced 37. I turn then to the transport case. The need for the today, particularly within Central London and the project is overwhelming. For many years London has underground network, again, as your Lordships will mainly depended on a transport system built by the be well aware, suVers from overcrowding on a daily Victorians and Crossrail will allow the capital to cope basis. with the demands of the 21st Century. The underground network suVers from overcrowding on 41. As you have seen from the table, Crossrail will a daily basis and all central sections of tube lines play a significant role in reducing levels of operate in excessive capacity during the morning overcrowding. The figures you see here and the peak and I am sure your Lordships will all have their figures I have just mentioned, of course, are just the own experiences of the current state of the network. headline figures. Other sections of the tube which are not classed as overcrowded but which are busy with at least 80 per cent of capacity used will also 38. Many of the central area stations have inadequate experience major reductions in passenger flows as a space to allow free and comfortable movement. result of the benefits of Crossrail. Again, I am sure your Lordships will have your own experience of that too. Commuter trains on the over- ground network also suVer from overcrowding, 42. Crossrail will take trains out of Paddington and amongst the most severe are the Great Eastern Liverpool Street reducing congestion within those services into Liverpool Street. All these problems can busy stations. The freeing up of platforms also only grow as the economy of London and the South creates the potential for additional services to other East grows. In London alone employment is forecast areas subject to investment as necessary in additional to increase by around 636,000 to five million from network capacity. 2001 to 2016 and population to increase over the same period by 800,000. Up to 48 per cent of total 43. The focus is on achieving good reliability employment growth is expected to take place in generally on the network and not just for Crossrail Central London which, of course, places particular services. In addition to providing relief from demands on public transport. overcrowding, Crossrail12 will also provide significant savings on journey times. Again, a table is put up just to give your Lordships a feel for the sort of savings 39. Between 2001 and 2016 demand for peak travel to that Crossrail will bring. Take, for example, Abbey and from London and across the South East is Wood to the Isle of Dogs, before Crossrail a 30- forecast to increase significantly with flows into minute journey; Crossrail will save approximately 21 Central London during the morning rush hour, for minutes from that journey, reducing the overall example, rising by almost 25 per cent compared with journey to nine minutes rather than 30. 2001 levels. We have put11 up a table, if your Lordships can see, which gives some examples of crowding and 44. In short, my Lords and Lady, London and the crowding reduction which Crossrail will bring South East cannot aVord for Crossrail not to happen. between 2001 and 2016. I will turn to one example The Mayor’s London Plan identifies it as critical to which is the Central Line and this applies TfL supporting the growth of the financial and business planning guideline capacity. You will see at the services sector in Central London and the Isle of moment on the Stratford to Chancery Lane part of Dogs. the Central Line you will see it is already 22 per cent above guideline capacity for 2001. 2016 without Crossrail will have reached the impossible position 45. In terms of regeneration, Crossrail will support that it will be 38 per cent above planning guideline national policy objectives aimed at reducing social capacity, but with Crossrail the position will be exclusion and bringing about regeneration. It will redressed. It will still be above planning guideline directly serve the Thames Gateway, a national and capacity but it will be reduced to 19 per cent, less than regional priority for regeneration and growth. the figure at which it exceeded guideline capacity in Growth in the area can only be realised if there are
10 substantial improvements to the transport system. 11 12 Underground Network (2001and 2016) (LINEWD-OPN1-008) with Crossrail (in minutes) (LINEWD-OPN1-009) Crossrail Ref: P1, Transport Case (LINEWD-OPN1-007) Crossrail Ref: P1, Crowding reduction on the London Crossrail Ref: P1, Illustrative Journey Times and Time Savings Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:19 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
6 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address15
46. Turning then to the scheme, Crossrail achieves a station. You can see the two Crossrail tunnels with the benefits of adding to the tube network and cross tunnels going between them, between the increasing the commuter capacity of the suburban platforms, and then a central escalator rises up to a rail network but without overloading the London ticket hall above. We will be looking at those in more terminals. It is diVerent from any other railway in detail where there are particular petitions around a London, save for Thameslink. The RER in Paris is a particular station. good example of a similar solution bringing passengers into and through the heart of a capital 51. At the east16 and west ends of the central section we city. have the portals. This is a computer-generated image of the western portal at Westbourne Park, west of 47. My Lords, before I hand over to the Ms Lieven Paddington. There will be eastern portals at for the next section, can I draw to your Lordships’ Pudding Mill Lane on the southeast route to the east attention, we have made available to your Lordships, of the Isle of Dogs. and you may find this helpful, the Quick Guide to Crossrail which contains the overall route map in 52. At particular locations along the railway there are rather more legible format than the Powerpoint slides shafts connecting the tunnels with the surface that and some of the basic details which will give you provide both emergency access and ventilation, rapid overview of the project. Ms Lieven is now going depending on the particular shafts. Some of these to take you through a slightly more detailed account shafts are incorporated within the new stations and of the elements of the projects. some of them, such as for example the one at Park Lane, are freestanding structures which are simply 48. MS LIEVEN: My Lords, my Lady, I am going these emergency and ventilation shafts. The central to take you through the various route sections section tunnels will be excavated using tunnel-boring starting with the central section running between the machines which we17 are about to show a slide of, and portals at Paddington to the west, Pudding13 Mill Lane which Professor Mair, who is going to give the and just east of the Isle of Dogs on the east side. The settlement presentation tomorrow, will explain to central section of the route represents the largest you in more detail. engineering component of the project. If we just turn 18 to the tunnels, the route, this central section 53. I turn then to the western section of the route comprises 6m diameter twin-bore tunnels running which runs between Maidenhead in the west and the under central London which connects the railways Westbourne Park portal just outside Paddington. from east to west.14 We have put up a slide to show the On this side the tracks run from Maidenhead to what largest scale of the Crossrail tunnels as compared to is called Portobello Junction at Westbourne Park; something like the Jubilee Line extension tunnels at and there is a branch at Stockley Junction which runs the moment. down to Heathrow where I am indicating.
49. New Crossrail central section stations, and I hope 54. The western section of the route mainly uses the the Committee can see on the screens in front of you existing Great Western relief lines, as the pair of slow reasonably clearly, will be provided at Paddington, lines are called on the main line. Crossrail however Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, will require the addition of new track or track Liverpool Street, Whitechapel and the Isle of Dogs, alignment at some locations. For example, a new line all deep-level underground stations. The tunnels will is to be constructed over about 1km between Langley be generally at a depth of between 20m and 40m, and and West Drayton in order to ease the operation of at a point beneath Stepney Green, which lies to the freight services on that part of the route and to east of Whitechapel, the tunnels will divide with the increase the overall track capacity to enable the northeast section going up to the Pudding Mill Lane planned Crossrail services to run. portal and on to Shenfield, and the southeast section going down to Abbey Wood, and I will turn to those 55. In addition to the new elements I have already two sections in a moment. mentioned, Crossrail’s major new structures and facilities along the western section include a new rail 50. With the exception of Whitechapel, all the central underpass at Acton in order to avoid conflicts section stations have two entrances and ticket halls to between Crossrail and freight trains, and new or provide access at both the eastern and western ends 15 of the stations. We have put up what is called an Ticket Hall (LINEWD-OPN1-012) axonometric to show you one illustrative position of 16 portalCrossrail at Westbourne Ref: P1, Bond Park Street—3d (LINEWD-OPN1-013) Axonometric View—Eastern 13 17 OPN1-010) 014)Crossrail Ref: P1, Computer-generated image of the western 14 18 extensionCrossrail tunnel Ref: P1, (LINEWD-OPN1-011) Crossrail Line 1—Central Route (LINEWD- OPN1-015)Crossrail Ref: P1, Tunnel-boring machine (LINEWD-OPN1- Crossrail Ref: P1, Crossrail tunnel compared to Jubilee Line Crossrail Ref: P1, Crossrail Line 1—Western Route (LINEWD- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:19 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 7
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address 21 remodelled sidings at three locations. The project 60. The Bill includes powers to construct a new also requires platform extensions or new platforms in station at Woolwich. The section is eVectively on the order to accommodate Crossrail’s 200m long trains. area of the car park of the Royal Arsenal which I am At nine stations on the western section improved indicating to your Lordships now. The construction facilities, including new or modified ticket halls, will of the station box is dependent on the successful be provided to accommodate the increased number completion of a binding agreement between the of passengers from Crossrail. Department of Transport and Berkeley Homes, who are the major residential developers in the area. The 56. There will also be a new depot on the line at Old subsequent fit-out of the box is dependent on Oak Common with stabling for trains, and a major receiving suYcient funding from businesses and new electrification west from Stockley Junction, developers in the area that stand to benefit from the because east of Stockley Junction has already been station. electrified. West of Stockley Junction the route will be electrified to Maidenhead. 19 61. If we then go back to the route map for the southeast, the southeastern terminus is at Abbey 57. I turn then to the northeastern section which runs Wood, where there will be new tracks, new platforms from the Pudding Mill Lane portal up to Shenfield. and a newly rebuilt station to allow 12 Crossrail The trains on this line will run on the existing electric trains an hour to terminate at Abbey Wood. At suburban tracks of the Great Eastern line. There will Abbey Wood there will be cross-station interchange be little new rail alignment on this section of the with existing lines coming from Dartford further in route, although there is some new track for a freight the southeast. loop between Goodmayes and Chadwell Heath, again to facilitate freight and to replace an existing loop at Manor Park. 62. The whole route section is proposed to be subject to overhead line electrification and powers are being sought to do that. Along the surface section portal 58. Again, similarly to the west, Crossrail will require masts will be erected to cover the electric lines station platform extensions or, in some places, new approximately every 50m. platforms to accommodate the longer trains. There will be new or remodelled sidings at Ilford, Gidea Park and Shenfield. Also an existing depot at Clacton 63. On the service pattern, once Crossrail is is to be reopened in order to allow us to commission constructed and operating it is expected that there22 the trains before the full operation commences, and will be, unsurprisingly, a considerable level of this is not on the map. demand, and so 24 trains an hour will be run in the central section—that is through the deep tunnel. To the east that splits equally into 12 trains an hour to 59. On the final route map the southeastern20 section runs from a point to the east of the Isle of Dogs, down Abbey Wood and 12 trains an hour to Shenfield. The to Custom House, under the Thames, through western section, which the Committee will remember, Woolwich and to Abbey Wood. Crossrail will only has the one limb, the Great Western Line, with operate underground in the twin-bore tunnels in a a branch oV to Heathrow. This means that only a section between the Isle of Dogs and the Victoria proportion of Crossrail trains will run west of Dock portal, at which point the line emerges, and this Paddington; in the peak hour up to ten trains run is a slightly unusual section of the line, and operates west of Paddington, four of which run to Heathrow, at surface level. Crossrail will serve a new remodelled four to Maidenhead and two to West Drayton. station at Custom House which serves the ExCel Exhibition Centre and the route will follow the 64. The Crossrail line to Abbey Wood will only take existing alignment previously used by the North London Line. Some members of the Committee may trains going through the central tunnel; but on the know that the easternmost section of the North line to Shenfield Crossrail services will share the slow London Line has recently been closed. It runs lines, or “E Lines”, with suburban passenger services, through a refurbished Connaught Tunnel to some of which are not subsumed into Crossrail and Silvertown, and at that point descends down a ramp which are designed to be complementary to the under the river to Woolwich, and comes out again at Crossrail service. The longer distance passenger the Plumstead portal east of Woolwich. trains and freight trains which use the fast lines will
19 continue to do so during normal operation. (LINEWD-OPN1-016) 21 20 Woolwich (LINEWD-OPN1-018) (LINEWD-OPN1-017)Crossrail Ref: P1, Crossrail Line 1—Northeastern Route 22 Crossrail Ref: P1, Aerial view of proposed site for a station at Crossrail Ref: P1, Crossrail Line 1—Southeastern Route Crossrail Ref: P1, Service Pattern (LINEWD-OPN1-019) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
8 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address
65. On the Great Western Mail Line Crossrail Crossrail London Rail Links Limited, which is the services will share the slow or so-called “relief” lines company established for the development and with freight and again with complementary planning of the railway project. The Department and passenger services going on to Reading. The Transport for London are co-sponsors of the project, InterCity lines, that is the Great Western lines going and the proposal is that CLRL is to become a out to south Wales and to Bristol, run on the fast lines subsidiary of Transport for London in order to take and they will continue to use those lines the project forward once powers have been granted, uninterrupted, unaVected by Crossrail during but with the necessary degree of independence to normal operation. enable proper procurement and provision to be made for the eYcient construction of the railway.24 66. Greater capacity on the existing network, both west and east, is achieved by means of longer trains 73. Turning then to summarise the position as and fitting more trains through investment into the regards consultation and information. There has infrastructure, which is part of the Crossrail project, been very extensive consultation and exchange of and also through further design work on the information with statutory bodies, commercial timetable. occupiers and individuals aVected by the project, both before the deposit of the Bill and continuing 67. At this point, my Lords, I hand over to Mr Mould through the parliamentary process where there have to speak to you about the delivery mechanism. been changes to the project. I just set out on the slide the main categories of bodies consulted with: local 68. MR MOULD: My Lord Chairman, my Lady, authorities, key environmental and other statutory my Lords, I am going to say a very few words indeed bodies, railway industry bodies, other government about delivery,23 covering the basic funding departments, the business community and, indeed, components and the briefest outline of the proposals landowners and occupiers. to the management of the project through construction. 74. In the course of the parliamentary proceedings25 in relation to the Bill the Promoter has sought to inform 69. Most of these matters, of course, are strictly those aVected by the Crossrail scheme about the outside the scope of the Bill in legislative terms but it proposals and how they will be aVected. We have may be of assistance to the Committee just to have a produced over 70 Information Papers on a wide brief understanding of how we intend that the project variety of subjects, such as compensation rights, should be successfully delivered. environmental protection and Bill powers; and these Information Papers have been updated as matters 70. The total project cost of Crossrail is expected to have changed, and indeed have been republished in be about £16 billion in cash terms—in other words, in up-to-date form for the benefit of proceedings before “money of the day” over the period of construction your Lordships’ House. Your Lordships I believe of the railway. That figure of £16 billion includes a have been provided with copies of those documents. prudent allowance for inflation during construction, They have been made available on the scheme and for the risk of other cost escalation; it is fully website and, indeed, updated. We also have written inclusive of all project costs, such as land acquisition, to every property owner or occupier who petitioned compulsory purchase and contingencies. This figure in the other Place, drawing attention to the various has been subject to external, independent review. generic undertakings and assurances that have been given and which relate to their petition, as we were asked to do by the Committee in the other Place. We 71. The package of funding for the project was have also written to all petitioners in your Lordships’ announced on 5 October of last year by the Prime House setting out the key information sources for Minister, and indeed is set out in the 2007 the project. Comprehensive Spending Review published in 26 November of last year. In the briefest terms, funding of the project will be shared equitably between 75. The project has a website, and this is a copy of the central government, the private sector and future homepage. All the Information Papers are to be Crossrail fare payers and, indeed, Transport for found there, together with all other relevant London as the transport authority for the capital. documents such as, for example, the background technical reports to the scheme. The website has been operating since the deposit of the Bill in February 72. As regards management, the position is that the 2005, so well before the hearings in the select Department for Transport and Transport for London have a 50:50 joint ownership of the company 24 OPN1-021) 23 25 OPN1-020) 26 Crossrail Ref: P1, Consultation and Information (LINEWD- Crossrail Ref: P1, The Delivery Mechanism (LINEWD- Crossrail Ref: P1, Information to Public (LINEWD-OPN1-022) http://www.crossrail.co.uk Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 9
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address committee proceedings in the other Place which of therefore be the subject of local consideration and course started in January 2006. The documents approval under the Bill scheme. The provisions of shown on the website have been added to as they have Schedule 7 therefore contain conditions requiring been produced and updated where necessary. various matters of detail to be subject to the approval Further information about the consultation of the relevant qualifying local planning authority; arrangements and information rounds can be found that is to say, one that has given an undertaking to the in the F series in the Information Papers, which you Secretary of State about the way in which it will have in front of you. handle applications for approval of details. Plans, 27 specifications and detailed construction 76. I turn to the Bill provisions, and a short summary arrangements are an example of that. of the main provisions of the Bill. First of all, we make it clear that in drawing up the Bill, and the 79. Where the works aVect highways the Bill concepts set out within it, we have taken a great deal provisions also provide for certain matters to be from the experience with the Channel Tunnel Rail subject to the approval of the highway authority, Link Act which, as my Lord Chairman mentioned in including for example seeking to minimise the his opening remarks, I think was the last hybrid bill disruption, detailed access arrangements and the process that went through Parliament. That process for stopping up of highways where that is experience has proved valuable in drawing up the required. current proposals.
77. The Bill seeks a range of powers to build and 80. The Bill also contains a series of protective operate the railway. Amongst other matters the Bill, provisions in relation to utility apparatus, if enacted, will have the eVect of: firstly, conferring communication networks, flood and land drainage power to construct and maintain Crossrail and defences, fisheries, inland waterways and navigation on (and other matters relating to) the River Thames. associated and enabling works; secondly, the Bill will 29 grant deemed planning permission for the construction of the railway and associated and 81. I turn now to another topic, the topic of enabling works; thirdly, as you would expect, the Bill compulsory purchase. With regard to the would confer powers of compulsory purchase or compulsory purchase of land, it is considered in the temporary possession of land where such land is case of these powers that the public interest in needed in order to construct the railway and for other acquiring land to build the Crossrail project associated and enabling works; fourthly, the Bill outweighs the interests of owners and occupiers. No removes the need to obtain specific listed building sensible way can be found to build major consent or conservation area consent for demolition, infrastructure of this kind, especially through alteration or extension of listed buildings and other London, without acquiring land held by others. As structures specified in the Bill, and an alternative for that public interest, it is the position that the Bill arrangement is laid out for those matters in provisions are compliant with the European conjunction with English Heritage and the local Convention on Human Rights. authorities; fifthly, the Bill authorises the stopping up or closure of highways and other public thoroughfares. 82. The Bill seeks powers for the compulsory purchase of land within limits of deviation for the 28 works and the limits of land to be acquired and used; 78. An important point to draw to the Committee’s these are known as the “Bill limits”. The purpose of attention is the role of local authorities under the Bill these limits is to ensure suYcient flexibility for the scheme. The Bill confers on local authorities along detailed design of the scheme. The full extent of land the route a significant number of local planning, within these limits will not necessarily be acquired. highways and environmental controls over the Where it is clear, following detailed design work, that detailed design and construction of Crossrail. By way not all the land within the limits is required, the of example, I mention that the Bill would provide for Secretary of State will not seek to acquire this land the deeming of planning permission for the scheme, and will be prepared to give the necessary assurances but within Schedule 7 of the Bill are a substantial to the landowners in question to that eVect. This is set number of detailed controls which are conferred out in the Promoter’s Land Acquisition Policy which upon planning authorities in relation, for example, to is dealt with in Information Paper C9. A number of detailed design matters for the control of lorry such agreements have already been entered into in routing and other matters of that kind which will relation to a number of sites along the route. That 27 28 process of course is ongoing. OPN1-025) 29 Crossrail Ref: P1, Bill Provisions (LINEWD-OPN1-024) Crossrail Ref: P1, Role of Local Authorities (LINEWD- Crossrail Ref: P1, Compulsory Purchase (LINEWD-OPN1-026) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
10 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address
83. There are a number of locations in central 88. The question of blight and the Promoter’s London where the project requires buildings to be discretionary purchase scheme to cover cases of demolished. In such cases the Bill contains powers to hardship which are not covered by the statutory construct the railway30 operational buildings, such as blight notice regime will be dealt with tomorrow, but stations and ventilation shafts and so forth, but does they are explained in another Information Paper not give powers as to the construction of other “Over number C8. Site Development”. That process will be dealt with separately through the normal planning process of 89. Finally with regard to the disposal of land, the the relevant local planning authorities and is not a Promoter has published a land disposal policy which matter for bill powers under the Crossrail Bill or the sets out the process by which, in appropriate cases, current parliamentary process. An explanation of land which has been required only for the and reference to undertakings given in relation to the construction of the railway will, once that process has provision of over site development, of the kind I have been completed, be oVered back to landowners. That just mentioned, is to be found in Information Paper policy is set out in Information Paper C10 which is in D2 at paragraphs 4.11-4.14. the pack which you have in front of you.
84. Turning then to the question of compensation. I 90. I will now hand back to Mr Elvin. will not take more than a few31 moments on this 32 because you are going to be hearing more about this 91. MR ELVIN: My Lords, my Lady, I now turn to tomorrow morning. The Bill provisions adopt the deal with the interactions between Crossrail and national compensation code. That code is based other railway operators. upon the principle of fair compensation; that principle being, broadly stated, that a person who 92. Outside the central tunnel Crossrail will make suVers loss by reason of the compulsory acquisition shared use of the existing railway network, as Ms of property gets no less than but no more than the Lieven described to you earlier, with other passenger loss which he has suVered as a result. and freight operators. Careful planning has been needed from an early stage to consider how to 85. Parliament has set a standards framework for the timetable the services so they fit together to provide provision of compensation and the Secretary of State the optimum service pattern. does not consider it fair or appropriate to take a diVerent approach to this project. In taking that 93. It is fundamental to securing the necessary course, the Secretary of State has adopted an investment in Crossrail to be able to guarantee the approach which has been applied to other major rail service it proposes, and the service which Parliament projects in the past, and the Channel Tunnel Rail has approved, to make sure that that will actually be Link is an example of that. provided. As a result, extensive railway powers were included in clauses 22-45 of the Bill. These powers 86. The operation of the national compensation code have proved to be controversial within the rail is described in Information Paper C2, and I have industry and were the subject of extensive petitioning mentioned that we will be returning to that theme in the House of Commons. tomorrow morning. 94. In order to overcome uncertainty surrounding the 87. Just touching briefly on the question of blight, potential use of Bill powers, the Government has hardship and relocation, the Promoter will continue pressed ahead with obtaining what is known as an to communicate with the owners and occupiers of “access option”—that is to say, an agreement with property which are proposed to be compulsorily Network Rail which requires the approval of the purchased, and will expect the nominated undertaker OYce of the Rail Regulator (ORR) and which to take all reasonably practicable steps to limit the enables Crossrail services to be run. This is a standard impact of Crossrail on existing businesses. Further industry mechanism used to secure rights over information is given in Information Paper C1 in Network Rail’s infrastructure. The ORR is shortly to relation to these matters. That document explains reach a decision under its normal duties contained how, in accordance with the provisions of the within the Railways Act 1993 and taking account of national compensation code, eVorts will be taken to the representations received within the consultation assist businesses displaced by the Crossrail project. It process it has undertaken. Indeed, there was a refers to the establishment of an agency to assist such hearing held by the ORR on 1 February, and we businesses in meeting their relocation requirements. understand that the Board of the ORR is meeting this
30 afternoon, and we expect to get a “minded to” 027) 32 31 (LINEWD-OPN1-029) Crossrail Ref: P1, Over Site Development (LINEWD-OPN1- Crossrail Ref: P1, Interactions with other Railway Operators Crossrail Ref: P1, Compensation Issues (LINEWD-OPN1-028) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 11
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address indication of the broad thinking of the ORR at some has already mentioned this morning, on 6 February stage this week, we hope. Of course, the Committee this year the Minister, Mr Harris, announced that will be kept up-to-date with any developments. additional land between Maidenhead and Reading is to be safeguarded so as to provide the flexibility for 95. A great deal of work has gone into the access such an extension, if it subsequently became justified. option process, including timetabling and other modelling work. This work has been carried out with 98. Further concerns were raised before the Select the involvement of the relevant freight and passenger Committee in the other Place regarding the potential train operating interests. There remain concerns, impact of Crossrail services on mainline services to mainly from freight interests, which have been and from the south west of England and from south expressed to the ORR. If an access option is secured Wales. In normal operation Crossrail services will then it is the Promoter’s intention to bring forward run on the “slow” lines of the Great Western amendments to cut back the railway powers of the Railway, as Ms Lieven explained, and will not aVect Bill. It is hoped that the access option will be granted the operation of such services which use the “fast” shortly, and appropriate amendments tabled before lines of the railway. this House as soon as possible thereafter. However, as your Lordships will understand, until the precise 99. Turning now to a series of environmental issues terms of any access option can be scrutinised, the and controls, briefly touching on noise and vibration, Promoter is not in a position to identify the precise noise will be the subject, of course, of a presentation form that these amendments will take. My Lords, my this afternoon. So I am going to say very little, other Lady, the details of our position on the railway than to say that the Promoter has established a powers, the timetabling, the access option and other comprehensive regime to control and mitigate noise related matters are set out in the Information Papers and vibration. This is explained in a number of H1 to H4. Information Papers explaining how noise and vibration related impacts from the construction and 96. In response to concerns raised by Petitioners operation of Crossrail are to be mitigated. These before the Select Committee in the other place the relate to noise and vibration from sources Promoter reviewed the depot strategy. This resulted underground, from surface railway noise, noise from in a new depot strategy being promoted whereby the fixed installations (such as ventilation shafts) and main Crossrail depot would be located on an existing noise from construction operations. As I say, Mr rail facility at Old Oak Common in West London, Thornely-Taylor will be presenting to your rather than at Romford as originally proposed. This Lordships this afternoon on that issue. would involve displacing what are non-freight operations of EWS (that is English, Welsh and 100. I should note that the details of the scheme, of Scottish Railways). The House of Commons Select course, are still in the course of being developed. The Committee agreed that the depot should be located at next stage of design is currently under way and will Old Oak Common on the basis of an undertaking by continue beyond Royal Assent. As the approval of the Promoter that it would continue to work with design and construction details comes forward EWS to try to find a way to retain as much as possible consent will be sought under the planning regime of EWS’s activities at Old Oak Common, if so which Mr Mould has already indicated is set out in desired. This work is still continuing. the planning provisions of the Bill. Therefore, there will be changes in terms of impact in some locations 97. A number of Petitioners are concerned to see the and in matters of detail, and while we are giving an Crossrail service extended to Reading in the west and undertaking as to the level of any particular impact to Ebbsfleet in the south-east. The Promoter has (which I will come to in a moment) such as lorry made it clear before the House of Commons that the movements, we will make that entirely clear in our Bill does nothing to preclude the extension of the evidence. Crossrail service in the future, but that is not proposed now. The Promoter does not consider there 101. Turning, on that note, to the mitigation of is a suYcient transport justification which would construction impacts, dealing with the matters support the cost of the extension of these services. As generally, the need to mitigate environmental Lord Bassam indicated in second reading, if a robust impacts, of course, as your33 Lordships will expect, has justification for an extension to the Crossrail service been a key consideration throughout the design of were to emerge in future it could be pursued through the project and has further been considered during the procedures of the Transport and Works Act the passage of the Bill. The means of mitigating 1992—as my Lord mentioned earlier this morning— impacts arising from construction and operation of rather than by delaying the currently much-needed 33 Crossrail project from coming forward. As my Lord (LINEWD-OPN1-030) Crossrail Ref: P1, Mitigation of Construction Impacts Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
12 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address
Crossrail has been developed as part of a “mitigation a process of requiring further environmental hierarchy”. That comprises, really, of three elements: assessment if required by that process. firstly, impacts have sought to be avoided or to be reduced at source wherever possible. This has 105. My Lords, what this approach means is that it involved designing the project so that the impact is ensures that where there is a legal requirement for avoided (for example, by appropriate track design). environmental impact assessment works will not take place unless they have been assessed already as part 102. The second feature is that mitigation measures of the Crossrail Environmental Statement, or are have been included in the project to reduce the subject to further environmental impact procedures adverse impacts where it has not been practicable to and a further consent process or, indeed, they would avoid or reduce that impact at source. An example of not give rise to significant eVects. this approach includes the provision of noise barriers for sections of the operational railway. The third 106. Turning, briefly, to controls outside the Bill, the element of the hierarchy is that for those adverse scheme includes a suite of documents referred to impacts that remain significant after the application collectively35 as the Environmental Minimum of the first two aspects of the mitigation hierarchy, Requirements (which I mentioned at the beginning— additional measures are taken to avoid the potential EMRs) which provide for control of environmental impact or, if not practicable, to compensate for it by impacts. These documents are being developed in some other method. consultation with local authorities and other relevant bodies and are now at an advanced stage of 103. The following mechanisms will control changes development. They will be finalised by the time of to project design and working practices: firstly, as Royal Assent. The nominated undertaker will be your Lordships have heard, there are arrangements contractually bound to comply with the controls set within the Bill for approving detailed design and out in the EMR. The documents include a series of construction arrangements. Secondly, there are memoranda on planning, heritage, property, policy commitments and undertakings entered into excavated material and the environment, but, outside of the Bill, and, thirdly, existing legislation perhaps most significantly, they include what is applies, of course, unless expressly or impliedly referred to as the Construction Code. disapplied or modified by this Bill. Further, the planning permission for non-scheduled works is 107. The Construction Code (which is set out as part restricted by clause 10(2) of the Bill to those works of Information Paper D1, which has been revised which have been environmentally assessed and, thus, several times, and the latest version is November of have been the subject of consultation. last year) sets out a series of objectives and measures 34 to protect the environment and limit disturbance from construction activities as far as is reasonably 104. Therefore we come, importantly, to the practicable. The topics covered by the Code include Secretary of State’s statement of intent. The working hours, traYc management, noise and Secretary of State has given a statement of intent to vibration, air quality, waste management, recycling, carry out the project so that its impact will be as ecology, archaeology and settlement. The Code is assessed in the Environmental Statement. (I should being developed to ensure it meets the current say that by “the Environmental Statement” I mean requirements of all relevant statutory legislation, the suite of documents that together comprise the appropriate codes of practice and industry standards Environmental Statement, including the in consultation with all the local authorities aVected supplementary and additional documents.) It is not by Crossrail. intended that there should be any departure from the assumptions made in the Environmental Statement, 108. The controls set out above apply in addition to except in cases where any additional impacts either, securing the statutory consents from the relevant firstly, result from a change in circumstances, which local authority under the Control of Pollution Act was not likely at the time of writing the 1974. Environmental Statement, or, that they were not likely to be significant, or they result from a change 109. So far as compliance with the EMRs is or extension to the project where such a change or concerned, I ask your Lordships to note that the extension does not require an assessment, either 36 Secretary of State gave important undertakings to under the provisions of Annex 1, paragraph 22, or Parliament in relation to the enforcement of the paragraph 13 of Annex 2, to the EU Environmental EMRs. On the first day of the Select Committee in Impact Assessment Directive, or they would arise following a separate consent process and, therefore, 35 032) 34 36 (LINEWD-OPN1-031) 033)Crossrail Ref: P1, Controls Outside the Bill (LINEWD-OPN1- Crossrail Ref: P1, Secretary of State’s statement of intention Crossrail Ref: P1, Compliance with EMRs (LINEWD-OPN1- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 13
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address
2006, I gave the undertaking set out on the screen and 114. The purpose of Environmental Impact in your notes to the House of Commons Select Assessment, my Lords, is for the Promoter of a Committee that insofar as Environmental Minimum development project to carry out an assessment of the Requirements were not directly enforceable against likely significant environmental eVects of the project any person appointed as a nominated undertaker, or and to present that assessment alongside matters to whom the powers of the Bill are devolved under such as the description of the project, such what is now clause 60 of the Bill, the Secretary of alternatives as have been studied and the measures State will take such steps as he considers reasonable put forward to mitigate the adverse environmental and necessary to secure compliance with those eVects which are likely. That information is compiled requirements. That was the form of the undertaking into an Environmental Statement with a non- that was given on the first day of the House of technical summary to assist the public in digesting Commons Select Committee process and, indeed, it and understanding the Environmental Statement was repeated in a slightly amended format on Day 82, and it is made available for comment by concerned paragraph 21686 of the transcript. bodies and the public at large. 37 115. The overall process, that is to say the 110. I turn then to another important element, that is Environmental Statement taken together with the to say undertakings. During the passage of the Bill consultation responses from the public and other the Secretary of State has entered into a large number consultation bodies, together forms the of undertakings and assurances concerning the Environmental Impact Assessment which informs Crossrail project. These undertakings and assurances the decision-making process, though it does not are recorded in an oYcial register held by the dictate the outcome. Of necessity, the exercise is Department for Transport, two drafts of which have dependent on the judgments reached by the experts already been published. carrying it out and there is a range of possible approaches to both the form and content of an 111. Undertakings and assurances will be made Environmental Statement. It does not represent a legally binding upon any nominated undertaker. A consensus view by the community, but the basis on further draft of the register will be compiled and which the community may itself comment by way of produced after the end of your Lordships’ criticism, agreement or by supplementing the Committee stage, with the final version to be information. An Environmental Impact Assessment published after Royal Assent. Undertakings will is meant, as a prominent member of the Court of range from those which are generic to the whole Appeal has remarked, to assist, not to provide an project, including the one that I mentioned which I obstacle course to, the decision-making process. gave to the Select Committee in the other Place, and they will descend, of course, in appropriate cases, to 116. In a large and evolving project, such as site-specific undertakings as well. If we give Crossrail, it is common to find the Environmental undertakings to your Lordships’ Committee we shall Statement being supplemented as the consent process make this clear. advances, and here there has been, in addition to the main Environmental Statement and its addendum, various supplementary Environmental Statements, 112. This is the usual practice for hybrid Bills and has and I have listed them on the screen, as your worked well in the past. Trying to deal with all the Lordships will see, and there have been issues which arise by Bill amendments instead is Environmental Statements for the four sets of simply not practicable because of the number and additional provisions introduced in the other place. nature of the undertakings and assurances, as I am Each of the supplementaries and the Additional sure your Lordships will understand. Provision Environmental Statements has its own non-technical summary. 113. I then turn to the issue of Environmental Impact Assessment, and I turn to this because it is an issue 117. The Environmental Statement contains a that has been raised in a number of Petitions and38 a package of measures designed to mitigate both the number of Petitioners have raised the adequacy of the impacts of construction and the operation of Environmental Impact Assessment which has been Crossrail. There was an extended consultation period carried out on behalf of the Secretary of the State. Of provided for the main Environmental Statement and course, we will deal with their specific criticisms when its addendum published in February 2005 and they come to make their Petitions. further consultation periods provided for each of the
37 supplementary and Additional Provision 38 Environmental Statements. The consultation (LINEWD-OPN1-035) responses on the initial Environmental Statements Crossrail Ref: P1, Undertakings (LINEWD-OPN1-034) Crossrail Ref: P1, Environmental Impact Assessment Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
14 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address 40 were published by the Department for Transport as a 121. I turn to the European Convention on Human command paper on 10 July 2005 and the consultation Rights. As your Lordships would expect, Lord responses to the later Environmental Statement Bassam has confirmed, on behalf of the Government consultation material were provided as Command and indeed as required under section 19(1)(a) of the 7249 before the Members of the House of Commons Human Rights Act 1998, that, in his view, the debated the Bill at Third Reading. provisions of the Crossrail Bill are compatible with the European Convention, and this of course remains the Government’s position. 118. A statement of reasons to meet the requirements of the law on environmental assessment was published, as I mentioned earlier, my Lords, in Command 7250, ‘Government Overview of the Case 122. In terms of the main substantive Convention for Crossrail and its Environmental Impacts’, and it rights engaged, the Promoters are satisfied that the was commended to the House of Commons by the public benefits of Crossrail are suYcient to outweigh Minister for its endorsement at Third Reading. the impact of Crossrail on the Petitioners’ private and proprietary rights, including their homes. The Promoters consider that measures proposed by the
119. I would just39 highlight the issue of the adequacy Bill are proportionate, when considered in the of the Environmental Statement again just to give context of the right to claim compensation for your Lordships the background to issues which will compulsory purchase and in the context also of the arise later on. It is inevitable of course that some do many undertakings and assurances given by the not like the conclusions reached in Environmental Promoter and amendments made in the case of Statements or may wish to challenge the approach to individual Petitioners as required by the Select a particular issue. Such disagreements are entirely Committee in the other place. usual and do not invalidate the Environmental Statement. The adequacy of the Environmental Statement is a broad question for the decision-maker, in this case of course Parliament, and it is well 123. Finally, my Lords, the Promoters commend to established that the mere fact that there is a diVerence your Lordships’ consideration the Bill which has of view on an approach, analysis or conclusion does already been subject, as I have said, to extensive not of itself render the Environmental Statement scrutiny during its progress and which enjoys invalid or unfit for its purpose. Indeed, part of the considerable support from a broad section of the reason for consultation, as I have already mentioned, community, and I would simply end by drawing your is to enable those who have diVering views on a Lordships’ attention to some of the recent public project, as analysed in the Environmental Statement, statements made in support of Crossrail and your to express their own views, whether in agreement or Lordships see on the screen before you statements by disagreement. the Prime Minister who said, on 1 October last year, “This is a huge national project that is vital for the long-term prosperity of the41 nation’s capital and indeed the whole country”, echoed in their diVerent 120. One specific issue which has arisen and is raised ways by the Mayor of London last year and indeed by a number of Petitions, particularly those from the by the City of London. These are merely Spitalfields and the St James/Mayfair area, is the representative of the broad consensus and, whilst it is assessment of alternatives, and again that will be true that there are those who raise criticisms of dealt with in detail at the relevant time. I would just aspects of the project, there is undoubtedly a broad draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that this sweep of consensus in favour of Crossrail, and we was the subject of detailed correspondence, commend the Bill to your Lordships’ Committee. My submissions and evidence before the House of Lords, we have managed to conclude. Commons’ Committee. Our position is summarised in Information Paper B8, and we simply note at this stage that the requirement of an Environmental Statement under EU law is simply that it should give 124. CHAIRMAN: Just before you finish, Mr Elvin, an outline of the main options studied and an could I ask you to elaborate a little bit on the railway indication of the main reasons for the choice, taking clauses point? I know it is a matter of speculation, but into account the environmental eVects. This has been we are due to deal with this matter immediately after done, we say, but no doubt your Lordships will be the so-called Easter recess. hearing more on the subject. 40 39 (LINEWD-OPN1-037) (LINEWD-OPN1-036) 41 Crossrail Ref: P1, European Convention on Human Rights Crossrail Ref: P1, Adequacy of Environment Assessment Crossrail Ref: P1, Support for Crossrail (LINEWD-OPN1-038) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 15
19 February 2008 Promoter’s Opening Address
125. MR ELVIN: Indeed, my Lord. 134. CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you.
135. MR ELVIN: My Lord, there was one 126. CHAIRMAN: I wonder how far the procedural matter which I wondered if your negotiations and proceedings are likely to have Lordships would mind if I raised following our reached at that stage. I do not suppose that the opening submission, and that is simply the question amendments to the railway clauses are going to be of documents which your Lordship touched upon in made by this Committee. I imagine they are going to his opening remarks. My Lord, I wondered whether be made on the floor of the House at the next stage of the Committee would be prepared to endorse the the Bill. position with regard to documents from Petitioners which they are proposing to rely upon before the 127. MR ELVIN: My Lord, yes. Committee, that the Committee asks that the Petitioners should provide copies of those documents to the Promoters, that is to ourselves, at least one 128. CHAIRMAN: Nevertheless, such amendments working day, 24 hours, in advance of any committee will be of great interest to some of the Petitioners on hearing to give us an opportunity (a) to consider the railway side and so will the access option which is them and (b) to respond to them, if necessary. My currently under discussion by the ORR. Lord, by a working day in advance, I mean to cover the position at the weekends, so that, if a Petitioner is going to be heard on Monday afternoon, we have 129. MR ELVIN: Indeed. received those documents by the preceding Friday morning at the latest. 130. CHAIRMAN: Can you give us any forecast at all about whether these things are likely to come to 136. CHAIRMAN: I think my colleagues would all conclusion? endorse that and the further in advance, the better because, apart from anything else, it would be a good idea if we saw them before we started listening to the 131. MR ELVIN: My Lord, the best I can do at the Petitioners. moment, as I have already indicated, is that my latest information is that the Board considers the matter 137. MR ELVIN: Indeed, and I am grateful to the this afternoon and we should be receiving very Committee for that and clearly we will make sure, shortly a ‘minded-to’ indication of the broad through Mr Walker and through the Committee thinking, and I understand that that means the broad clerks’ good oYces, that the Petitioners are told that points which are considered to be acceptable to the the 24 hours is perhaps a working minimum and, if ORR and the broad points of concern to the ORR. the Petitioners can improve on that, they should. I That should lead to a final decision on the access should of course say that we will follow the same option and my understanding, and it has just been timetable ourselves as the Promoters. confirmed by Mr Lancaster who sits behind me, that the ORR is aware of the timetable which your 138. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you cannot produce Lordships’ Committee is working to and a final your response document necessarily until you have decision should be made before the matter comes seen the documents from the Petitioner. before the Committee. 139. MR ELVIN: That is true, but there may be 132. CHAIRMAN: I think that would be very, very material that we are planning to produce in any event important. to explain our position on a Petition and we will make sure that that is disclosed according to that timetable. Clearly, if we have to produce something new to 133. MR ELVIN: As your Lordships will respond to material that we have not seen, that will understand, we are doing our utmost to ensure that obviously take a little longer, but we will produce the the ORR is kept up to date with the Committee’s material we know we are likely to have to rely upon timetable and that we get a position clear as soon as according to the same timetable that I have just possible. My Lord, it may well be that the best I can indicated. I hope that is acceptable to the Committee. do at this stage is simply to oVer to update your Lordships as we get further information, but the 140. CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you. intention and the plan is that we will know what the access option is in a matter of detail as well as the 141. MR ELVIN: My Lords, unless your Lordships broad principles before the railway Petitioners come have anything more for us at this stage, that before this Committee. concludes our opening remarks. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
16 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration
142. CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very much to (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. all three of you. I think in that case we can resume at 2.30 and get educated on noise. 149. You are the author of the Pelican book Noise, editor or co-author of many other books, including After a short adjournment The Association of Noise Consultants’ Guidelines, Measurement and Assessment of Groundborne Noise and Vibration, and you are a member of the working 143. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Elvin? group that produced the recent ISO standard on Mechanical Vibration, Groundborne Noise and 144. MR ELVIN: May it please your Lordships. We Vibration Arising from Rail Systems, Part 1 General will start the noise presentation, if that is convenient Guidance. to the Committee. Might I call Mr Thornely-Taylor? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I was.
150. You have prepared reports on noise for the MrRupertThornely-Taylor, sworn OECD. A large part of your work has been Examined byMrElvin concerned with noise and vibration from railways; you have had consultancy commissions from railway 145. MR ELVIN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, if I can just undertakings, objectors to railway proposals, rolling introduce you comprehensively and, hopefully, for stock builders and equipment suppliers, and you the only time I need to do this in any detail to the were the noise and vibration consultant to a number Committee. You are Rupert Thornely-Taylor. You of major projects, including the DLR. Is that right? are a Fellow and founder member of the Institute of (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is right. Acoustics, you are a Member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA, you are a Member 151. You were involved in the City, Becton, of the International Institute of Acoustics and Lewisham, City Airport and Woolwich Arsenal Vibration and you have specialised exclusively in the extension projects. subjects of noise, vibration and acoustics for more (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. than 44 years. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is true. 152. You were the expert witness in both Houses of Parliament during the Committee stages of all of the 146. You have been an independent consultant in DLR and Croydon Tramlink Bills. these subjects for the past 40 years and you have the (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I was. practice known as Rupert Taylor FIOA. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is correct. 153. You were noise and vibration consultant, too, and expert witness in Parliament for the original Crossrail and Jubilee Line Extension projects, and 147. You are President of the Association of Noise you were the expert witness in the House of Consultants and, indeed, were the Chairman from Commons Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail 2003 to 2005; you are a Director of the International Link Bill on behalf of Union Railways. Institute of Acoustics and Vibration, and for ten (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, I was. years you were a Member of the Noise Advisory Council, chaired by the Secretary of State for the Environment. You were Chairman and Deputy 154. You were the expert witness for Network Rail in Chairman of two of its working groups, and you are the Thameslink 2000 public inquiries. a Member of the Scott Committee, which drafted the (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. basis of the noise section in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. 155. Other major projects on an international scale in (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, that is correct. which you have been concerned, the Kowloon- Canton Railway, West Rail project in Hong Kong, 148. You head the consultancy division of Rupert City Tunnel in Ma¨lmo in Sweden and Va¨stlankenin Taylor Limited, which is a specialist in numerical in Gothenburg; part of the Independent Verifier modelling of the generation and propagation of Team for the Parramatter rail link in Sydney in vibration; you developed the finite diVerence time Australia. domain package “Findwave” which has been used (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is right. for the prediction of vibration, reradiated noise and groundborne noise extensively over the past 12 years 156. And you are consultant to the contractors for in many countries. Edinburgh Tram. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 17
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. way in which levels of noise and vibration are predicted. 157. Rather than go through any more details, I will simply end by saying that you have considerable 166. MR ELVIN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, just so this experience in construction noise and vibration; you is absolutely clear, a draft of this presentation was carried out construction noise studies of the Jubilee sent to Messrs Sharpe Pritchard, who are the Agents Line Extension, and you have been an expert witness for the two London local authorities—London not only in the major projects I have mentioned but Borough of Havering and London Borough of in many others over the last decades. Camden—which have outstanding general noise (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is quite right. issues on behalf of the London local authorities, and that you will make appropriate comments as you go 158. MR ELVIN: Thank you very much. through to reflect qualifications which they referred to in subsequent correspondence. 43 159. CHAIRMAN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, do I (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, I will. If we can move to remember rightly that you were the person who slide 5, clearly there are several ways in which noise designed the noise regime for the City Airport? and vibration are of interest in this project. There are (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, my Lord, that is quite construction issues, both in terms of surface correct. I was consultant for London Docklands construction of the relatively conventional kind, Development Corporation at the time. worksites at ground level with construction plant operating in them, and then of course there is tunnel 160. CHAIRMAN: I remember you from before. construction, which is the driving of tunnels underground, the excavation of stations and other 161. MR ELVIN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, you have works underground. From the operational point of prepared a set of Powerpoint slides which you are view, there is surface operation of the railway, the going to speak to, and I am simply going to let you do passage of rail vehicles along the track; there is also your presentation. I will only interrupt from time to the operation of a very substantial amount of what I time, if it is necessary to do so. So, if you would please have referred to as “fixed plant”, meaning everything commence. from tunnel ventilation systems to station air- conditioning, transformers—all items of that kind— 162. CHAIRMAN: I hope that if any of my and there are other surface operation areas such as colleagues want to ask questions about this—because depots and sidings, which also come under that it is not easy stuV—they do so as they see fit. heading. Then, last but by no means least, there is the operation of Crossrail underground—that is the passage of trains in the tunnels. As I think we all 163. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I was going to 44 know, there are tunnels in London that you can hear, suggest—and, of course, it is entirely a matter for you and I will be talking quite a lot about that topic. May and the Committee—that I suspect Mr Thornely- we move to slide 6. I will begin with the basics. Noise Taylor would welcome questions as he went along. is traditionally described as unwanted sound. Sound is vibration of the air as a result either of a surface 164. CHAIRMAN: I think it is going to be easier vibrating and causing radiation of air vibration that way than trying to go back to some particular waves away from it, or by aerodynamic or point in the presentation. thermodynamic vibration of air itself. I think most people now are familiar with the use of the word 165. MR ELVIN: Indeed. “decibel”, although it tends to be abbreviated into (Mr Thornely-Taylor) My Lords, I will do my best to dB—a little “d” and a capital “B”. The reason for the make what I know is generally thought of as quite a capital “B” is it is named after Alexander Graham diYcult subject as clear as possible. I will begin, if we Bell who actually devised a system called “a bell”, can see slide 4, by talking about the basics of noise42 which was rather large and it has been divided into and vibration, and do my best to make clear the ten to call it the “decibel”. The most interesting thing nature of the decibel scale and all the indices that are about this slide is the capital letter A, and we will hear used for measurement and assessment for noise. quite often reference to either dB(A), or later on I will Then I will talk about standards for the assessment of be talking about other indices which also include the noise and vibration. I will go on to talk about capital letter A. That is an important feature of the mitigation—using that in the environmental scale that is used, because the human ear is nothing assessment sense ways of minimising noise and like a physical instrument. Its response to sounds of vibration—and I will say something lastly about the 43 42 (LINEWD-RTT01-005) 004) 44 Crossrail Ref: P4, Scope of Noise and Vibration Issues Crossrail Ref: P4, Outline of Presentation (LINEWD-RTT01- Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Noise (LINEWD-RTT01-006) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
18 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration 47 low pitch and high pitch is not at all the same as its perceive that its loudness had changed. If we were response to sounds around the middle of the pitch sitting in the room and there was a sudden change of scale, and we have to take that into account. If you 3 dB, that would be quite clearly noticeable, but, if took a basic sound level meter that did nothing but there is a lapse of time between the noise changing measure the amplitude of those air vibrations I was from, say, 60 to 63, that is about the smallest change referring to, the number it would give you would not we would notice unless it happened instantaneously. correspond to human perception of loudness because Moving to slide 10, it is quite common to show in the human ear is very bad at picking up low- textbooks and talks of this48 kind either a thermometer frequency sounds—rumbles, roars—and bad at or some scale explaining what decibel levels picking up very high-frequency sounds. Instruments correspond to for sounds in everyday life, and it is have to be fitted with electronic weighting networks always diYcult to do that. We have this amazingly to make them behave slightly more like the human quiet level at the bottom of 10 dB(A), falling leaves, ear so that the index that is used to measure loudness and the diYculty is that I do not know anywhere on and other forms of human response to sound comes the planet which is quiet enough to be able to measure up with a better relationship between the measured 10 dB(A). I think the quietest place ever measured number and people’s actual judgment of what it was the rim of the Grand Canyon which was 14 sounds like. I will say quite a bit more about this dB(A), and I have measured 19 on Foulness Island, eVect later on. but it is eVectively silence, and indeed the whisper at 20 dB(A) is so quiet that most people would consider it no noise at all. 167. Just to stop you there, of course the dB(A) is sometimes referred to as the ‘A-weighting’. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is quite correct. The ‘A’ is A-weighting, and I will be saying a little bit more 168. So what we commonly think of as a silent, very about some other forms of weighting on a later slide. quiet background in the country is likely to be somewhere in the region of 19 or 20 dB? For most everyday noises, the basic45 feature of the decibel scale is that you use it to express changes in (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. My experience on proportions. It is a scale for saying when things have Foulness Island was at the time of my first experience, doubled and when they have halved. It is not like a not in this room but another one nearby, and I am temperature scale, it is not like a measure of embarrassed to say it was 37 years ago for the Maplin concentration of atmospheric pollutants where you Development Bill. I went to Foulness Island and on are simply stating in old physical terms how much of a totally still day with no vehicles for many miles, no something there is out there. The decibel scale is wind, no sources of any kind that one could notice, 19 was the lowest I could measure and even that uniquely about changes and that happens all the way probably had a contribution from the instrument’s through and this is the basic one to bear in mind, that own internal circuitry. You have to get up to about for everyday noises, about a 10 dB increase is 30 which is there as a bedroom, and that is regarded perceived as about double the loudness, and that as an ideal noise level for a bedroom. Again, it would happens all the way up the scale, 30 to 40, 40 to 50, be diYcult to hear very much. There is a step up to 43 50 to 60 and so on because the decibel scale measures which is identified as a wind turbine. It depends proportions and it is telling you each time it goes up obviously where you are as to what the level is. This by ten that there is about a doubling of the loudness. would be a figure at a substantial distance from a That becomes quite important when we look at ways wind turbine at a residential location and we move in which varying noises are expressed in terms of a gradually up to the living room, oYce, in the car 77, composite index. The opposite of course is true if you stereo music, well, maybe 87— have a 10 dB decrease and the loudness is about halved. There are some46 exceptions to that which I will come to, but that is a very useful rule of thumb to start with. If we could move to slide 8, we now go to 169. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I much smaller changes. If the sound which we can think there is a special index for stereo music for hear from the projector in the room were suddenly to teenagers! That could be up to the pneumatic drill change by one decibel, 1 dB, or if any other level, I would think! continuous, unvarying sound suddenly dropped by 1 dB, it would only just be possible to detect a change in loudness. If we all went out of the room and came 170. MR ELVIN: My Lord, you took the words out back in and that noise source had changed by 3 dB, of my mouth! which is the next slide, slide 9, we would just about 47 45 48 46 010) Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Noise (LINEWD-RTT01-009) Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Noise (LINEWD-RTT01-007) Crossrail Ref: P4, Scale of Decibel Levels (LINEWD-RTT01- Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Noise (LINEWD-RTT01-008) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:20 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 19
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration
171. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I always it is A-weighted, like the dB(A), and then it was thinking about iPods in a train with that horrible becomes L . It is an index which crops up in almost tinny sound that is audible from one end of the every case whenAeq environmental noise and indeed even carriage to the other. occupational noise is being assessed and, (Mr Thornely-Taylor) And indeed very high levels consequently, it comes into the firing line from people can be produced by those and hearing damage is a who consider that it is in some way inadequate. It real issue with people who wear iPods. Indeed, once helps to understand exactly what it does because we get up into the 90s, we start talking hearing some of the criticism of it is misplaced, and I will do damage. With industrial noise at 95, you would have my best now50 to explain what L does and show it can triggered action levels according to the Noise of usefully be used for these time-varyingeq environments. Work Regulations because continual exposure for a Slide 12 is a hypothetical example of noise varying lifetime at 95 would expose a proportion of the with time. This is actually artificial, I made it up, but population to permanent hearing loss, and 115 is a it is sound levels bobbing along around 45 dB(A) very unpleasant noise indeed. One of the first loud until something happens, it could be the passage of a noises I was ever exposed to when I first came into vehicle, it could be the switching on of a piece of plant this field was a sudden burst at 124 at a factory that for a time and then switching it oV, and then we go was testing compressed aircraft engine starters and, back to ambient noise, if I could use that term, which as a callow youth, I immediately clapped my hands to frequently applies to the general goings-on my ears and crumpled to the ground; it was extremely acoustically in the environment, low levels unpleasant. The 141 would be immediately interspersed by minor noise events. It is not an damaging, and it says “aeroplane”, but you would be untypical case and the scale on the left is the dB(A) standing within metres of an aero-engine and it is scale that I have been describing and it is going up in most unlikely that anyone would really do that. The tens, so to the extent that the ambient gets up to range is enormous, as you can see, and the human ear around 50 and my hypothetical event gets roughly to is capable of hearing a vast range of sound levels. If 70 while that event is on, if it went up to 60, it would we move on to slide 11, here49 we move into the realms be double the loudness, but it is actually going up to of sound that is much more complex than the nearly 70, so that moment is about four times as loud examples I gave earlier of a continuous sound as these moments. Now, that is a classic case of suddenly changing in level. In circumstances such as needing to put a single number to a very variable this, we are frequently dealing with fluctuating noise noise environment, and this is how it is done. The levels, noise from individual events like passing next slide, slide 13, looks very similar, but there is one vehicles, aircraft or trains, and, if you stood by a essential diVerence, that it is not dB(A) anymore, but railway or under a flight path with a simple sound the plot is identical51 and we have what is known as a level meter, all you would get is a lot of diVerent ‘logarithmic scale of energy’ which is what the dB(A) levels. It would fall to low levels when nothing was scale or at least the pure decibel scale is really passing and it would reach quite high levels if an measuring. One of the reasons why the decibel scale aircraft flew overhead or a train went by and then it confuses everyone is that, when I was saying that would fall again. If you were charged with from there to there was a doubling of loudness, in quantifying that noise environment in a way which energy terms you will see that these energy units have could be used to say, “The noise environment for this gone up tenfold. The human ear does not respond to community is this level and there is a significant an increase in energy at anything like the rate you eVect”, matters of that kind, you need an index which would expect it to if you looked purely at energy will deal with rising and falling sound, peaks of sound units. If a sound level meter gave you a reading in and get it into one number. Clearly, you can measure watts instead of in decibels, you would see the the maximum noise level when aircraft go over or number of watts per square metre go up by a factor when trains go by and we do that by L , as it is of ten and you would say, “That’s odd. It only called, and we may put the ‘A’ in front ofm ita tox signify sounded like twice”, and that is one of the the A-weighting I was describing earlier. L is a psychophysical eVects of human hearing, that it is not useful measure of the passage of vehicles,Amax for as sensitive as the increase in energy would imply. example, but, if there is one vehicle a day or one The corollary of that is that where this peak went up aircraft a night, that is not as significant as 10, 20 or to about four times the loudness, the energy has shot 100 vehicles in the period, so some means is required up and, if we go to the next line up, it has gone up to take account both of sound level and of the tenfold and going to the top of the scale, it has gone number of times the event occurs or how long the up a hundredfold. Then, as in slide 14, if you put event goes on for, and we use an index which, in full, exactly the same environment on to the much more is called ‘equivalent continuous sound level’, which is 50 abbreviated as ‘L ’ (for equivalent) and nearly RTT01-012) eq 51 49 Crossrail Ref: P4, L is no ordinary average . . . (LINEWD- RTT01-013) Aeq Crossrail Ref: P4, L is no ordinary average . . . (LINEWD- Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Noise (LINEWD-RTT01-011) Aeq Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
20 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration familiar linear scale, which would be the same if it loudness at higher levels. You were supposed to use was particles of pollutant or anything like that, each the B curve if you were talking about something line is the same, so we are not talking about52 tenfold around 70 decibels taking 1,000 hertz as the reference increases, we have a linear scale, that makes that point and 1,000 hertz means 1,000 cycles per second event in the middle really show up for what it is, a and is a whistle. You were meant to use the C huge reservoir of energy, so to speak. What L weighting curve when you got right up to about 120. does is, first of all, to get into this state and averageAeq For reasons more of convenience and practice, the A the energy and, then if we53 move to slide 15, going curve has come to be used at all levels of sound, so if back into decibels we find that, having averaged the you are measuring the noise in a recording studio at energy, it is a much higher result than had we just very low levels, the noise at the roadside in the 70s or averaged the decibel levels. You hear lay people who 80s or the noise in a factory in the 80s or 90s the are making a case about noise environments of one practice now is to use the dB(A) even though it is the kind or another talking about L being an average. wrong weighting network for the higher levels. It They sometimes think it is this kindAeq of average and, gives rise to a justifiable criticism that the A weighting if it were, it would be a pretty poor way of expressing curve unfairly discriminates against low frequency this entire sequence of events because it would not noise as it does at medium to high sound levels. We give anything like the weight that this noisy moment are going to be concerned in these proceedings with merited, whereas the L scale, because it is driven some fairly low sound levels. There are issues in many by the hidden store of energyAeq in the high levels, comes petitions about noise from the operation of out much higher than an actual arithmetical average. underground trains and I understand, my Lords, that It is nothing like as bad an index as you often hear you will be visiting a location, I think, at the people say as dealing with environments with beginning of next month to listen to some elements of high noise level superimposed over underground train noise and we will see what the periods of relative quiet. sound levels are and they will be around the upper 30s up to about 40. Therefore, I need to spend just a 172. CHAIRMAN: Is the green line the figure moment looking at this frequency weighting issue without the peak? because it is very important. The next slide— Mr Thornely-Taylor: No, the green line includes the peak. The green line is the arithmetical average of all 174. MR ELVIN: Just before we go there, Mr the decibel levels. Thornely-Taylor, while we have this up, this is your hypothetical example that you referred to earlier. If 173. CHAIRMAN: Including the peak? we were going to have a look—because you referred (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Including the peak, yes, my to it earlier—the L the would be here Lord. That is one of the concerns people have about (Indicating)? Is that right?Amax max the L scale. The other concern—and it is a very Aeq (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It would indeed. That might important one—relates to its faithfulness in dealing be a moment to explain two types of L , called with the frequency content of the noise. I began by L for “slow” and L for “fast”. WhatAmax those explaining a bit about the A-weighting scale and the twoAmax subscripts,S mean isAm thatax,F one is much more fact that the human ear is very insensitive to low sensitive to variations than the other. Early sound frequency noise, particularly insensitive to very low level meters used to have moving needle indicators on frequency noise. I describe the A-weighting scale as them and if you measured a sound that was not an electronic network that goes into sound level totally steady with the meter on the fast setting, the meters to make the meter a bit more like an ear. To meter needle would move fairly rapidly. It would be make things more diYcult, as sounds get louder, that quite hard to note down a repeatable level for the inequality that the ear has becomes less and once you maximum sound level so they also were fitted with get up to those horrendously high noise levels, like something called the “slow time constant” which my unfortunate exposure to 124, the ear is pretty more or less dampened the movement of the needle. much linear in its frequency response at low That, in fact, has an eight times longer time constant, frequencies and at high frequencies it responds with there is dampening to the needle, a little bit of about the same displeasure, in that case, for the same averaging goes on and the diVerence between fast and sound pressure level, no matter what the frequency. slow is just a smoothing of the curve. We will be When sound level meters were first manufactured, looking at both fast and slow maximum sound levels they came out with a minimum of three diVerent very shortly. If I could go on to slide 16, this is to look weighting networks, A that I have been talking 54 a little bit closer at the important business of low about, also B and C which were meant to address frequency noise and the way we hear it and the way 52 we measure it. I was talking a short while ago about RTT01-014) 53 54 Crossrail Ref: P4, L is no ordinary average . . . (LINEWD- RTT01-015) Aeq dB (A) Level (LINEWD-RTT01-016) Crossrail Ref: P4, L is no ordinary average . . . (LINEWD- Crossrail Ref: P4, Low Frequency Noise—A-weighting curve 30 Aeq Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 21
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration the existence of several diVerent weighting curves and 30 dB(A) level. For simplicity’s sake we are talking referred to the fact there is an A, a B and a C. You will about single55 frequencies: whistles, hums, rumbles. If even find in the literature D and E, but I will not go we move on to slide 17, we have gone up to double the into those. The A-weighting curve is plotted on this loudness, we have gone up to 40, but the same picture scale here—it is diYcult to see the colours—it is this emerges. The only thing which is apparent is there is line (Indicating). It is this sort of shape. If we use the rather more uncertainty at the low frequency end, the whistle, 1,000 cycles per second, 1,000 hertz, as our diVerent systems agree slightly less about what is of reference point, the A-weighting curve down, for equal loudness. Again, there is no fundamental example, at 63 hertz and that is a rumble, quite a low problem with the A-weighting network overdoing rumble, the curve has actually gone up by 26 decibels. things at low frequency. I am not going to prolong What that means is if you listened to a sound, look at things by showing you curves going on higher—50, the sound level on a simple sound level meter with no 60, 70—but if I did we would then start to see the A- weighting in it and have alongside a more weighting curve falling down progressively more and sophisticated meter with A-weighting in it and you the higher levels, dB(A), are justifiably criticised for measured a sound of a whistle at 30 dB, and then if not measuring low frequencies very well. Down you turned that oV and switched on a low rumble around the 30 and 40 mark all the international which a jury of people would consider to be the same systems and the basic loudness assessment show that loudness as the whistle, the meter that was fitted with it is about the right shape. The only thing which is the A-weighting scale would still show 30, but the important to bear in mind with dB(A) levels at low simple meter with no weighting in it, which is merely frequencies at these low sound levels—and I think measuring the physical amplitude of the sound, this will become apparent on the site visit when we go would measure 56 because that 26 is the ear’s to listen to underground train noise—is that the rule inability to hear low frequency sounds with the same of thumb I almost began with, that 10 dB(A) is a sensitivity that it does whistles and other high doubling of loudness, does not hold good all the way frequency sounds. There are several curves on this down to very low frequencies. If we are dealing in slide and there is an important reason for that. rumbles, the change in loudness is rather more than Perhaps the most interesting one is not the curve but that and we will be probably be lucky enough to hear the group of triangles. If you go into loudness in great some trains go underneath the room, we will be in at detail and you study the response of numbers of around 40 dB(A); we will hear some others go by at people, juries of people, who answer whether they about 30. You can judge for yourselves whether you consider one noise to be the same loudness as believe that to be a halving of loudness or a bit more, another, you end up with a family of curves called but you may consider that it is a bit more than a “equal loudness curves” which has now been halving and that is one of the consequences of the A- standardised, there is an ISO standard 226, and they weighting scale and one of the reasons why we would actually use a unit called the “phon”, which is one of be in diYculty if we were using it at much higher the very earliest acoustical measurement units. The levels than this. only point I want to make, I do not want to confuse the issue by talking about phons—we will never refer 175. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: You to the term again except for the next slide—the referred to all the international systems. Are there important thing is what the phon is showing you is many? Is there a common one in Europe? that the whistle at 1,000 hertz if you go down to the (Mr Thornely-Taylor) There are many systems for rumble at 63, the phon is telling you that the A- detailed evaluation of noise, my Lord, like the noise weighting curve is underweighting at this level and rating, the noise criterion. There is a system for that the true loudness is actually less than the A- certificating aircraft noise which uses yet another weighting meter would show you. There are also weighting method. I think if I were to write down all other more sophisticated ways of rating noise which the diVerent ways used for measuring noise I would we may have to deal with later in the proceedings fill an A4 sheet of paper quite quickly. When we are because they are used for rating noise in places like dealing with environmental noise and assessment of auditoria, recording studios, special places where the it everybody uses the L scale to a greater or lesser sound environment is critical. They approach things extent. Additionally theyAeq use maximum noise levels in a slightly diVerent way, there are two rather similar L and L , and I will show you some indices, one called “NC” which stands for noise internationalAmaxS guidanceAmaxF shortly. There are also sub- criterion, and that appears in an ISO standard for the indices of the L that enable you to calculate it recording industry, and there is a European-based, using somethingAe calledq SEL, which either means very similar, system “NR” called noise rating. The sound exposure level or single event level according fundamental point is that they too adversely weight to which standard you are using. I do not need to go low frequencies to very much the same degree as the 55 A-weighting curve. That is for sounds around about dB (A) Level (LINEWD-RTT01-017) Crossrail Ref: P4, Low Frequency Noise—A-weighting curve 40 Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
22 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration there at present but I think, largely to keep my 179. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: colleagues in work, we have invented more indices Just at the low frequency end, what are we talking than any other field of endeavour. Unfortunately it about in terms of the average ear? What can you remains so complex that consultants are needed to detect down to? What sort of frequency are we sort things out. talking about? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The textbooks will say 20Hz is 176. MR ELVIN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, just to pick the start of the audible range; but what happens up Lord Brooke’s question, in terms of the World down there is you start to confuse audible sound with Health Organisation and the advice which it gives on vibration. If you live close to a road and heavy lorries an international basis, what is its favoured set of go by they may set your windows going, they will set indices? the room vibrating and you will perceive it more as a (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I will shortly show a slide in whole body eVect than just as an audible eVect. As the which most of the guidance is L , but there is also frequency goes down there is just a transition from important advice about L , theAeq maximum noise perceiving a heard sound to a felt sound, and you level measurement, as well.Amax would possibly even describe it as vibration even if it was still coming through the air and not necessarily 177. MR ELVIN: Which is one of the reasons why through the ground. we are focussing on it. 180. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: This 178. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: can aVect people diVerently depending on their age Before you move on, just to get a fix on this, in terms then? of what is detectable by the average human ear, and that is a weighted phrase in itself, is it not, as you say (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Most certainly. There is a set with frequency we are not very good at low and we of curves which can be plotted according to the age are not very good at high and these are age-related as of the person. It is a normal progression, as one’s age well, but what is the sort of range we are talking advances, for one’s high frequency hearing to about? Are we talking about an average human ear at diminish. its peak of hearing? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) You may have noticed a story 181. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: So in the press recently about a device called a Mosquito one hears the rumble more as one gets older? which is intended to discourage young people from (Mr Thornely-Taylor) congregating in shop doorways. It produces a very Indeed one does. It relatively high frequency sound. As a very young man playing becomes more prominent. I should say that people around with sound oscillators I can remember what report eVects well below 20Hz and occasionally you it was like to hear 20kHz. Now most of us hear 20kHz see stories in the press about strange noises in the in the form of tinnitus internally generated within our Bristol area, or strange noises sometimes called “the heads. As you get older something called presbiacusis hum” that when investigated are very hard to comes in which is a natural reduction in the measure and yet people distinctly report hearing sensitivity of the ear to very high frequencies. something. There is in fact a journal devoted Birdsong is a bit lower than that and fortunately it is specifically to low frequency noise dealing with these usual to be able to continue to hear birdsong until a very low frequency signals. very advanced age, that would typically be around the 2-4kHz area—1kHz is a whistle. As you go down in frequency there is not normally an age-related 182. CHAIRMAN: It is also capable of being eVect except that disorders of the hearing can reduce directional, is it not, air frequency noise? low frequency sensitivity due to mechanical (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Most certainly. A particular malfunction of the ear. Most importantly noise- feature of low frequency noise is that its wave length induced hearing loss—damage to hearing caused by is very large—several metres—and that means that in high noise levels at work, or excessive exposure to a room standing waves are set up much more loud music—has a very specific eVect. When cases prominently than happens at higher frequencies, and come before the courts claiming noise-induced you can move from a quiet spot to a noisier spot. I hearing loss what you look for is a dip at 4kHz; it is have often found in hotel rooms, which frequently localised around that area. When claimants come have air-conditioning running which can be quite forward alleging loss of hearing due to their irritating, that merely moving the position of the bed employment if there is not that characteristic dip you or, on one occasion, I just moved my pillow to the have to look very much more closely at their hearing foot of the bed and slept that way round, I was in and the history of their exposure to noise. I do not what is known as an “anti-node” and the noise had know whether I have answered your question or not. gone. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 23
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration
183. MR ELVIN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, to go from and we switch on two identical fans the same distance the ridiculous to the sublime, if you listen to very low from the listener and thereby we double the number organ notes, for example, you can hear the of sources, again the L level, and in fact in that case fluctuation in the noise? the overall sound level,Aeq will go up by three. This (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I used to have the privilege of applies always; it is a fundamental mathematical being able to play a large organ in a very large hall relationship. Moving on to slide 19— and it was great fun to play the lowest two notes separated by a semitone, and the beating between 186. CHAIRMAN: Before you leave that, these are them— not cumulative? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is cumulative. If you do all 184. MR ELVIN:— would make your windows those things together, if we first of all doubled the rattle! energy and the sound (going back to slide 18) the level (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is like a motorcycle. I think in L and the overall level would go up by three. If I have digressed a little! we thenAeq switched on twice as many identical sources it would go up by another three—six above where we 185. MR ELVIN: Shall we go back to L ? started. If these were variable events and we doubled Aeq (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Shall we now56 go onto slide 18 the duration of all the events it would go up by and talk about the characteristics of this L scale, another three to nine. If we had twice as many of because I mentioned that we needed to copeAeq with those events it would go up by yet another three to 12. varying sound environments. It has these It goes on all the way up. It is a feature of the decibel consequences, which all flow from its energy-based scale that it is always telling us proportions; it is never nature: it follows automatically that these diVerent telling you absolute values; so it is just shorthand for kinds of doubling all have the same eVect. First of all, saying double the energy—it is easier to say plus 3dB. I need to expand on the fundamental point we saw in Each57 doubling, twofold, fourfold, eightfold, an earlier slide that 10dB is actually concealing a sixteenfold, we have gone up by 12dB. The same tenfold change in energy. I showed that time-varying happens on slide 19 when we just talk in terms of ten environment first with a dB scale and I showed the times. It is the same as the previous slide except identical slide with energy units, and they went up by instead of doubling we are increasing things by a a factor of ten each time there was a 10dB increase. It factor of ten. Again it is cumulative. If the sound is is interesting to look in slightly more detail at changes due to a source with some variable power setting and of less than ten, and whereas 10dB is a tenfold you turn the power setting up tenfold, the sound level increase in energy the other important rule of thumb will go up by 10dB. If you then switch on ten times is that 3dB is a doubling of energy. Again that the number of sources it will go up by another ten, so illustrates the diVerent world between physical it will have gone up 20. If it is an intermittent sound measures and human perception. I explained that if a pattern over a period of time and those events last for sound that was continuously changed by 3dB and ten times the length it will go up another ten to 30 there was a time lapse between us hearing the first and above where we started. If there are ten times as many the second sound, we would only just about notice events, another ten; so we have gone up 40dB from the diVerence at three; but that is for a change where where we started as a result of those changes, simply the energy has halved or doubled. It is always the case because each of those changes is actually delivering that a 3dB change means that the energy has halved ten times more sound energy during the period over or doubled. It follows from that if we are using L which we are calculating the index. These so far have for measuring environmental train noise and duringAeq all been physical measurements which have been a time like eight hours twice as many trains go by, and adjusted to try to match the loudness response of they are the same trains, the L value for that eight listeners; but we now have to move on to something hours goes up by three. ThatAe isq a simple physical much more complex, because when people are relationship. Likewise if only half the number of disturbed by noise they talk not so much in terms of trains went by the L level would go down by three. loudness (they may mention that) but they will talk In exactly the same way,Aeq if the noise went on for twice about “annoyance”, “sleep disturbance”, all sorts of as long—same number of sources and while the other eVects of noise besides just judgment of how source was there the same sound level—but if its loud it is. It is true to say that however good your duration was twice as long the sound system would system of converting sound levels into numbers may be delivering twice as much energy over that eight be, it has no meaning at all unless you can relate it to hour period to the person listening, likewise the L how a population of listeners are going to respond to will change by three. A further permutation is thatAe ifq it. Any noise index that we use for environmental you are measuring the noise from some fixed sources, assessment, for regulation or for policy-making has let us say there are two fans running continuously, to have associated with it the results of social surveys
56 57
Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Noise (LINEWD-RTT01-018) Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Noise (LINEWD-RTT01-019) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
24 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration in which you seek to discover how a population (Mr Thornely-Taylor) What you do is at seven responds to noise levels expressed using one index or o’clock at night you add 5dB to the measured level another. To take aircraft noise as an example being and you keep on doing that until 11 o’clock at night somewhat topical, we used to have something called when you start adding a total of ten to the measured a noise and number index which was jettisoned in the level; and you keep doing that until seven o’clock in 1980s in favour of L that I have been talking the morning when you come back to ordinary L , if about; and there have beenAeq a series of social surveys, I can put it that way. L crops up because thereAeq is a not only at British airports but at international European Union directiveden requiring noise mapping, airports around the world, which enable you to say at and the unit required for these maps is the L any particular exposure in terms of L there is a system. It has not progressed beyond that point at theden Aeq probability of this much that people will be highly present time. At this point, having59 mentioned the annoyed, a probability of that much that they will not European Union, I will move on to guidelines and be much annoyed58 at all, and most of the population standards. Slide 21 lists the standards that we used will fall somewhere in between. On the next slide, particularly for this project. The first one is a slide 20 we see a simplified representation of that kind document which anyone who has spent time in a of information. There have been now many, many tribunal dealing with noise will have come across—it social surveys in developed countries and researchers always appears. It is called Guidelines for Community have done what are known at meta-analyses; they Noise, paid for by the World Health Organisation, have looked at the results of all of them and done published by the Ministry of the Environment or the their best to collapse them into simple curves. The Institute of Environmental Epidemiology in interesting thing is that they found a diVerent Singapore, and, though not formally adopted by the annoyance response according to the nature of the WHO as a formal WHO document, is loosely called source. These are all about transportation noise “The WHO Guidelines”. It contains a great deal of sources, which is the most widespread kind of information. It has a very extensive review of the environmental noise. Taking aircraft noise—in fact literature on the eVects of noise of all kinds across the the unit here is L , which is L with evening and den eq whole spectrum from annoyance through to hearing night given a weighting for the fact that people are conservation—almost every aspect of the subject. more sensitive to noise in the evening and the night, but for the purposes of explanation we can regard it as L , for example, if the outdoor noise environment 189. MR ELVIN: What is the date of the duee toq aircraft is 55, taking a very large population guidance, please? you would find that ten per cent of the population (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The printed version, which is were highly annoyed. If you move up still sticking the oYcial version, was printed and published in the with aircraft noise to 61, for example, you would find year 2000. There are some versions with 1999 on that 20 per cent of the population were highly them but, having clarified with the lead author, annoyed. It follows from that that 80 per cent have Professor Bergland, the Singapore-published 2000 another kind of level of annoyance and it is an edition is the formal publication. In the UK we also important feature of all these cases that people vary have British Standard 8233, which is guidance for the enormously in their sensitivity to noise. Some will sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings, complain at very low levels; some will be completely aimed at people designing buildings. Important, indiVerent to very high levels. The second interesting particularly for Crossrail, with all its construction thing about this chart is that, in these large analyses sites, is BS 5228, which gives guidance on noise and that find that, annoyance is dependent on the nature vibration control on construction and open sites. of the source: aircraft are the most annoying; road Also important for all the plant that I was referring traYc noise is next; and you have to go to between 59 to—tunnel ventilation fans, station plants and and 60 to get ten per cent highly annoyed; and depots—is British Standard 4142, the method for railways allow 66 before you get ten per cent highly rating industrial noise aVecting mixed residential and annoyed. There are lots of theories as to why that is, industrial60 areas, and vibration is addressed in British but it is broadly the case. It means that assessments Standard 6472. In slide 22 we will have a look at those using the L scale produce diVerent answers Guidelines for Community Noise which are so widely according to whatAeq kind of noise source it is. quoted. They talkabout somethingcalledthe critical health event. Of all the health eVects that noise can 187. CHAIRMAN: Is L day, evening and night? have, which may range from annoyance to hearing (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Indeed,den my Lord, that is right. damage to health eVects, in any particular case one of those eVects is the one that determines the guidance, 188. CHAIRMAN: How do you then average it out and that is what they mean by “critical health in order to get a single figure? 59 58 RTT01-021) diVerent sources (Source: Miedema and Oudshoorn 2001) 60 (LINEWD-RTT01-020) RTT01-022)Crossrail Ref: P4, Noise and Vibration Guidelines (LINEWD- Crossrail Ref: P4, Comparison of Percentage highly annoyed for Crossrail Ref: P4, Guidelines for Community Noise (LINEWD- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 25
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration eVects”. So, for example, when they are talking about However, secondly, if the building is unoccupied, noise levels in outdoor living areas the principal thing while there is nobody there to annoy, there comes a to think about is annoyance, and it gives guidance on point, at a very, very much higher level, when you levels at which various degrees of annoyance occur. need to be concerned about the eVects of vibration on the fabric of the building. For that purpose, Peak Particle Velocity, as it is called, is used. We can now 190. MR ELVIN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, just keeping go at a much faster pace because I have finished with an eye on the clock, can we just highlight the ones the detailed explanations. We can just run through that are most significant so far as Crossrail is the standards that we use. On slide 28, starting with concerned, please? construction noise, the method used is to compare (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The most significant one is the L level from the66 construction work with the67 dwellings, and particularly sleep disturbance, level youAeq would have without the construction site because we will be running trains at night in tunnels and, also, compare it with absolute trigger levels (as underneath people. The guidance is 30 in L terms, they are referred to). These are shown on slide 29. and in L terms L fast is 45, althoughAeq in the Amax Amax As the daytime ambient (that is the noise) not due to text of the document it advises that where there is the construction noise becomes greater so the eVect low-frequency61 noise lower levels are desirable. The of the construction noise becomes less, because, next slide is merely62 the bottom half of that table, clearly, a construction site in a very noisy locality has shown for completeness, but we do not need to dwell less of an impact than a construction site in a very on it. Slide 24 is the point about 30 dB(A) L for quiet locality. This figure shows the two important continuous noise. If it is not continuous LAeq is Amax levels: the level at which the Crossrail policy for best. It says the eVects are observed at 45, or less, temporary re-housing comes into play, if the noise events. Exceeding 45 should be limited, if provision of noise insulation is not likely to be possible—even lower for sensitive people—and there suYcient, and the level at which the provision of is advice that low-frequency noise should be lower as sound insulation applies. The Environmental well. It suggests that to63 prevent sleep disturbance you Statement shows quite extensive likely eligibility for should consider both L and the number of events. noise insulation. Moving to slide 25, veryAeq similar numbers are in British Standard 8233. We do not particularly need to dwell on them: bedrooms, a good standard L 191. MR ELVIN: Just for the record, the core 30, reasonable standard L 35. Both in the caseA ofeq daytime working period is from eight in the morning this standard and the WHOAeq table the time period, till six in the evening, on most work days. denoted by a “T” after L , is eight hours for night (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is68 quite correct, yes. The time. For daytime it will beAeq either the full 16 hours or next slide, 30, just quotes from the Environmental a shorter period, if that is more appropriate. That is Statement the numbers applied to this Vibration the end of standards for sound. Slide 26: for vibration Dose Value that I mentioned. It is very diYcult to we use something called the Vibration Dose Value for give them physical meaning, but it does not mean the kind of vibration that is not heard; it is perceived, complete imperception about vibration but using technically, through the sense of touch, although that British Standard 6472 the probability of people includes movement64 of the body—whether it is sitting commenting adversely is69 low at these levels on a vibrating surface, lying on a vibrating surface, Construction vibration is on slide 31, in terms70 of the standing on a vibrating floor—as opposed to the Peak Particle Velocity that I mentioned, and we do sense of hearing. We use an index called Vibration not need to dwell on it. Slide 32 takes us to Dose Value, instead of a decibel scale. I65 do not intend operation, having finished with construction. We to take up time on that subject today. I will just, on look at changes in the L level to see whether the slide 27, mention the alternative method of assessing eVect of operating the railwayAeq is significant or not. vibration when it is aVecting buildings. Clearly, on a The Environmental Statement treats a change of construction site, there are two things to be more than three as a significant eVect. The magnitude concerned about. If the building is occupied and you of the increase depends on how much the change is; are doing a construction activity, you may annoy if it is more than ten, for example, it is treated as a people in the building as a result of the vibration. substantial increase. Slide 33, again on surface
61 66 RTT01-023) RTT01-028) 62 67 RTT01-024)Crossrail Ref: P4, Guidelines for Community Noise (LINEWD- workingCrossrail period Ref: P4, (LINEWD-RTT01-029) Standards—Construction noise (LINEWD- 63 68 025)Crossrail Ref: P4, Guidelines for Community Noise (LINEWD- (LINEWD-RTT01-030)Crossrail Ref: P4, Crossrail trigger levels—core daytime 64 69 (LINEWD-RTT01-026)Crossrail Ref: P4, British Standard 8233 (LINEWD-RTT01- (LINEWD-RTT01-031)Crossrail Ref: P4, Standards—Construction vibration 65 70 (LINEWD-RTT01-027)Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Vibration—AVecting People (LINEWD-RTT01-032)Crossrail Ref: P4, Standards—Construction vibration Crossrail Ref: P4, Basics—Vibration—AVecting Buildings Crossrail Ref: P4, Standards—Operation—surface railway Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
26 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration
railway71 operation, just states the statutory position (Mr Thornely-Taylor) This one is for trains. The regarding the provision of noise insulation against equivalent regulation for highways has the same the operating railway—again, using the L scale for number, 68, but it still uses the old-fashioned unit of day. These are external noise levels, 1 metreAeq in front L , the level exceeded for 10 per cent of the time. It of a fac¸ade. isA physically10 not quite the same, but when the railway regulations were produced, the Committee that were 192. CHAIRMAN: So sorry, just a moment. On 32 charged with devising them were specifically we have got L . instructed to come up with a scheme that was (Mr Thornely-Taylor)AmaxF There is a footnote about a equitable with the scheme for roads. secondary test. If there is not a pre-existing sequence 72 of train noise events that exceed 85 L (for “fast”) 197. LORD SNAPE: Thank you. then should there be a case whereA CrossrailmaxF causes (Mr Thornely-Taylor) May we now move to L to be more than 85 that is a secondary test for underground noise and go to slide 34? The significantAmaxF eVect. convention is to concentrate on the maximum sound level, L We have had at least two major 193. MR ELVIN: Going to 34 now. undergroundAmax,S. railways or railways with significant underground sections constructed in recent decades, 194. LORD SNAPE: Before you do, Mr Thornely- namely the Jubilee Line Extension and the Channel Taylor, forgive me for interrupting, on 33 you Tunnel Rail Link. They both uses L as the Amax,S mentioned a figure of 68 decibels of sound insulation primary test of the significance of the maximum alongside a railway line. Could you just tell me and sound level due to the passage of underground trains.73 the other Members of the Committee how that figure Indeed, in slide 35 we see an extract from the would equate to houses alongside a motorway or Environmental Statement and we see that if L is Amax,S trunk road, or adjacent to an airport? predicted at 35 to 39 it is on the radar—but it is low. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The easiest one to take is the If it is over 40 it is a significant impact, and should it example of houses alongside a motorway or a trunk be over 49, for example, a very high impact. In fact, road. Houses alongside a very busy, multi-laned the Jubilee Line Extension, for example, manages to highway, such as some of the six-/eight-lane achieve actual L levels well down in the low or Amax highways that go out through the outer areas of even lower region. Moving on to slide 36, there are London, would be in the 80s—they would be well in lots of places in London that are above underground excess of 68. The origin of the 68 goes back to the tunnel systems constructed before the Jubilee Line Noise Advisory Council (which decades ago I was a Extension which used a very simple form of rail member of), which was asked to state what noise level support, and you can actually stand on the platform was the limit of the acceptable for highway noise. It of some of them and see it, rails fixed to cast-iron said that 70, using an index called L (which in chairs screwed into hardwood blocks set in concrete those days, so long ago, L was notA10 used, and and the rails have joints in them, as a result of which instead the level exceeded forA 10eq per cent of the time it is quite common, though it does not always was used), and that has gone through many changes, happen, in a house above74 the Bakerloo Line or the and has emerged in the relatively recent railway noise Northern Line, for example, to get maximum noise insulation regulations as being equivalent to 68 on levels, 40 to 50, and the highest I have ever come the L scale by day and 63 at night. In a nutshell, it across was about 55. Those are bad cases and many is theAeq limit of the acceptable, and that is why people are exposed to lower levels than that. statutory entitlement to noise insulation kicks in there. 198. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: So the Jubilee Line improvement was due to one 195. LORD SNAPE: That is for the railway. Can I track design? ask you would that be the same level, 68, for roads or (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. airports for sound insulation? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Airports have noise insulation 199. What about the rolling stock itself? What was schemes which diVer from airport to airport, but they the contribution? I can see from your description of tend to be at a lower level than that—not least the improvements in track design that it went from because we saw that slide earlier showing that people pretty crude with what seemed to be little or no find aircraft more annoying at lower levels. attention paid to the transmission of noise and
72 196. LORD SNAPE: And trains, of course, less railway (LINEWD-RTT01-034) intrusive. 73 railwayCrossrail (LINEWD-RTT01-035) Ref: P4, Standards—Operation—underground 71 74 (LINEWD-RTT01-033) railwayCrossrail (LINEWD-RTT01-036) Ref: P4, Standards—Operation—underground Crossrail Ref: P4, Standards—Operation—surface railway Crossrail Ref: P4, Standards—Operation—underground Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 27
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration vibration to a much more sophisticated attempt, but the concrete block and, if you stand on Westminster how would you divide the fact that they managed to Station when trains come in, they do rumble as they reduce it quite significantly? Would you put it down run onto the floating slab. They would not do that if to, say, 50 or 60 per cent track design and rolling there were also resilient support between the rail and stock? I am just floating some figures. the concrete as well as the bearings between the (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Several things have happened concrete and the structure, but I have failed to find in the railway industry. One of the important ones is anywhere in Portcullis House where you can hear the move to disc-braking of vehicles, so you no longer trains. I hope that is still the case. There was a very roughen the wheel treads with blocks. Most exacting specification for that piece of work and, important is the move to using continuously welded unless I am informed otherwise, it continues to be rail in underground systems and universally to use extremely successful. There are obviously resilient supports for the rail, and in circumstances engineering cost consequences to floating slab, but where you need particularly large reductions in there are important sections of Crossrail that will groundborne noise, the entire track system is have it for reasons which we will go into later in the constructed on concrete blocks themselves supported proceedings. on rubber bearings known as ‘floating slab track’. 201. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: As one supplementary to that, and that was very 200. MR ELVIN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, would it be 75 helpful, but this is the Thornely-Taylor floating slab worth jumping ahead because you have got two slides actually! that illustrate this? If we come ahead to slide 48, we (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is actually. have got an example of resilient rail support. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) This is a form of rail support that is becoming more and more popular. I am not 202. The one other question I wanted to ask you was saying necessarily Crossrail will use it, but it is a good about the design of the tunnel itself in terms of example of modern rail support. Instead of the rail preventing transmission of noise and vibration. Is sitting with the foot resting on a wooden block, there that a factor? Can you do anything with that? is an air space underneath the rail foot and the rail is (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is not a very large factor. supported by means of rubber blocks, one either side Many of the old tunnels are made of cast iron and of what is called ‘the web’, and those blocks are held modern tunnels are bolted concrete segments and the in place by shoulders. The sheer stiVness of the additional mass and rigidity of the concrete is rubber blocks is low, so the rail deflects under the beneficial, but most of the improvement is in the passage of a train and there is no rigid mechanical resilient support of the track. connection whatever between the rail and the supporting concrete beneath. For most railways, for 203. LORD SNAPE: If we followed the French most receivers of groundborne noise, that alone is example, Mr Thornely-Taylor, and put rubber tyres enough to bring noise levels well below the 40 figure on some of the trains, would it put your future job that I mentioned previously, but there are prospects in peril? circumstances where you need to do better than that (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It would. I actually think my if you are either running under a very sensitive job prospects are in peril anyway because it is now building, like an important concert hall or a quite normal for an urban underground railway to recording studio or MPs’ oYces. Portcullis House use resilient rail support, and you will have very low has the District Line running through its basement groundborne noise levels without trying so long as because, when the Jubilee Line Extension to you do not mess it up. I used to spend vast amounts Westminster Station was constructed, the District & of time predicting noise levels from underground Circle Line was completely reconstructed and the railways where it is no longer really necessary because District & Circle Line station is completely new and it is a foregone conclusion that levels will be very low. is in fact a large bridge suspended over the huge void of the Jubilee Line Extension station.76 Through 204. LORD SNAPE: And the French rubber tyres? Westminster Station there is floating slab track where (Mr Thornely-Taylor) French rubber tyres do almost the rails are attached to the concrete block which eliminate groundborne noise, but have a massive cost itself is supported on rubber bearings. That one was and engineering penalty attached to them, not least my design. I regret one thing which is that I chose to that it is diYcult to run them to Reading and omit additional resilient support between the rail and Shenfield and Abbey Wood.
75 Noise and Vibration—Resilient rail support (example) 205. MR ELVIN: I was going to ask about how you (LINEWD-RTT01-048) put rubber tyres on the Great Western! When you say 76 Crossrail Ref: P4, Mitigation—Operation—Groundborne Noise and Vibration—Floating Slab (example) (LINEWD- that your job prospects are in peril, unless the RTT01-049) resilient rail is messed up of course, there are design Crossrail Ref: P4, Mitigation—Operation—Groundborne Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
28 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration issues also in that it requires proper maintenance and possible. For sensitive people, an even lower limit inspection? would be preferred. It should be noted that it should (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. It is quite possible to be possible to sleep with a bedroom window slightly mess it up and there are some examples of non- open”, and this is irrelevant for groundborne noise functioning resilient rail support. I will not actually because obviously it does not come in through give them, but it is also possible through neglect to let windows, but for surface noise, “(a reduction from the rails acquire surface roughness which is so great outside to inside of 15 dB). To prevent sleep that noise levels rise quite dramatically and it is of disturbances, one should thus consider the equivalent great importance that, along with the basic sound pressure level and the number and level of engineering design of the railway, there is a sound events. Mitigation targeted to the first part of maintenance policy to grind the rails, for example, the night is believed to be eVective for the ability to when the roughness grows. My Lord Chairman was fall asleep.” There are lots of passages of that kind of kind enough to credit me with devising the London detail in the guidance which one can refer to, but I City Airport noise conditions, and I also wrote the think that sums the current topic up for present noise policy for the Docklands Light Railway which purposes. Slide 38, if we are talking79 about has a system for detecting when it is necessary to underground trains passing during the night period, grind the rails and when it is necessary to turn the we are interested in L as well as L , as those wheels. I will be guided by Mr Elvin as to how we are guidelines were suggestingAeq we should be.Amax A typical doing for time and whether I should go back to the example for the Crossrail case would be 78 trains in slides we have bypassed. 77 the night period and they will be 200 metres long. If we assume we are going, as they will be in a lot of 206. You are 20 minutes over estimate and on slide areas, at 80 kph, 40 L comes out as about 24 37, but let us just see how we go. L , whereas the eight-hourAmax,S L in the WHO (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Slide 37 is continuing the story guidanceAeq8hour table we have been lookingAeq at is for 30, or of the maximum noise level. I explained earlier on BS 8233 says 30L is a good standard and 35 that there were two types of L , slow and fast, the is a reasonable standard.Aeq8hour fast in the days when we wereAm lookingax at a moving needle and the needle was jiggling about, and with the 208. So, if it comes out at 24, that indicates that it is slow the needle was damp to make it easier to doing better than good? measure a single figure. For an underground train (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is indeed. passing under a building, if you measure it in both units, you will find that they are two diVerent, so, if 209. What if it said that for at least a proportion of you measured 40L , it would come out at about that eight-hour L it is unlikely that trains will be 42L , and thatAmax, comparesS with the L running, ie duringA theeq night? guidelineAmax,F value for bedrooms at 45, coupled withAm theax,F (Mr Thornely-Taylor) We then have a diYculty in advice that it should be lower for low-frequency that we do not know what guidance to turn to noise. because the only guidance on night-time L in both Aeq 78 the World Health Organisation document and BS 207. If we just put up the actual page of the guidance, 8233 is in terms of the eight-hour value, but, if you I hope that is legible at least on the screens, if not the double the number of trains or compress all those main screen. trains into half the time, it would go up from 24 to 27 (Mr Thornely-Taylor) This is an extract from those and, if you compress them all into quarter of the time, guidelines and I will read from paragraph (c): it would go up to 30. I think the current intention is “Sources with low-frequency components. that Crossrail trains, revenue trains, will cease at Disturbances may occur even though the sound about 12.30 and start again at about 5.45 with some pressure level during exposure is below 30dB(A). If empty trains going to and from the depot in between, negative eVects on sleep are to be avoided, the so, of the eight-hour night, about two and three- equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed quarter hours are normal revenue service with some 30dB(A) indoors for continuous noise. If the noise is trains in between, so, even if you did find guidance not continuous, sleep disturbance correlates best which dealt with night in hour periods80 other than with L ”, and it becomes clear later that it is eight, we still would be significantly below 30. If we L Athatmax is being referred to, “and eVects have move on to slide 39, we see what the Environmental beenAmax observedF at 45 dB or less. This is particularly Statement bases its conclusions on. The significant true if the background level is low. Noise events threshold in the Environmental Statement is 40 exceeding 45 dB(A) should therefore be limited, if dBL and the conclusion is that there is no Amax,S 77 79 railway (LINEWD-RTT01-037) railway (LINEWD-RTT01-038) 78 80 forCrossrail Community Ref: Noise P4, , p46 Standards—Operation—underground (SCN-20080219-001) noiseCrossrail L Ref:(LINEWD-RTT01-039) P4, Standards—Operation—underground Amax,s Crossrail Ref: P5, World Health Organization 1999, Guidelines Crossrail Ref: P4, Crossrail contours of predicted groundborne Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 29
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration significant eVect from groundborne noise. It draws underground line, we are dealing with a main line in on a specialist technical report which includes a full a tunnel with major consequences from that. There is set of contours of groundborne noise from tunnel a procedure set out in this British Standard. It is portal to tunnel portal. This particular example is for intended for predicting the likelihood of complaints Central London, and that is Soho Square there, and it does it by using L but with a penalty of five Tottenham Court Road Station, so, as trains are notional decibels addedA toeq the physical level of L travelling relatively fast between stations, the lowest if the noise has special characteristics. One of thoseAeq contour plotted is 25, though it is quite hard to see, characteristics is what is known as “tonal but the outer contour is 25 and the most we get up to characteristics” and you almost always get tonal is in the 30s and, as the trains slow down, the characteristics with sources such as fans. You contours disappear oV the map, so to speak. The compare it with a completely new index that I have essential thing is that the same track form is assumed not talked about yet called L , so the same family from end to end, except for locations where, for the as the L I touched on in theA90 context of highway reasons I have alluded to, we need floating slab, but noise, it is10 the level of noise exceeded for 90 per cent of it is not going to be the case that the track form will the time. It is really measuring the quiet bits between be degraded wherever the prediction is for much less noise events. If you are standing out in the street and than 40, so we will not suddenly go back to rigid rail it is not heavily traYcked, vehicles going by, aircraft support just because we are well below 40. A track going overhead and you wait for a quiet moment and form will be used for the same kind, chosen to achieve you measure it, that is probably close to L . 40 in as many places as possible, as a result of which 90 in a lot of other places these contours show much, much lower levels than the overriding 40, design A. 213.82 MR ELVIN: Is that what is sometimes loosely referred to as background noise level? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is and it is illustrated in slide 210. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: 41. If you perform a statistical analysis on this Forgive me, just very quickly to go back to the varying ambient level, the L comes out more or less previous slide, 38. The running time is 12:30? a typical low value, it is not to90 say occasionally it gets (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Revenue service trains, the quieter than L , but it is a typical low level and it is trains with passengers on them, I think it is true to against that level90 that the L plus five, if it is a tonal say, taking Tottenham Court Road as an example, Aeq noise, is compared in the BS 4142 process. In slide83 42 the last one will have gone by about half past the standard concludes that if L plus five, called midnight and there will not be another one until the rating level, should diVer fromAeq the L plus ten about 5.45. During that period half a dozen or so that is an indication that complaints are likely.90 If it trains will be moving to and from depots. should diVer from L by plus five it is marginal as regards complaints and,A90 going to the other extreme, 211. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: We if it is ten below the L it is a positive indication that are planning ten years ahead not to change anything? complaints are unlikely.90 The reason for that is if a (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I am not an expert on those sound is ten dB less than a background level it is matters, my Lord. eVectively inaudible. Moving84 on to slide 43, we come to construction noise as the first of the sequence of 212. MR ELVIN: To some extent the level of service slides I have on mitigation, the ways in which noise is will be predicated on the Access Option in due controlled and reduced. Starting again with course. construction noise, it is controlled primarily by (Mr Thornely-Taylor) We move from underground methods of working and modern plant. Construction operational noise to the operation of plant81 on the plant has fallen in noise level significantly in the past surface. If we go to slide 40, here we bring in a new couple of decades since BS 5228 was first written and standard called “4142” which is used for all kinds of extensive use of noise barriers, enclosures of noisy noise of an industrial or commercial nature. To be machinery, monitoring and management of specific, it applies to noise from factories, industrial construction noise is vital, but if all that still leaves premises, fixed installations or sources of an levels above the relevant thresholds there is a noise industrial nature in commercial premises. The most insulation policy and the temporary re-housing important application of it for Crossrail is for what policy. The line at the bottom is crucial, the Control is called loosely “fixed plant tunnel ventilation fans”. of Pollution Act 1974 introduced a system of Being the biggest example of fixed plant, the fans on controlling construction noise. Section 61 of that Act all underground systems are very large. Those on 82 Crossrail will be substantially larger than they are for (LINEWD-RTT01-041) underground lines because we are dealing not with an 83 (LINEWD-RTT01-042)Crossrail Ref: P4, Standards—Operation—Fixed Plant 81 84 (LINEWD-RTT01-040) RTT01-043)Crossrail Ref: P4, Standards—Operation—Fixed Plant Crossrail Ref: P4, Standards—Operation—Fixed Plant Crossrail Ref: P4, Mitigation—Construction Noise (LINEWD- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
30 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration provides for the voluntary application for a consent fixed rails often produce both rumble and physical for construction works, which is devised to bring vibration, you either feel it or if there is a chair with its about the use of the best practical means to minimise back against the wall and you hear the chair buzzing noise, and a local authority can grant consent or against the wall as the structures vibrate, that kind of grant it with conditions and, having done that, it vibration is universally predicted to disappear from becomes an oVence to exceed or to contravene the the environment above modern underground terms of the consent. It is part of the Crossrail scheme railways as a consequence of the improvement in the that all construction sites will be subject to section 61 track support89 system. We have seen the next two applications and, therefore, controlled in this way. slides, the picture of the rail support and the floating slab, so we jump to slide 50 and we are very nearly at 214. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: If it the end. The fixed plant I was talking about, the cannot be kept, can people be compensated? mitigation is by the fitting of things known as “noise (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The only form of attenuators”, loosely called “silencers” on fans. They compensation is through the payment for the are very large units, particularly for the enormous installation of noise insulation or financing the cost fans that we find on Crossrail and the acoustical of temporary re-housing. engineering of plant installations is a well understood discipline and it is possible to reduce noise by design. 215. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Not That brings us to an end of the mitigation section. I for disturbance? have just got a few slides to talk about prediction (Mr Thornely-Taylor) There is no simple --- There is methods and the uncertainty associated with them, another session on compensation, I would not given that we do rely on prediction in the planning of presume to be a compensation expert, but I can85 say the railway. Slide 51, construction noise being an within the noise scheme there is no payment of money important potential impact, it is important to have an other than for physical mitigation of the kind that I idea as to how accurate the predictions one makes have described. Slide 44 deals with vibration. The will be and when the Crossrail scheme was first vibration is not susceptible to noise barriers and promoted in the early 1990s the Jubilee Line enclosures, it can be controlled by methods of Extension was90 under construction and there were working, the timing of events that might cause some major work sites, not just Westminster that I vibration annoyance and particularly monitoring have already referred to but Canada Water and and management of any vibration that might cause Canary Wharf. The then Crossrail project financed harm to buildings or sensitive equipment. a study of those sites to compare measured Interestingly, vibration is considered as noise as far as construction noise levels with predictions made using the Control of Pollution Act is concerned and the a variety of diVerent approaches. The uncertainty section 61 consent will deal with vibration in just the was found to be confined within a limit of about 3 same way as it does noise. Moving to slide 45 surface dB(A), which is actually a reassuring conclusion, and railway noise will be mitigated by noise barriers, given that DS 5228 includes some basic noise noise insulation where eligibility arises and, of information which is now very old, it91 is quite course, given my comments about86 the importance of common to find construction sites that are much the rail running 87 surface and the wheel tread quieter than predicted. Slide 52 again is about condition, maintenance is also an important method prediction methods, this time surface noise. There is of mitigating operationalnoise. Going underground a statutory procedure for doing that, produced to again, slide 46 — accompany the railway noise insulation regulations. Because of the importance of track quality, as we 216. MR ELVIN:88 I think we have already have been discussing, Defra commissioned a study to anticipated— look at the influence of track conditions on the (Mr Thornely-Taylor) We have just about done that, predictions you get and that recommended what it I think, and slide 47. It is important to bear in mind calls “a back end correction”—I see that I failed to that all the predictions show vibration that is get the “n” into “speed dependent”—it suggests that perceptible not by the hearing but by the technical there should be92 a correction of two and a half dB for sense of touch, it is body movement we are talking 100km/h for average variation in the acoustic quality about, disappears altogether in modern underground of the track. Slide 53, the fixed plant I have been railways. The old fashioned railways with the direct talking about. There are standard procedures in the 85 mechanical services industry for predicting received (LINEWD-RTT01-044) 86 noise level at sensitive locations and the uncertainty noiseCrossrail (LINEWD-RTT01-045) Ref: P4, Mitigation—Construction Vibration 89 87 (LINEWD-RTT01-050) andCrossrail vibration Ref: (LINEWD-RTT01-046) P4, Mitigation—Operation—Surface railway 90 88 91 Crossrail Ref: P4, Mitigation—Operation—Fixed Plant andCrossrail vibration Ref: (LINEWD-RTT01-047) P4, Mitigation—Operation—Groundborne noise 92 Crossrail Ref: P4, Predictions (LINEWD-RTT01-051) Crossrail Ref: P4, Mitigation—Operation—Groundborne noise Crossrail Ref: P4, Predictions (LINEWD-RTT01-052) Crossrail Ref: P4, Predictions (LINEWD-RTT01-053) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 31
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration associated with that process is built into the base noises cause fright but, as you approach Gatwick assumptions and the93 prediction method that is used. Airport, you see a field of sheep grazing quietly in the Penultimately, slide 54, underground noise is field on the left as you go down the road. It is quite predicted by simulating the running of the train in the diYcult to find any research results other than startle tunnel numerically. When Mr Elvin introduced me eVects on animals. I think, in general, there is not a he referred to a finite diVerence computer package particular need to treat them diVerently from humans called “Findwave” which has been used in the in that respect. preparation of the Environmental Statement and all predictions of groundborne noise which actually in a 219. BARONESS FOOKES: That is all I needed to numerical form simulates with the passage of time in know. Thank you. very tiny increments of small time steps the movement of a train over the rails on their resilient 220. CHAIRMAN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, that was supports on the concrete in the base of the tunnel, extremely interesting. Thank you very much. I think including the tunnel wall, the diVerent kinds of soil it is not inconceivable that we may see you again with around the tunnel and the nature of the buildings some of the Petitioners, and we look forward to that. above. There is uncertainty associated with it, there is For the moment, thank you very much indeed. a validation report in the specialist technical report, but the important consideration is that, although in 221. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I have one message that detail there can be uncertainty—and slide 55 94 I was passed for my Lord, Lord Snape, in respect of continues this topic—the prediction can come up his question; just to let him know that the RER does with a peak in the noise at slightly the wrong not have rubber tyres. frequency. There can be uncertainties of that kind, but because we use high level indicators like dB(A) or NC curves when we are dealing with recording 222. LORD SNAPE: They did the last time I was studios, they eVectively remove the sensitivity of the there, Mr Elvin! Perhaps it is a while since I was there. results to small errors in the prediction such as peaks Of course; I am sorry, it was the Metro, anyway, not being at the wrong frequency, you still end up with a the RER. very similar high level index value such as a dB(A) level. We did extensive studies on the uncertainty of 223. CHAIRMAN: Is this collection of slides going this prediction method, as a result of which the actual to be made available to the Petitioners? model outputs used for the Environment Statement and subsequent predictions have all had five dB(A) 224. MR ELVIN: Yes. Copies can be made for added to them for uncertainty so where, for example, anyone who requires them. Indeed, it may be possible there is a prediction of 40 dB L the computer even to put them on the website, if the Committee output actually said 35. That, myAm Lords,ax completes thinks that is appropriate. As I said, we supplied a all my slides. I hope I have covered everything that is draft of those slides to Sharpe Pritchard, who are of interest, but I would be glad to expand on anything Agents for the two lead authorities remaining, that I have not. dealing with noise issues.
217. CHAIRMAN: Do any of my colleagues have 225. CHAIRMAN: I think you may have some any further questions? more questions on some of these points that we have been talking about. 218. BARONESS FOOKES: Could I raise very briefly something totally diVerent. You referred to 226. MR ELVIN: If the events in the other place are the impact on the human ear and its range of sounds; anything to go by, I suspect you will be hearing a little it is quite diVerent for animals. I am wondering about more on this subject—but perhaps less than in the the impact on domesticated animals and maybe other place. living with human beings aVected or not aVected by these noises? 227. CHAIRMAN: Unless there is anything else, Mr (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is true to say that animals Elvin, I think that brings us to the end of this are aVected in slightly diVerent ways from humans, afternoon, and we will start again with another teach- their hearing organs are diVerent. Some of them can in at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning, but with a hear to higher frequencies, as we all know. In general, diVerent expert. all the research into the eVect of noise on animals shows them to be remarkably unaVected by noise 228. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: One unless there is a startle component to it. Sudden final question, my Lord Chairman. Which is the 93 nearest equivalent that we could look at to what 94 Crossrail will be like? Crossrail Ref: P4, Predictions (LINEWD-RTT01-054) Crossrail Ref: P4, Predictions (LINEWD-RTT01-055) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:06:21 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400396 Unit: PAG1
32 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
19 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on noise and vibration
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) My Lord, the nearest 231. BARONESS FOOKES: Is there likely to be equivalent from the point of view of groundborne any pile driving going on? noise in this country is the Jubilee Line Extension. It (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The general answer is no. is a smaller diameter tunnel, the trains are smaller, Most pile insertion will be by auguring into the but it is the first major example of the great leap ground or by using diaphragm walls instead of piles. forward in track design for underground railways. There may be some insertion of sheet piles by Sadly, it is very hard to find anywhere where you can vibratory means and it is not impossible that local hear it. I was given the job of finding somewhere to do circumstances might require more aggressive forms measurements for the original Crossrail project and I of insertion, but in general the answer is no—of the ended up in the second basement of Christies in King kind I think you have in mind. Street as being the only place I could find where you could hear it at all. It would be, I think, impossible to 232. BARONESS FOOKES: I ask because during arrange a site visit because I do not know of the Jubilee Line Extension I was a Deputy Speaker in anywhere that there is anything to hear. The Channel the Commons and sitting in the Speaker’s Chair one Tunnel Rail Link is also an underground railway; it, night it felt like a series of minor earthquakes. too, was designed to 40 L . I have done some (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is something which I investigations to see how it hasAmax turned,S out, but all the hope will not occur on Crossrail, my Lady. indications are that it, too, is very low in level. I think it would be hard—the diYculty is that the actual noise levels from modern underground railways are 233. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. So 10 very low and it is extremely diYcult to find anywhere o’clock tomorrow morning and we will deal with to listen to them. compensation to start with.
229. LORD SNAPE: I suspect, Mr Thornely- 234. MR ELVIN: Yes. Mr Mould will be leading on Taylor, my distinguished colleague has asked the compensation and Ms Lieven will be leading on wrong question. What he means: is there any settlement tomorrow. comparison between Crossrail and the RER in Paris? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) There are major engineering diVerences between the tunnels and the stations, but 235. CHAIRMAN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, we will I will leave it to others to expand on that. look forward to seeing you again some time in the future. 230. LORD SNAPE: I feared as much, my Lord (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I will look forward to it very Chairman. much, my Lord. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 33
DAY TWO WEDNESDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Fookes, B Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Snape, L
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
236. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. The next stage (Mr Smith) Yes, that is correct. of tuition, please. 245. MR MOULD: And you had been employed 237. MR MOULD: Thank you, my Lord within London Transport since 1979. Chairman. As you know, this morning’s first business (Mr Smith) Yes. is to say a little about land compensation and related matters. Before we launch into that may I introduce to you Mr Colin Smith who is sitting at the witness 246. MR MOULD: In the course of your time with table. London Transport you dealt with a number of railway bills in Parliament relating to London, including the Jubilee Line, the Jubilee Line MrColinSmith, Sworn Extension, the Docklands Light Railway, the Examined byMrMould Piccadilly Line Extension to Heathrow and the extension to embrace Terminal 4, and the London 238. MR MOULD: Mr Smith, you are a Chartered Transport Safety Measures Bill, is that correct? Surveyor. (Mr Smith) Yes, that is correct. (Mr Smith) Yes. 247. MR MOULD: Is it right that in the course of 239. MR MOULD: And a Fellow of the Royal acting in relation to those Bills you gave expert Institution of Chartered Surveyors. evidence to this House and to committees in the other (Mr Smith) Yes. place on matters relating to compulsory purchase and land compensation? (Mr Smith) Yes, that is correct. 240. MR MOULD: You have been a surveyor for some 38 years, is that correct? (Mr Smith) Correct. 248. MR MOULD: As regards your experience, it is fundamentally concerned with advising on property 241. MR MOULD: You practise in the firm of Colin matters in relation to railways and transport Smith Associates Limited. undertakings in London. (Mr Smith) (Mr Smith) Yes. Yes.
242. MR MOULD: And your firm is presently 249. MR MOULD: In addition to your work with retained by Crossrail London Links Limited to Crossrail London Links Limited you are retained by advise in relation to property matters as regards the Transport for London to act as an expert witness in Crossrail scheme. relation to the proposed Victoria Station upgrade (Mr Smith) That is correct. which is to be the subject of a Transport and Works Act proposal. (Mr Smith) Yes, that is correct. 243. MR MOULD: Including, amongst other things, matters relating to compulsory acquisition, land compensation, land disposal and arrangements 250. MR MOULD: Thank you very much indeed, for over-site development. Mr Smith. My Lord, what I propose to do is I shall (Mr Smith) Yes. provide a very, very brief summary of the basic legal provisions which I suspect certainly yourself— 244. MR MOULD: Before you entered private practice you were for some ten years, from 1993, 251. CHAIRMAN: The Land Compensation Director of Property at London Transport. Schemes? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
34 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation
252. MR MOULD: Exactly, yes. Then I am going to 257. CHAIRMAN: Is there still a Lands Tribunal? I hand over very quickly indeed to Mr Smith who is do not think there is. going to explain how the Crossrail Bill and the Crossrail scheme more generally embrace the land 258. MR MOULD: There is, yes. There are on- compensation provisions set out in the statutes and going discussions as to precisely where it will fit into give some practical illustrations and guidance in the new tribunal framework. relation to land compensation and the emerging proposals. 259. CHAIRMAN: It is the first stage.
253. CHAIRMAN: This presentation will be 260. MR MOULD: I am told it is a second tier available to everybody as well, will it? tribunal. Those arrangements remain incomplete. 1 There is no doubt at all that the Lands Tribunal will 254. MR MOULD: It will indeed, yes. If we can continue to perform the function. have slide 2, please. This is a summary of the topics that we are going to cover over the course of the next 261. BARONESS FOOKES: What is the status of hour or so. We are going to touch on cases where the the National Compensation Code? whole land interest is acquired for the purposes of the scheme, cases where only part of a property interest 262. MR MOULD: The National Compensation is acquired, then turn to cases where no land is Code is a convenient way of describing a series of acquired in the context of the construction phase of Acts of Parliament which establish the rules for land the railway, then deal with cases which relate to compensation. Formally there3 is not such a thing as neighbouring property aVected by the operation of the Land Compensation Code which one can see the railway once it has been completed, then turn to enshrined in a single document. Indeed the next slide cases of temporary acquisition, then just summarize is a way of illustrating that. There one sees the main the Promoters’ land acquisition and disposal policies statutes which make up what we call the National and, finally, turn to touch on blight and our hardship Compensation Code and they are the Land 2 policy to finish oV the presentation. Compensation Acts 1961 and 1973, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the Planning and Compensation 255. The next slide, please. This slide sets out the Act 1991 and, most recently, the Planning and over-arching policy of what we call the National Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Compensation Code. We draw out these principles. Firstly, the Code provides a consistent approach to 263. We have also drawn attention to the fact that as the payment of fair compensation for land recently as December 2005, so during the passage of acquisition. The principle is commonly described as the current Crossrail Bill through its parliamentary one of equivalence and we have quoted a very well process, the Government responded to a suite of known passage from a decision of Lord Justice Scott reports by the Law Commission in relation to the in the Court of Appeal in a case called Horn v compulsory purchase legislation and, in a nutshell, Sunderland Corporation where he put it this way, that indicated that it was not minded at the present time the aim “Gives to the owner compelled to sell . . . to make any alterations to the existing statutory compensation—the right to be put, so far as money provisions. If I can just elaborate a little on that for can do it, in the same position as if his land had not the assistance of the Committee. The Law been taken from him.” In a much more recent case in Commission had recommended that whilst the the House of Lords Lord Nicolls summarised matters existing substance of land compensation provisions in the happy phrase that the objective is to provide should remain essentially unaltered there was a case “the fair financial equivalent” of the land for the creation of a single statute—in updated compulsorily acquired. language—in order to facilitate easy understanding of the complex provisions of the Code. The Government’s response was, firstly, to acknowledge 256. The other point we would wish to draw out is that in principle that was a desirable objective, but that, so far as procedure is concerned, a landowner then to say that it was not minded to follow that who has his land taken for the purposes of the scheme course at the present time. It emphasised that it saw is ultimately entitled to an independent and impartial great advantage in maintaining the current stable assessment of the compensation to which he claims to legislative framework for land compensation on the be entitled by the specialist tribunal set up for that basis that that provides certainty both for acquiring purpose, which is the Lands Tribunal. authorities and for those whose properties may need 1 to be acquired for the purposes of statutory (LINEWD-XR3-002) 2 3 CrossrailCode (LINEWD-XR3-003) Ref: P6, Teach In—Land Compensation Aspects Code (LINEWD-XR3-004) Crossrail Ref: P6, Introduction —The National Compensation Crossrail Ref: P6, Introduction —The National Compensation Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 35
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation undertakings. That is the position as regards the (Mr Smith) I will come on to that. No, it does not. It Code and the most recent consideration of the case is in addition to the value of the land. I have a couple for change under the auspices of the report of the of slides where, if you will bear with me, I will lay that Law Commission. We thought it would be useful to out in more detail, my Lord Chairman. the Committee to know that that work had been carried out. 267. The next one is a simple point, that in assessing value surveyors have to be consistent. A property is 264. We just mention briefly in the final part of that valued for either its existing use or, if it is worth more, slide that clearly in relation to disputes on points of its value for development, but one cannot add both law, as you would expect, those matters are generally together or play around with it. It is basically what dealt with, where they need to be arbitrated, by the one would get in the open market and I think courts, whereas as I pointed out already, the everybody would appreciate that. In addition to the assessment of land compensation in cases of dispute market value of the land is disturbance and having is a matter that remains the task of the Lands their legal and surveying costs and other costs paid. Tribunal. All of those matters remain the case under Owners are also entitled to a statutory loss payment the terms of the Crossrail Bill. 4 which I will describe in more detail later on, but it is another payment which I think the Government has introduced in order to compensate for the fact that 265. Can we have the next slide please. Mr Smith, I their property has been taken from them under have done my bit and now I am going to hand over compulsory purchase rather than by that owner to you. Perhaps you can help the Committee with the selling naturally in the market by agreement. If you points made on this particular slide. like, it goes back to the history of compensation (Mr Smith) Thank you. Good morning, my Lords. which was based upon loss to the owner. Even in the Let us start with some of the basic rules. I think it is original days there was some additional ‘sweetener’ worth dwelling on these just a little bit. Firstly, what that was paid. This statutory loss payment is a is an owner entitled to? Firstly, if an owner’s property sweetener to cover the pill of being compelled to sell. is being acquired compulsorily he is entitled to the open market value of that land interest and that is 268. MR MOULD: This is a new provision that was broadly defined as the amount that the owner may be introduced under the last of those statutes I expected to realise in the open market assuming a mentioned, under the Planning and Compulsory willing seller. I think that is the most important point Purchase Act 2004. to realise, that this may be discussed and agreed (Mr Smith) Yes, it is. between expert surveyors, but they will have regard to what that property was worth in the open market5 when it is acquired, so the owner gets the fair open 269. MR MOULD: And the Government explained market value. In addition, an owner will get, if he is this by indicating that it was part of a suite of minor an occupier, disturbance or other losses paid. I will changes to the existing law with a view to oiling the come on in more detail to disturbance, merely to say wheels of the compulsory purchase process so as to here it is not based upon the value of land. They are facilitate its current policy of encouraging losses that are in addition to land value. I think it is regeneration proposals where they are justified and important to realise right at stage one that the so forth. Compensation Code does allow for owners aVected (Mr Smith) Correct, yes. Moving forward, when to be professionally represented. So losses do include surveyors are to establish the open market value of a their costs of having qualified surveyors and qualified property that is aVected by a public work, a road lawyers to help them deal with their claim and that is scheme or, in this case, Crossrail obviously that paid for by the acquiring authority. There should not property may be decreased in value in the market be a “big brother” impact where you have somebody because of the existence of the scheme itself and the who is out of their depth; they are entitled to free fact it is going to be acquired. The rules in professional advice. compulsory purchase are that one must ignore that in assessing value. Surveyors have to value the property in a no-scheme world, as if the scheme did not exist 266. CHAIRMAN: Mr Smith, I think I know what and the person was willing and able to sell that disturbance means. In the case of a private owner of property in the open market. It is a very important a house, does the open market value on the basis of a principle. notional willing seller include the costs of removal and all that sort of thing? 270. MR MOULD: This is an important facet of the 4 principle of equivalence that we discussed earlier, (LINEWD-XR3-005) 5 that any blighting eVect of the scheme should not Crossrail(LINEWD-XR3-006) Ref: P6, Compensation—Land Acquired Basic Rules influence the market value of the property but, Crossrail Ref: P6, Disturbancec—typical commercial premises Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
36 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation equally, the market value of the property should not (Mr Smith) Yes. Broadly speaking the Bill provides be enhanced only by any increase in value that results for compulsory powers for Crossrail to acquire some simply from the scheme itself, the so-called ‘Pointe 120 properties by addresses. One can split these in Gourde principle’. many diVerent ways. Thirteen of those 120 addresses (Mr Smith) When is the land assessed for valuation are residential and the remainder are commercial or purposes under compulsory powers? The valuation plots of land. There are 13 residential properties and date is broadly when, in this case, Crossrail or a over 100 commercial. Of those residential, some of public entity enters upon the land to construct the those are in blocks of flats and therefore they works. Generally speaking that is the valuation date. comprise 42 residential units. That gives a flavour of In specific circumstances there are diVerences and I what we are acquiring. The first example here is will come on to those later on, but generally that will where it describes a whole land interest acquired, a be the valuation date for Crossrail. So it will be the commercial owner non-occupier. We are really open market value of the land at the date Crossrail looking here at compensation paid to a property enters upon the site to build the works. It is possible, investor for a commercial property. He will receive of course, that when Crossrail enters upon the site compensation for the open market value of his some compensation claims will not be settled; interest in the property. Very often that is a compensation will still be due to the owner even freeholder or long leasehold interest. That value though Crossrail has entered upon the site and, would be assessed by expert surveyors having regard therefore, the compensation provisions allow for to transactions of similar properties and similar sorts interest to be paid on compensation due from that in the market. He would receive the open market date until they are paid and that will be at a value. In addition, and this is a new point that has prescribed rate laid down by Government. It moves been recently introduced, he will receive up and down with the base rate and is generally more compensation for reinvestment costs of his money. It than the base rate, but again owners do not lose out is the point of equivalence again. By compelling him to sell he has to reinvest that money to keep his in that way. When a property is assessed in terms of investment alive and those costs of reinvestment are value it is as if we are selling our homes, we have to a fair equivalent in a payment to that owner. He will come to a decision as to whether we want to sell it at also be paid his reasonable fees and legal costs and a particular price. The price in property is not always what is called a basic loss payment which is based at exact, there can be diVerences of opinion, but what 7.5 per cent of the market value up to a maximum of one cannot do is say, “I’ve sold my house a year ago. £75,000. That is the basic loss payment which Mr The market has gone up and I would like that extra Mould and myself were referring to just before. increase”. You sell your house at the time taking into account all foreseeable facts. The same goes for compensation, that at the time, at the valuation date 272. CHAIRMAN: Before you leave that slide, if it you assess the property, as you do there, in full and is not a freehold interest that is being bought but a final settlement, but you cannot claim additions that tenancy the same principles apply, do they not? happen following that, they are normal market (Mr Smith) Yes. If it is a leasehold interest but not movements. This is a point that is very often raised. an occupier exactly the same principles apply, that is The last point is that a person aVected, an owner or right. The next slide. This is just meant to give a a claimant, as we call it here, must continue to flavour. There are quite a lot of diVerent commercial manage his aVairs in a reasonable manner despite the premises that may be aVected. You will have things like sandwich bars, oYces and shops that could be compulsory purchase. It is tough for some of these 6 owners that are aVected because they do not want to aVected. leave, they are being compelled to sell. A light touch is applied here because one has to have regard to their 273. The next slide. Moving on, we are now looking sometimes diYcult circumstances. What one cannot at where a commercial occupier is acquired rather do is just simply give up the ghost and claim for losses than an investor. He will receive the open market that occur frankly because the business or the value of the freehold and leasehold interest as enterprise is not continuing to be run properly. This described. In addition he will be able to claim is a point that is enshrined in the basic rules. If I can disturbance or other losses from occupation. Before move to the next slide. We will speed up from now on. we get into the detail, the principles are laid out there which were happily laid down by the courts quite recently in a case called Shung Fung from Hong Kong 271. MR MOULD: Just before you start on what is and that is that if there is going to be some a series of slides relating to particular categories of disturbance payments to an occupier, which there is, properties acquired, can we just give the Committee there has to be in principle a causal connection a very brief flavour of the degree of compulsory 6 acquisition that is proposed under the Crossrail Bill? Occupier—relocation (LINEWD-XR3-008) Crossrail Ref: P6, Whole land interest acquired Commercial Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 37
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation between the loss and the acquisition, so the loss for money test. Broadly speaking, if one is acquiring claimed must be linked to the acquisition. That link a new property, and let us imagine it is rather must be a direct and reasonable consequence of the tumbled-down, the owner would buy it for a lower acquisition and the dispossession of this person from price and he may refurbish that property to bring it the premises and it should not be too remote in its up and improve it. Where those costs are improving assessments. These are the broad principles which we the value of a property, it is deemed that the owner surveyors can then use in looking at the details which has value for money in his hands, so that is not a I shall come on to in another slide. compensatable item. Also, the cost of the new property is not on this list because again it is assumed 274. MR MOULD: This is one of these rules where that that is value for money in the claimant’s hands, you can recognise the beast when you see it, is it not? if you like, and he will purchase that new property. It all sounds a little dry in the principles, but I think Essentially, compensation is all about compensating when we come on to the next slide we will get some the owner for his existing premises and his existing pretty good examples of the sort of things in business, not the new premises, but the cost of principles which would fall under the embrace of this adapting and fitting those out is fine, but improving approach. their value is a value for money test which is not (Mr Smith) Yes. In addition an occupier could allowable, but that is just a small point. A bigger receive a basic loss payment for his interest in land. point I want to emphasise is that, given that there are An occupier’s loss payment, which is an additional sometimes problems in finding suitable alternative 7 payment, is up to the maximum figure of £25,000. premises, Crossrail has agreed to set up an agency service and this is to assist businesses in relocating and, to summarise this, it will set up this service to 275. The next slide, please. Moving on, we are now give lists of premises that may be suitable to an still on the commercial occupier who is going to be owner’s particular requirements, so they have to find aVected and this deals with the commercial occupier out what his requirements are and where he is who is aVected and relocates to new premises. The searching for premises, and to try and help give lists aim for acquiring authorities and certainly for of premises to owners aVected of premises that are Crossrail is, wherever possible, we want to see these available in the market. I would add though that it is businesses relocated. The sort of heads of claim that in compensation law the decision of the owner as to an owner can come forward with that are generally where he relocates and what premises he accepts. The valid heads of claim and are accepted generically are acquiring authority is not like big brother, saying, the costs of searching for new premises. Searching “You will move there”. It is his choice and he has to would be agents’ costs. You could have also, in make that choice, not Crossrail. addition to that, directors of staV costs involved with the move. That could either be a direct payment or it 276. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman, could aVect the profitability of the firm which is could I just ask, is there any precedent for the agency compensatable. There is adaptation and fit out of service with other big schemes or is this something new premises found. There could be a temporary loss entirely new? of profits to a business if it moves. Sometimes (Mr Smith) I believe it was introduced in CTRL. businesses cannot give guarantees to clients that they can fulfil a contract and where that is clearly shown it is a compensatable item. We have loss of goodwill 277. MR MOULD: Yes, that is right. or permanent loss of profits where a business permanently loses its customer base. This could 278. BARONESS FOOKES: And it worked? happen if, for example, a business could not find (Mr Smith) I think it did, but I was not involved in anything within its normal customer base and had to that. move a good distance away. It could lose a permanent sector of its profit and that again is 279. MR MOULD: So far as we are aware, it was compensatable. There will be other things, such as considered to be a reasonable success, yes.8 advertising, relocation, reprinting of stationery, (Mr Smith) The next slide assumes a commercial removal costs, stamp duty land tax payable on a occupier is aVected, but his business cannot relocate similar property and the normal fees and other costs. and, as I have said, this is the downside. If it is just Those are some generic types of claims that are simply not practically possible, and I would allowable depending on a case-by-case basis and on emphasise that I think relocation is something we the facts provided. I hope that gives an indication of look to wherever possible, again the occupier receives the sorts of things that come up. In all of this there is the open market value of his interest, so that could be a test applied by the Lands Tribunal which is a value freehold or leasehold. Now, the disturbance here will
7 8 Occupier—relocation (LINEWD-XR3-009) Occupier—close down (LINEWD-XR3-010) Crossrail Ref: P6, Whole land interest acquired Commercial Crossrail Ref: P6, Whole land interest acquired Commercial Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
38 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation be the value of the business to the owner, so this is laid carpets for a new place. Would that be included in down in case law and by the Lands Tribunal. They that or not? have given advice and guidance on how surveyors (Mr Smith) Not normally. What would normally be approach this and they have applied diVerent, if you done in those circumstances is that a value would be like, multipliers to profits which one can refer to, but ascribed to the existing. If an owner is not taking I think the sorts of things that would aVect the value curtains and carpets with them, then a value will be of a business are, firstly, what would an owner receive ascribed to that in addition to the value of the for that business if he was selling it on the open property. market, and that is the minimum he receives in compensation. He may receive more because it is not exactly a land value, this is a loss to the owner. The 283. So you could then use the money to purchase? sort of compensation will depend on the type of (Mr Smith)10 To help purchase, absolutely. We are business that is there, the period it has been now moving on to where a residential tenant is in established, the level of profits and the trend of occupation of a property that is compulsorily profits and obviously all these factors will come into acquired. These are normally held these days on a play in assessing the value of that business. In shorthold tenancy probably for about a year or up to addition to that, an owner who is forced to close a year and normally there would be no value paid for down a business can receive the loss on the forced sale that tenancy as it is merely a short agreement and the of stock, he can receive the value of fixtures and occupier is paying full rent, but in addition he would fittings in situ, not a second-hand value, but the value get normal disturbance costs which are shown here. to the business in situ, redundancy or close-down They are very similar to the costs that apply to owner- costs that may occur and his normal fees and costs in occupiers. You will note that the home loss payment the normal course of events, plus of course the for tenancies is less at £4,400 rather than a maximum statutory loss payment is already covered. of £44,000. Just very quickly, some sites have development value, so there are just a couple of points we need to raise here. Firstly, an owner will 280. The phrase “total extinguishment” is often one receive the market value of his interest, the higher of that is used to describe this kind of situation, is it not? redevelopment or existing use value, and, to explain (Mr Smith) Yes. this, it cannot be both because in the case which Mr Mould referred to where a farm was basically being acquired, but it was allocated for redevelopment, in 281. I mention that just in case that phrase is used that case, Horn v Sunderland, the claimant asked for later in the course of proceedings. disturbance costs to the farm in addition to the (Mr Smith) If we move on to the next slide please, we 9 redevelopment value and it was held that, where are now on to residential and we are now looking at someone is selling their property for redevelopment, the likely payments to a residential owner-occupier implicit in that is an acknowledgement that their compulsorily acquired. Again, he will receive the occupation will be disturbed because obviously, if the open market value of his residence, assessed again as property is going to be demolished, they will be described earlier. The sort of disturbance claims that disturbed. Therefore, disturbance is not payable on arise here are searching for new premises, adaptation redevelopment, so it is either redevelopment or of soft furnishings to fit the new premises (say, if existing use plus disturbance. In assessing someone wants particularly to take a carpet and they development value, all I can say is that the statutes have to have it refitted), utility reconnection costs lay down rather complicated statutory planning which are a normal moving item, notification of assumptions which surveyors have to take into change of address, removal costs, stamp duty land account. I think that they can be best described as the tax on a similar property, fees and costs, and the fact that we should ignore any change in value due value for money argument applies as previously only to the scheme and I think that, if that is the described. In addition, a residential owner-occupier principle, then it is the one that is easiest to follow will receive a home loss payment up to a maximum of without getting into all the details. This can easily be £44,000 in addition to any compensation payable for described where you do not want to pay somebody the value of the land or disturbance. That gives an less because a property is blighted, but you do not idea of what a residential occupier will receive. want also to pay them more just because the scheme may increase the value. There is a celebrated case 282. BARONESS FOOKES: Just before we move which happened in Trinidad actually, it was called on, you mentioned the adaptation of soft furnishings, the Pointe Gourde case where the Government but very often in practice it means new curtains, new wanted to build a naval base and, therefore, wanted carpets, et cetera, rather than adapting your old to acquire a quarry. The owners of the quarry said,
9 10 Occupier—Residential Owner Occupier (LINEWD-XR3-012) Occupier—Residential tenant (LINEWD-XR3-013) Crossrail Ref: P6, Whole land interest acquired Commercial Crossrail Ref: P6, Whole land interest acquired Commercial Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 39
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation
“Oh, that’s good. We’ll make a lot more money now acquire subsoil land for tunnels. In these cases, part you want to build a naval base than we would only of the land is acquired, so the market value of otherwise” because this quarry was almost disused. the land acquired is assessed, but, in addition12 to that What was held was that the quarry had a value and market value that we have already discussed, the they had to be compensated for it, but that extra owner is entitled to the depreciation to the retained value element that was due to the profits that would land which may be due to the scheme. Therefore, if, be made to construct the naval base which was the for example, the property retained is worth less scheme was not allowable. In other cases, sometimes because of the impact of the scheme, that highways give access to land which opens it up to depreciation is also payable in compensation. Going development, so, if somebody has land which has back to equivalence, the owner should be put in the increased in value just because of the scheme, that is same position before and after. There are very rare not allowable. As I have said, it is all equivalence; we cases where the public works actually give ignore the decrease and we ignore the increase due to betterment, as I have referred to. They are rare and I the scheme. do not think there will be any of those coming up, but I only put it there because it is equivalence. In 284. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: addition, where part only of the land is acquired, the Could I ask if you know the number of cases that fall owner is entitled to disturbance and other losses, and into each of these categories that we are examining the valuation date is the same; it is when Crossrail will so far? enter upon the land.
285. MR MOULD: The honest answer is no, I 289. BARONESS FOOKES: I probably ought to cannot give you a figure. Broadly, these sites, Mr know this, but in property law how deep does Smith, please correct me if I am wrong, are sites ownership go? I had never thought of it before, which, in the absence11 of Crossrail, would be except that we are now having deep tunnels. identified as having development potential and, is (Mr Smith) I think the answer is that you buy to the this right, would generally be commercial rather than centre of the earth. It is rather hot, I think, if you do! residential properties? (Mr Smith) They would be commercial, yes. 290. MR MOULD: And up to the heavens! (Mr Smith) I will come on to subsoil in a minute. 286. So they would fall within that figure of, I think you said, about 100-odd commercial properties 291. CHAIRMAN: In this context, Mr Smith, the which are earmarked for acquisition? disturbance would include, would it, say, a necessity (Mr Smith) Not all of those will have development to put in double-glazing? potential. (Mr Smith) Yes, it could do. Yes, that would be a mitigation measure to try and reduce it, yes, quite 287. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I am right. If we now move to where a part only of land is just trying to get in my head the scale of the problem acquired, what we call ‘material detriment’, where that we might have in each category and the extent to part only is acquired, but the remaining premises of which we will have to focus our attention on the the owner are aVected in such a way that there is a bigger ones rather than the smaller ones, if we have to material loss to the retained land or a material impact in fact focus our attention. to the future use and enjoyment of that property, and this can arise13 from construction or use, then the whole property can be acquired under compulsory 288. MR MOULD: We have tried to identify purchase where an applicant so requires and can categories where, on the basis of the Petitions that we make a case. The test here as laid down by the Lands have seen obviously, you can expect some debate and Tribunal is not necessarily the extent of land that the I hope that helps, so we are trying, as it were, to give acquiring owner buys, but the impact of the scheme you a little foretaste of some of the points or the on the retained property. If we think back to background, if you like, the context in which those equivalence, if it is so aVected that it just cannot cases might have to be considered. Whether that in continue reasonably, then this occurs and there is an fact is the case when we come to hear those Petitions, example that we will come on to here, but I just want we obviously will have to see. to emphasise that, where we are buying land, what we (Mr Smith) I now move to a quick explanation where call ‘subsoil’, and this is land lower than 9 metres for part only of a property is acquired, for example, a tunnels, so we are 30 feet down, these provisions do forecourt, parking space or some land is acquired for not apply to those. Broadly speaking, those owners the scheme, but other parts are retained by the owner. In particular, this may apply with Crossrail where we 12 Rules (LINEWD-XR3-015) 11 13 development potential (LINEWD-XR3-014) MaterialCrossrail Detriment Ref: P6, Compensation—Part(LINEWD-XR3-016) only acquired—Basic Crossrail Ref: P6, Whole land interest acquired—Site with Crossrail Ref: P6, Compensation—Part only acquired— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
40 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation17 can get the depreciation in the value of their retained show as an example. Moving on to subsoil, broadly land, but they cannot ask the acquiring authority to speaking, subsoil is described as land beneath 9 buy the whole property. This has been a precedent metres. If one can imagine that there will be tunnels that has been set in railway bills for as long as I have going across London at quite considerable depths, known and well before then. I think it does arise but generally more than 9 metres, they have to miss because, firstly, where there are deep tunnels, foundations, other Tube lines, sewers and everything especially if you look across London, in many cases else. Generally speaking, an owner just having there is very, very little impact on value anyway and subsoil acquired from him will receive the market in any case, when historically railway authorities value of that strip of subsoil. However, it is generally have built new schemes, they have agreed to pay the a nominal value only because there is no general damage of settlement that they may cause if and market for strips of subsoil, but, as described to you when they tunnel. If that does arise, they have agreed before, in addition he will receive any reduction to his to repay that damage, so I think, taking all of that retained property from either construction or use of into account, that describes why there is this the scheme. Obviously Crossrail will seek to reduce precedent, but I thought I ought to make it clear to the impact on properties generally through your Lordships that that is the case. mitigation measures, so the way forward is to design those out as far as is reasonably practicable at the 292. CHAIRMAN: Leaving aside the subsoil for the front end. You have already heard about the noise moment, the rest of this process is eVectively a reverse policy yesterday. There is a Code of Construction compulsory purchase, is it not? Practice which covers the proper management of the (Mr Smith) Yes, it is. construction sites. There is a Crossrail settlement policy which I believe will be presented to you and that covers proper monitoring and repair of 293. And it can be contested? settlement if it does occur. All these are taken into (Mr Smith) It can be contested, that is true. If I may account in the compensation assessment, so they can move on, there is one case here and I should make it receive reduction,18 but we hope to minimise that at the clear that there is a property here at 20 Moorfields. front end. Next, this is an extract from the There are some Petitioners that own this property environmental impact statement, and next is Bond and they have applied to have the material detriment Street West. In blue are the tunnels and the area provisions applied to this property. Crossrail has hatched yellow here is the station site that is being acceded to their request, hence I am raising it here. acquired, so that is19 being acquired down to the centre There may be other parts of their Petition that may14 of the earth and up to the heavens, whereas on the come before your Lordships which I will not want to subsoil, if we can go on to the next slide, this is an refer to because that would be wrong, but I just want illustrative section. We can see two tunnels here and to show you an example because I think it helps. what we are doing for the subsoil is acquiring strips of Here we have a property, 21 Moorfields, shown land for the tunnels together with a protective sleeve outlined in red. It is above Moorgate Tube Station around the tunnels. Generally, that is a three-metre and in front of it is a property, 100 Moorgate, which protective sleeve, although vertically it is six metres will also be demolished and that will be part of the up, and the reason for this is to protect the tunnels Liverpool Street west ticket hall. Also, there will be from future development. We have shown works in the street here15 to build the ticket hall. You illustratively piles here coming down and they do will see in red the property and hatched red is the area bring loads upon the tunnels and these protective required for Crossrail, probably no more than 5 or 7 sleeves just ensure that future development will not per cent of the whole. However, this is required to be impact upon that new infrastructure. demolished to construct the works and, if we can move to the next slide, it requires the demolition of 294. MR MOULD: Just before you turn to another part of16 the front oYce block and making that good and also it requires a new access to the whole of the topic, I just want to make clear to the Committee that oYce centre here which is over 100,000 square feet of you referred a few moments ago to the broad oYces. Those premises are accepted by Crossrail to entitlement in relation to subsoil acquisition and you be materially aVected by the scheme and, therefore, have mentioned, I think, previous to that that the we have not waited for a claim to be made, but we material detriment provisions which you described have agreed with the Petitioner upfront that we will did not apply to subsoil acquisition only. I should buy this whole property. I thought it useful just to make it clear that that qualification relates to any
14 subsoil acquisition, it is not limited to subsoil XR3-017) 17 15 Only (LINEWD-XR3-020) XR3-018)Crossrail Ref: P6, 21 Moorfields Aerial view 1 (LINEWD- 18 16 19 Crossrail Ref: P6, Illustrative Claim—Acquisition of Subsoil (LINEWD-XR3-019)Crossrail Ref: P6, 21 Moorfields Location Plan (LINEWD- (LINEWD-XR3-022) Crossrail Ref: P6, Bond Street West (LINEWD-XR3-021) Crossrail Ref: P6, 21 Moorfields Front Block Aerial View 2 Crossrail Ref: P6, Illustrative Section—Bond Street Station Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 41
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation acquired below that 9 metre limit and that reflects the 296. MR MOULD: That is right. The Law position under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act Commission in fact recommended no change to the which, as you know, was the most recent hybrid Bill existing law22 in relation to this point and obviously the that has been before this House. I thought I ought to Government accepted that recommendation. make that clear. Now, this is a topic which did give (Mr Smith) Yes, and, to summarise this, we go to the rise to debate in the select committee proceedings in next slide. What a person can claim for is the another place and indeed it is raised in Petitions devaluation of property from infringement of a before their Lordships’ House, is it not? property right, and the case is that, if in this case (Mr Smith) Yes, it is. I think the point to make here Crossrail or a body containing compulsory powers is that we are talking about a property where no land actually undertakes the work in such a way that is acquired whatsoever from the owner for the works, would give rise to an action in common law were it but he may be adjoining, or close to, a worksite where not for those statutory powers, in other words, created a nuisance, trespassed upon land, took land these works are being constructed20 and, as a result, may suVer from those works. The point I want to it had no right to, interfered with access from the make is that there are limited rights really in these highway, so it did not allow access from the highway, circumstances to compensation. If the public works if these sorts of things happened, then compensation are undertaken with due care, the Promoters will is payable and that mirrors the situation in the obviously seek to minimise interference through private development arena. If those rights are not those processes already described through the Code infringed—and we, in Crossrail, very much are of Construction Practice, the noise insulation works, planning not to infringe rights in this way—then compensation will be limited. the settlement deeds and the general arrangement21 of construction activity, but I think the point to make clear to the Committee is that there are irrecoverable 297. CHAIRMAN: Which usually occurs in relation losses in these cases and those are set out. An owner to loss of profits, does it not? from whom no land is acquired for the scheme cannot (Mr Smith) Yes, but, as I have said, my Lord, this is claim for business disturbance or loss of trade as a not payable in these circumstances. result of construction activity and he cannot actually claim for the general inconvenience of 298. I know, but that is the complaint. construction—the fact that there are workers around (Mr Smith) Absolutely right, yes. Just to make clear, the neighbourhood, for example, or plant in the area. that if you have no land acquired but still your He cannot claim for the presence or appearance of property is damaged through settlement due to the construction aVecting him because again it may be construction of the tunnels, then Crossrail will repair inconvenient, but he cannot claim for this. The key that settlement damage. thing is whether legal rights are infringed and it is those that give the right to a common law claim. 299. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Now, it may, on the face of it, seem harsh, but all this What happens if you have no land but your mental does is mirror the rights of an ordinary owner in the state is aVected by the construction? normal case of private development. If our neighbour (Mr Smith) If it is an actionable claim, so Crossrail builds a house alongside us, we may not like it, but, if has been so awful in its construction— he complies with the law and builds within the agreed plans and does not trespass, cause a nuisance or 300. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: It infringe our legal rights, then we may not like it, but may not have been awful. he can do it, and this is the point really with neighbouring property. 301. MR MOULD: If I can step in here, if the works which have given rise to your mental deterioration have been carried out with all due care and attention, 295. CHAIRMAN: But it causes a lot of trouble you would have no claim. If the works had been sometimes, does it not? carried out negligently—a complete or significant (Mr Smith) It does, my Lord, that is quite right. I am failure to follow accepted practices set out in the being very honest here; I could say that there are ways Construction Code, or something of that sort—then, in principle, you may have a claim. I say “in in which people can claim, but I am saying to you that principle” because it may depend on the degree to they are limited and I think it is only fair to make that which the damage which you claim to have suVered is point. As Mr Mould said, this was included in the one which would be recoverable under ordinary legal recent review by the Law Commission. principles, in any event. The distinction is between 20 the works being done properly or have the works Neighbouring Property (LINEWD-XR3-023) 21 22 NeighbouringCrossrail Ref: Property P6, (continued) Construction—No (LINEWD-XR3-024) land acquired Neighbouring Property (continued) (LINEWD-XR3-025) Crossrail Ref: P6, Construction—No land acquired Crossrail Ref: P6, Construction—No land acquired Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
42 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation been done negligently? In the first case, no, in the your Lordships will no doubt be hearing more during second case, yes. the course of the Petitions), the noise insulation works that Mr Thornely-Taylor mentioned in his 302. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I am presentation yesterday, arrangements to assess and thinking of a case where the noise so disturbed Lady control land settlement, which Professor Mair will be Fookes’ dog that the dog had fits and, in turn, her telling you about in a few moments’ time, and general state of health was disturbed because of the worry arrangements for construction activity—are all and concern about the dog—which is quite intended to keep to the minimum the sort of situation conceivable. that your Lordships are asking questions about at the moment. Whilst I said that the legal position is that 303. MR MOULD: Indeed so, and in a case where there is no higher standard placed upon those who Lady Fookes was living in a house which was are executing public works, the practical position is alongside a worksite for Crossrail but none of her that the standards that we are imposing upon land was actually acquired by the Promoter for that ourselves and will require the nominated undertaker worksite, then provided that the works that were to abide by, under the terms of the Code of being done in that worksite were carried out with all Construction Practice and other related matters, are due care and attention, the position would be that intended to be the highest standards that can Lady Fookes would not be entitled to make any reasonably be achieved under current working claim. practices. So we are seeking to apply, in practice, very (Mr Smith) Could I add, though, I think what may high standards indeed. be possible is that—and it really depends on the noise policy that you have heard about—you may be 307. CHAIRMAN: Mr Smith, I think a classic entitled to, obviously, something like double- example of Lady Fookes’ problem is when you have glazing—mitigation works—to lessen that impact. a roadside garage and the highway authority That is something that we would look at in compulsorily acquires land not part of the garage but accordance with the noise policy. near it in order to realign the highway and this wrecks the trade of the garage. There is no compensation. 304. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman, I (Mr Smith) There may not be, depending on the am still concerned about the recoverable loss, circumstances. I am giving it to you as it is, my Lord. including “business disturbance”. It does not seem to me that it equates with those general principles which 308. That is just a tough situation. you set out before us initially. (Mr Smith) Absolutely, yes. 24 (Mr Smith) It actually does because, unfortunately, we have little rights as normal owners where no land 309. MR MOULD: I think we had gone back from is acquired to claim such losses from a neighbour who slide 25, and we have covered slide 25. is redeveloping. All compensation does—it is (Mr Smith) Yes, I think we have. equivalent to your rights were it a major developer who is developing adjoining your property. It is just 310. We are moving now from the position as regards the same rights in land compensation. neighbouring property during the course25 of construction to the position in relation to properties 305. BARONESS FOOKES: There is no suggestion of that character once the works have been completed that a statutory authority ought to work to higher and we are into the operation of the railway itself. standards then? It is the lowest common (Mr Smith) Yes. Here, qualifying owners, and that is denominator. residential owner-occupiers or, if I can call it, small businesses, which have a rateable value of £29,200 or less—generally speaking the compensation 306. MR MOULD: The same denominator, I think, legislation looks to protect the residential owner- is the point. However, we should make it clear—and occupier and small businesses (this is a recurring this was a point that Mr Smith emphasised on his theme). However, these owners can claim a loss in penultimate slide, I think (perhaps we can go back to value from the use of the works if they adjoin it but slide 23, please)—and remind your Lordships of they have no land acquired for that purpose, after what we say here: part of the bargain, if you like, that those works are open, and the loss can arise from we have is that we should actively seek to avoid or 23 either the use or intensification of the use of, in this minimise the kind of disturbance that my Lord, Lord case, the railway. As I say, it is assessed one year after Brooke, raised through the way in which we carry out the opening of the railway, and what is payable is a the works. These provisions that we have referred to—the Code of Construction Practice (about which 24 Neighbouring Property (continued) (LINEWD-XR3-025) 23 25 Neighbouring Property (LINEWD-XR3-023) NeighbouringCrossrail Ref: Property P6, (LINEWD-XR3-026) Construction—No land acquired Crossrail Ref: P6, Construction—No land acquired Crossrail Ref: P6, Use of Works—No land acquired Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 43
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation
28 loss due to physical factors such as noise, lighting or 314. MR MOULD: Then we turn on just to touch vibration. This is generally assessed by surveyors on a on the provisions in the Bill regarding temporary “before” and “after” basis, assuming no scheme and acquisition. then assuming the scheme, and then looking at the (Mr Smith) Very quickly, an example of temporary diVerence, which is the depreciation. So acquisition is where one goes on to land to do works neighbouring properties do have the right to claim of a temporary nature, such as repairing or doing for loss due to the use of the works—the operation. works of improvement to a bridge, or something, and they come in and out but the land is not changed 311. CHAIRMAN: Is this part of the 2004 Act? materially in nature. Under the Crossrail Bill, (Mr Smith) No, actually, this was brought in as long compensation is payable to owners and occupiers ago as 1973, my Lord. covering any loss suVered due to the exercise of those powers. So their losses are broadly covered.
312. Was it? 315. Finally, we are going to touch on three policies, (Mr Smith) Yes. It is quite an old provision. Thank 26 which the Promoter has had in place, which relate to you. Moving on to advance purchase or reverse the topic of land compensation. Firstly, land compulsory purchase—whatever one calls it—this is acquisition policy. called a blight notice. These are properties which are (Mr Smith) I think the most important thing on the earmarked for acquisition within the safeguarding policy for land acquisition is the first bullet point limits of the scheme. The whole premises are 29 shown on this slide—the Crossrail policy—which required, and they are significantly devalued by the states that only the land needed for the works is existence of the proposed scheme. Normally, an purchased. That is an important point to make; that owner could demonstrate that they cannot be sold Crossrail is not seeking to acquire wider land. very easily. In these cases, again, the legislation refers Obviously, when one looks at that, one has to be to residential owner-occupiers and small businesses reasonable in interpretation that the engineer can as qualifying premises, and where these owners are in build the works on the land there at a reasonable cost, occupation of these premises then (going to the next but it is just the land needed for these works, all things slide) those owners can serve what is called a blight 27 being equal, that is required. The acquisition policy notice upon the acquiring authority and require the sets out that compensation is payable in accordance property to be acquired under compulsory purchase with the framework, and, also, indicates how in advance. For example, Crossrail has not started, diVerent sites will be treated. Firstly, for those but if someone complying with this can serve a blight working sites that may not be materially changed in notice because their premises are so aVected and they nature, as previously described they may be qualify, they can require the premises to be bought temporarily occupied as a car park and returned as a now rather than wait for the scheme to come about. car park, Crossrail would, if required there, seek to Compensation is assessed as previously discussed— agree a lesser temporary right with the owner, not so it is assessed under the code—but the slight acquiring more than it needs. If, however, Crossrail diVerence here is that the valuation date is the earlier acquires working sites which materially change the of when terms are either agreed, if in dispute when site and nature, and, also, probably wants to build decided by the Lands Tribunal, or, if it is not works on them of some permanent nature, then, determined by the time the land is entered for the generally speaking, they would seek to acquire the works, then when the land is entered for the works. It freehold of that property in order to construct those is one of those three and it should be the earlier of works. That is a very quick run through of the land either of those three dates. acquisition policy.
313. Just to make a point, “blight” is a word that is 316. The latter would relate, for example, to shaft generally used to describe people’s properties that are sites. aVected in some way by public work. I just want to (Mr Smith) A shaft or a station site, yes, absolutely. emphasise that “blight” is used very broadly; we call There is a land disposal policy which is just one step it “generalised blight” when people talk about blight. 30 beyond acquisition, but it is worth pointing out that “Statutory blight”, as we have described it, is more Crossrail does require land but some of that land is narrowly defined within the safeguarding limits and not needed in the long term for the scheme. within qualifying premises, but it does give these Examples of this could be parts of worksites where, people and these owners the right to ask for their premises to be acquired in advance. 28 Land (LINEWD-XR3-029) 26 29 Blight Notices (LINEWD-XR3-027) (LINEWD-XR3-030)Crossrail Ref: P6, Compensation Temporary Acquisition of 27 30 BlightCrossrail Notices Ref:(LINEWD-XR3-028) P6, Compulsory Purchase—Advance Purchase— (LINEWD-XR3-031)Crossrail Ref: P6, Crossrail Land Acquisition Policy Crossrail Ref: P6, Compulsory Purchase—Advance Purchase— Crossrail Ref: P6, Crossrail Land Acquisition Policy Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:32 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
44 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation for example, a shaft is constructed on part of a site. it could be ill-health, or it could be the scheme itself— Another example is an air space above a new station. it could be that the sheer impact of the scheme is so New stations are being built underground but all the overwhelming that that is a compelling reason to sell) air space above those stations will not be required and that every eVort has been made to sell and the long-term for the project. They will need to be property cannot be sold, and we put a discount of at controlled but they will not be needed for the project. least 15 per cent, which is fairly material, if that is due Crossrail has set out in their land disposal policy a to Crossrail—in other words, we have an owner- process whereby qualifying owners who express occupier seriously impacted by the works—then interest in the site released, and have the required Crossrail will, under the hardship policy, seek to34 experience, expertise and track record, can be oVered acquire that interest and pay the full open-market the opportunity to re-purchase that site. Before we go value, independently assessed (not assessed by on, this is a typical example31 of a development above Crossrail), again, ignoring the impact of Crossrail. a station, but the point I want to emphasise here is Also, the payments to the owner can include that very often developments above a station will be disturbance and home loss, as previously described. supported by that station. So we have the works of So there is a catch-all, just to say, for the point you Crossrail holding up a future development. That is raised, my Lord, about the problem for neighbouring important because, with the Crossrail works, the owners. There is a catch-all in the hardship policy. engineer is designing for a life of 125 years and32 what We have tried to come forward with something that we have to consider is what happens when the will give relief, although it is not always easy to development needs to be renewed and what happens anticipate where that problem will arise. when the infrastructure needs to be renewed. In the terms of any oVer back of such developments where 318. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: they are above stations and taking support from Have you had any such claims? Crossrail, generally those developments will be (Mr Smith) We have had one. disposed of via a lease controlling that development and, normally, for a period of 125 years consistent with the design life of the structure, so that it allows 319. MR MOULD: We have had more than one. for planned renewal of the infrastructure in a safe (Mr Smith) We have had a number of claims. manner. This is what is described in that policy. The policy also enables prior collaboration agreements to be entered into in line with this broad policy on sites 320. Two, I am told. in single ownership. We have five agreements at the (Mr Smith) I have to say both owners did not moment that may be referred to your Lordships, progress with that claim because they managed to sell where we are working with existing landowners who their property quite amicably on the market without will be oVered the opportunity to buy the site back serious impact on the price. That is why they went afterwards, but it does make sense in integrating the away. As the scheme gets closer I think this could design at an early stage so that everything fits, and become more real than it has been previously. there are definite benefits in doing this. That is a very quick run through of the land disposal33 policy. 321. BARONESS FOOKES: This hardship policy is a voluntary add-on by Crossrail; it is not part of the statutory arrangements which you have described 317. Finally, the hardship policy. and which I disliked. (Mr Smith) Yes. I think this can be described as (Mr Smith) Absolutely. This is to cover the point despite fair compensation, as was described, it is that I think you have quite properly raised. inevitable when lines are drawn that hardship will arise. We cannot always anticipate it but, as a result, Crossrail has put forward a hardship policy. This 322. MR MOULD: If it helps, just to slot it in broadly says that where an owner can demonstrate precisely to the statutory regime that we have that their property is not earmarked for acquisition discussed, it slots in, really, as an add-on to the but they have a qualifying interest—in other words, statutory blight notice provisions, because it relates they are a residential owner-occupier or a small to properties which bear many of the characteristics business—and enjoyment of their property is of the blight scheme, but they fall outside the seriously aVected and there is also a compelling safeguarding limits of the railway itself. If your reason to sell (it could be, for example, a divorce, or Lordships do want to see a little more detail about
31 this policy and the circumstances which it is intended XR3-032) to capture, it is set out in Information Paper C8 32 which you have in your packs. (LINEWD-XR3-033)Crossrail Ref: P6, Development above a station (LINEWD- 33 34 034)Crossrail Ref: P6, Crossrail Land Disposal Policy Application 035) Crossrail Ref: P6, Crossrail Hardship Policy (LINEWD-XR3- Crossrail Ref: P6, Crossrail Hardship Policy (LINEWD-XR3- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 45
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on compensation
323. LORD SNAPE: Can I ask, my Lord such an owner-occupier would be able to serve a Chairman, what would be the situation in the event blight notice today and would be able to serve one of a business owner aVected by this scheme when hereonafter up until the scheme becomes a reality, as subsequently it was decided not to go ahead with the it were. Obviously, there would come a point, one purchase of that person’s business because, let us say, would expect, where they would cease to be blighted a ventilation shaft had been moved and it was no because they would actually be acquired. If your longer necessary to acquire the property? What Lordship’s position was if, as we go on, they continue compensation would be payable, if any, in those to be earmarked for acquisition, that uncertainty circumstances? remains, do they have a compensation claim? If they (Mr Smith) I think it depends on the circumstances fall within the scope of what we call the small business of the case. However, let us assume that disturbance criteria, under the blight provisions, they would be is not suVered, really, until acquisition becomes close. able to secure reverse purchase and compensation in When acquisition is many years ahead nobody goes that way. around and says: “I’m not going to buy a sandwich there because it’s aVected by Crossrail”, but it can be 327. CHAIRMAN: Mr Smith, thank you very aVected, as you quite rightly say, as the acquisition much. Mr Mould, do I assume that Mr Smith will be gets closer and a business starts to say: “Can I service here to deal with any Petitions within reason, who a contract—can I do this?” I think it is in line with the raise these sorts of points? principles. We tried to say: “If there is a causal link between an owner not being able to let contracts and 328. MR MOULD: He will indeed, yes. the Crossrail scheme”, even if Crossrail was abandoned, I would suggest, I would think—and I will defer to Mr Mould—that even if Crossrail said: 329. CHAIRMAN: I hope we are not going to go “No, we don’t want that” but they have suVered loss into great detail, but if it is a matter of principle Mr caused by Crossrail, then I think compensation Smith can explain it. would be payable, but it would have to be a change very late in the day. If that helps. 330. MR MOULD: I am sorry to prolong this, but there is one further point to make in relation to my 324. MR MOULD: I think the question would, Lord, Lord Snape’s, question: another way in which ultimately, have to turn on whether the land was such a person’s uncertainty, if you like, can be cured acquired or not. If land is not acquired then, by would be if he served a blight notice and then, of definition, there could be no compensation payable course, the Promoter would have to come clean and because compensation, as Mr Smith has explained in make clear whether he actually was going to acquire earlier slides, is payable following compulsory his land or not. If the Promoter’s decision at that acquisition. However, in a case of a business—I think point was: “No, I have reviewed the position; we your Lordship had in mind a small business (Mr don’t, in fact, need to acquire this property for the Smith’s example was a sandwich bar)—which purpose of the scheme”, then he would say so and presently falls within the proposals under the Bill for then he would be fixed with that; he would not be able acquisition (so it is intended to purchase it for the to change his mind at a later date. So that would give purposes of the Bill) then such an owner would be in a certainty as well. position to serve a blight notice, provided that he fell within the financial limits that we have mentioned. 331. LORD SNAPE: What about compensation? Envisage a situation where we are moving right up Would there be anything payable in those close to the scheme being built and there is some circumstances? change in approach to the scheme (as you said, if a ventilation shaft was not required, as it turned out) it 332. MR MOULD: In those circumstances there would be in a position to serve a blight notice because would not. that would be the sort of position which the statutory blight provisions are designed to cope with. 333. LORD SNAPE: Let us move away from a sandwich bar; let us say a car repair place and 325. LORD SNAPE: How close, then, are we someone said, originally, that the premises were talking about? You passed a comment, or somebody going to be acquired under Crossrail, therefore the said words to the eVect: “ . . . must be fairly close to business owner cannot sign a three-year contract, let acquisition”. How close is fairly close? us say, to repair another company’s vehicles. Then, within six months, it is decided not to go ahead with 326. MR MOULD: The reality is that somebody the purchase. In those circumstances—which are who has a small business premises which they occupy perhaps unlikely but not impossible—would any and which is situated within the line of the railway, compensation be payable? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
46 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement
334. MR MOULD: No. As Ms Lieven points out, (Professor Mair) That is correct. the thing for them to do is to pursue negotiations and sign an agreement with us and secure the position 345. MS LIEVEN: Before that I think you spent 27 that way. years in the engineering industry having founded (Mr Smith) Could I just add, where you have an your own geotechnical consulting group which acquiring authority (and I am sure Crossrail will worked in both London and Hong Kong. follow this) it is essential to link in with the businesses (Professor Mair) That is right. that are so aVected to discuss with them about their business needs, where they want to relocate to. There 346. MS LIEVEN: And you currently advise, comes a point in that time when a business owner will amongst many others, the Singapore government on say: “But if I look to spend money will you cover that issues to do with underground, metro and road loss?”, and in many cases, and the law is correct, as tunnels. Mr Mould has said, if the acquiring authority said: (Professor Mair) Yes. “Yes, I will cover your loss for looking for alternative premises because, at that time, I wanted you out”, 347. MS LIEVEN: You were elected a Fellow of the then I think if that is agreed—and it very often is Royal Academy in 1992 and a Fellow of the Royal agreed that these losses are payable because the Society in 2007. owner quite rightly wants to know he is going to get (Professor Mair) Yes. them back—in principle, if there is an agreement to cover those losses, then the authority would be held 348. MS LIEVEN: So far as your most immediate to pay for them. I just want to emphasise there is a lot practical experience relevant to your involvement in of discussion on this at the front end. Crossrail, I think your recent international projects include railway and metro tunnels in cities including 335. MR MOULD: Thank you very much. Barcelona, Bologna, Florence, Rome, Warsaw and Turkey, is that right? 336. CHAIRMAN: I think, perhaps, now, we will (Professor Mair) That is correct. take a short break until 11.40 while you change your witnesses and get Professor Mair into position. 349. MS LIEVEN: In London you have been involved in the design and construction of the Jubilee 337. MR MOULD: Thank you very much indeed. Line Extension for London Underground and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project. 338. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Smith. (Professor Mair) Yes.
The witness withdrew 350. MS LIEVEN: I think we could agree you are After a short break well qualified to give evidence on the subject! Could we move on to your presentation. 339. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, are you ready? 351. CHAIRMAN: Professor Mair, two of us came 340. MS LIEVEN: I am, my Lord, yes. to your presentation across the corridor the other day. It will be fascinating to see the diVerences! 341. CHAIRMAN: In that case let us proceed. (Professor Mair) Good.
ProfessorRobertMair, Sworn 352. MS LIEVEN: Slightly fewer pictures of holes, Examined by MS LIEVEN my Lord! What I am going to do, my Lords, is simply hand over to Professor Mair. My only task is going 342. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, my Lord. Can I start to be to make sure that we stay roughly on time and by introducing Professor Mair. Your name is Robert then at the end I have some very brief comments to Mair, is that right? make on the settlement policy specifically. Professor (Professor Mair) Yes. Mair, over35 to you. (Professor Mair) I am going to speak about ground 343. MS LIEVEN: You are the Master of Jesus settlement and its aVects. If I could have Slide 2, College, Cambridge and Professor of Geotechnical please. This is an outline of what I will be speaking Engineering at Cambridge University. about. First of all, I will give just an overview as to (Professor Mair) Yes. why settlement occurs, I will talk a bit about ground investigation and geology, I will also be talking about 344. MS LIEVEN: You are also Head of Civil and ground settlement due to tunnelling, tunnelling Environmental Engineering at the University and 35 have been a Chair there since 1998. 002) Crossrail Ref: P6, Outline of Presentation (LINEWD-RJM01- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 47
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement 40 methods and then I will move on to describe the 358. Slide 7 shows a geological section. I should process of settlement and building damage explain, this is a very highly exaggerated scale in the assessment, and I will finish by giving36 some examples sense that from left to right, from Farringdon Station of building response to tunnelling. going east right through to the Isle of Dogs, we are talking about something of the order of seven 353. If I could have Slide 3, please. Dealing with why kilometres, but going vertically we are talking about settlement occurs, Crossrail obviously will be a scale which is in divisions of ten metres, so it is a requiring excavations of large volumes of ground to highly distorted scale but it illustrates the diVerent form the tunnels, the shafts and the deep-boxed geologies, the diVerent strata of soil and the pair of basements. The ground around these diVerent forms white lines through here shows the tunnel alignment of excavations will require structural support, linings itself. The stations are shown as the larger portions in the case of tunnels and shafts and walls for the here. You will see that there is quite a rise and fall of basements. Excavation and the installing of supports the alignment and that is usually because of to the ground inevitably produces small controlled constraints such as in cases where the tunnel may ground movement, typically settlements of the order have to go up in order to go over an existing tunnel of tens of millimetres, ten millimetres being about or, correspondingly, it may have to go down to get half an inch and the ground37 movement will cause under some existing tunnels. That is the reason for settlement of the ground surface and of buildings. the change of vertical alignment that one sees.
354. If I could have Slide 4. The assessment of the 359. Slide 8 illustrates,41 I should say in a highly risk of damage to buildings is a central part of the exaggerated form, the way in which surface process for Crossrail. That process is a development settlement develops above and ahead of an of the same process that was used on the Jubilee Line advancing tunnel. Here we have a tunnel advancing Extension and on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and in this direction and at the ground surface we see a indeed on many other projects worldwide, some of settlement trough developing ahead of the tunnel and which were mentioned in the introduction. It is also to the side of the tunnel. After the tunnel has intentionally a conservative approach. What I will passed through there is a transverse settlement also be describing are protective measures which may trough which has a very well-defined shape and that be needed to protect some buildings. is shown on Slide 9, which again42 I emphasise is very much an exaggerated vertical scale, but this is the 355. Slide 5 shows two photographs of the ground form of the settlement trough that is seen as a result investigation, the process of actually drilling and of a tunnel being constructed. We have a very undertaking boreholes to investigate the ground and important definition which is that if we calculate the the groundwater38 conditions and typically these are entire volume of ground associated with the about 200 to 250 millimetre vertical boreholes, many settlement trough and we divide that by the total of which have been undertaken specifically for the volume of the tunnel being constructed and express Crossrail project. that as a percentage we call that the volume loss. This is a very important parameter. For typical modern 356. CHAIRMAN: Are they cored boreholes? tunnelling the volume loss will be in the range of 0.5 (Professor Mair) Usually, yes, they are cored to 1 per cent. This settlement we are seeing here boreholes; in other words, as you suggest, to recover represents the immediate settlement caused by samples of soil which can39 then be taken to a tunnelling. There is also a component of settlement laboratory for detailed testing. which develops in the long term in addition to this but that generally is of much less concern. It is generally 357. The next slide, please. This slide shows a plan of much less damaging because it is much more43 boreholes just in the Liverpool Street Station area. uniform. You will see that the blue holes are existing borehole locations, that is boreholes that have already been 360. Slide 10 illustrates the eVect of depth of tunnels. undertaken for the project. The green holes are What is plotted here is the settlement in millimetres proposed additional holes that will be undertaken. down on the left-hand scale. We can see here the You can see that there is a considerable coverage of diVerence between two tunnels and each of them for borehole investigation and that is typical for the this example are five metres in diameter. The tunnel entire Crossrail project. at 20 metres depth—shown in pink—for a volume
36 40 003) 41 37 tunnel (LINEWD-RJM01-008) (LINEWD-RJM01-004)Crossrail Ref: P6, Why settlement occurs (LINEWD-RJM01- 42 Crossrail Ref: P6, Geological Section (LINEWD-RJM01-007) 38 verticalCrossrail scale) Ref: (LINEWD-RJM01-009) P6, Surface settlement trough above an advancing 005)Crossrail Ref: P6, Assessment of eVects of settlement 43 39 RJM01-010)Crossrail Ref: P6, Transverse settlement trough (Exaggerated Crossrail Ref: P6, Ground investigation (LINEWD-RJM01- Crossrail Ref: P6, Volume loss—eVect of depth (LINEWD- Crossrail Ref: P6, Plan of Boreholes (LINEWD-RJM01-006) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
48 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement loss of one per cent would produce a maximum pressure balance machine. Number 1 on the left-hand settlement of eight millimetres at the ground surface. is the cutter head, that is the big wheel that I showed The form of the settlement trough is shown shaded in on the photograph just a few minutes ago. I want to pink. If the tunnel was deeper, at 30 metres rather draw your attention to number 3 which is the TBM, than 20 metres, then the magnitude of settlement the tunnel boring machine skin. That is eVectively a reduces to a maximum of five millimetres settlement cylindrical steel shield within which much of the at the ground surface but a wider trough. The eVect operation of the tunnelling is carried out. So it is a of the settlement is over a wider area albeit a smaller44 protective cylindrical steel skin that goes all the way magnitude of settlement. back to this position here. The soil and the water under high pressure come through the cutting head 361. Slide 11 illustrates the eVect of tunnel diameter. into a chamber behind in which the pressurised soil If we consider two tunnels at the same depth, in this and water passes into that chamber and then the way case 30 metres, this is the same plot of settlement in in which the pressurised soil and water is extracted is millimetres, we see here that if it was a five metre by means of the screw conveyor shown here as diameter tunnel, which was what we used in the number 5. In eVect this is a steel cylinder, typically previous example, the maximum settlement would be about a metre in diameter, within which there is five millimetres at the ground surface, but if it was a something rather like a tight fitting corkscrew. The seven metre diameter tunnel the maximum settlement pressurised soil and water passes up the screw would be higher, it would be doubled to ten conveyor and emerges at this position 7 onto a millimetres. It is still a very small amount of conveyor belt and is taken oV down the tunnel. This settlement, but this illustrates the diVerence between is a very crucial part of the operation of the earth a five metre diameter tunnel and a seven45 metre pressure balance machine. It allows the high pressure diameter tunnel. soil and water to be removed and then to emerge at ordinary atmospheric pressure. You also see in this 362. Slide 12 moves on to tunnelling methods. This same slide the lining segments which are shown in is a photograph of a tunnel boring machine position. You will see that the most recent lining abbreviated as TBM. This was a machine used for the segment is actually erected inside the tunnel boring Channel Tunnel Rail Link. It is an eight metre machine skin, the steel shield I described earlier. diameter tunnelling machine. The typical running 48 tunnels for Crossrail would be seven metres, 365. The next slide, Slide 15, shows a view looking somewhat smaller than this but of similar size. This is from further back towards the front of the tunnelling a closed face earth pressure balance machine. I will be machine operation. You will see here some tunnel describing that in more detail shortly. What this lining segments waiting to be taken up to the machine really means is that the soil at the tunnel face is to be erected. To give you an approximate idea of the always supported at all times. This is the big cutting size, this would be about three metres from left to wheel that is turning with cutting teeth on it to right in this photograph. The segments are large actually cut the soil, but all the time there is a pressure pieces of reinforced concrete. maintained on the soil. 46 49 366. The next slide shows the segments actually being 363. Slide 13 indicates the way in which many of the installed during a tunnelling operation for the running tunnels will be lined. This is using pre-cast Channel Tunnel Rail Link. What you can see here reinforced concrete segmental linings. In other words on the left-hand side is a completed ring of segments these are made up of a number of pieces, all of which and then to the right you can see one of the segments are produced in a factory and then brought to the that has been placed inside that steel TBM skin I tunnel site and are erected in the tunnel to form a ring described and there are jacks here which are used. to support the ground. This is a view of the eight The machine is actually pushing itself oV the recently metre diameter completed tunnels for the Channel erected tunnel lining segments. As it moves forward Tunnel Rail47 Link. then the ground comes into contact with the tunnel lining. 364. Slide 14 goes into a bit more detail and I will explain this. What you will see here is a longitudinal 50 367. Slide 17 shows a quite diVerent means of section through a typical modern closed face earth supporting the ground and this is using the 44 technology of sprayed concrete. In cases where the RJM01-011) 45 48 PressureCrossrail Balance Ref: P6, (EPB) Volume TBM loss—e (LINEWD-RJM01-012)Vect of diameter (LINEWD- lining—Channel Tunnel Rail Link (LINEWD-RJM01-015) 46 49 lining—ChannelCrossrail Ref: P6, Tunnel Tunnelling Rail Link Methods—Closed (LINEWD-RJM01-013) Face Earth PressureCrossrail Balance Ref: P6,(EPB) Pre-cast TBM (LINEWD-RJM01-016) reinforced concrete segmental 47 50 PressureCrossrail Balance Ref: P6,(EPB) Pre-cast TBM (LINEWD-RJM01-014) reinforced concrete segmental LiningCrossrail (LINEWD-RJM01-017) Ref: P6, Tunnelling Methods—Closed Face Earth Crossrail Ref: P6, Tunnelling Methods—Closed Face Earth Crossrail Ref: P6, Tunnelling Methods—Sprayed Concrete Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 49
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement 53 ground is competent and strong enough, as in the the central wall that is only temporary and will be London Clay area, to stand at least temporarily demolished fairly soon. unsupported this is a very versatile technique. Out of this nozzle you can see a mist and coming out of that 371. The next slide, Slide 21, shows a progression of nozzle is concrete which is being sprayed onto the this process and now the left-hand bench area is being ground surface that has just been exposed due to the excavated down here and54 there is more sprayed excavation and it is operated by the operator back in concrete being applied both on the left-hand side for the cabin who has control of many aspects of the the permanent lining and on the right-hand side for spraying process. The essence of the process is that the temporary central wall. the concrete goes hard extremely quickly, it has special additives to make it do that and it means that 372. Slide 23 shows how the process is complete right within a matter of some minutes after being sprayed down to the bottom and now we have55 the completed onto the ground surface it starts to go hard and it gets left-hand half of the tunnel, the egg-shaped tunnel I hard very quickly and within an hour or two it is described earlier in the photograph, so we have that reaching really a substantial strength. The tunnels no completed part, that is now done. 56 longer need to be circular as they are for tunnel boring machines. This technique is particularly 373. If we go to Slide 24 we see the process begin in a appropriate for station construction because it allows very similar way for the right-hand side. Again, the stations to be a diVerent shape from perfectly first bit is the top heading and that is shown now as a circular. sort of brown colour and that is being excavated. 51 57 374. Slide 25 takes us to the next part down, which is 368. Slide 18 shows a view of the sprayed concrete the right-hand bench part and that is being excavated method being used for the Jubilee Line Extension. as well. This is a tunnel of approximately ten metres in 58 diameter. You will see that it is being constructed in 375. Slide 26 completes the process where we go two halves. The left-hand half is a sort of egg-shaped 59 almost to the bottom. We are nearly at the point of tunnel which is constructed first and there is a completing the right-hand tunnel, Slide 27 will show temporary central wall here which, when the right- that. The central wall that I described, that hand half has been constructed, will be removed 60 temporary one, is being demolished. The bottom part thereby completing the entire tunnel shape. of the right-hand tunnel is being completed. Slide 28 shows the whole process completed. So now we have 52 369. I am going to just take you through a typical the complete removal of the temporary central wall excavation sequence that that previous slide and the entire permanent sprayed concrete lining illustrated. On the left-hand side we have a cross- with the large full-sized tunnel completed. That is a section which was rather similar to the photograph in sequence. It illustrates the versatility of being able to the previous slide. You will see that temporary do this kind of tunnelling in pieces in a very controlled and very satisfactory way. central wall that I described. On the right-hand side 61 we are looking at a longitudinal section, that is if one was standing to the right of the tunnel, on the left here 376. Slide 29 summarises the advantages of sprayed and looking towards it, this is in eVect what one concrete linings, SCL. Firstly, it is possible, as I have would see. The tunnel direction is from left to right. explained, to excavate large tunnels in smaller parts. The completed part of the tunnel is shown in dashed It provides an early application of support to the lines here and in white. We are going to be looking at ground by means of spraying the concrete how the new sections are excavated in the following 53 hand top heading—1m advance (LINEWD-RJM01-020) slides just to take you through a sequence to give you 54 a feel for the process. handCrossrail bench—1m Ref: P6, advance Tunnelling (LINEWD-RJM01-021) Methods— SCL—Excavate left 55 handCrossrail invert—2m Ref: P6, advance Tunnelling (LINEWD-RJM01-023) Methods—SCL –Excavate left 56 370. Slide 20 shows that the left-hand top heading is handCrossrail top heading—1m Ref: P6, Tunnelling advance Methods—SCL—Excavate(LINEWD-RJM01-024) left being excavated, shaded in yellow here, and the 57 handCrossrail bench—1m Ref: P6, advance Tunnelling (LINEWD-RJM01-025) Methods—SCL—Excavate right sprayed concrete on the left-hand part here, shown in 58 green, is a part of the permanent sprayed concrete handCrossrail top Ref: heading P6, Tunnelling and bench—1m Methods— advance SCL—Excavate (LINEWD- right lining, but the part shown in blue here is that part of RJM01-026) 59 Crossrail Ref: P6, Tunnelling Methods— SCL—Excavate right 51 temporary centre wall (LINEWD-RJM01-027) Lining (LINEWD-RJM01-018) 60 52 handCrossrail invert—2m Ref: P6, advance Tunnelling (LINEWD-RJM01-028) Methods— SCL—Demolish LiningCrossrail (SCL) Ref: Excavation P6, Tunnelling Sequence Methods—Sprayed (LINEWD-RJM01-019) Concrete 61 Crossrail Ref: P6, Tunnelling Methods— SCL—Excavate left Crossrail Ref: P6, Tunnelling Methods—Sprayed Concrete Crossrail Ref: P6, Advantages of SCL (LINEWD-RJM01-029) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
50 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement immediately after the ground is excavated. It enables are eliminated at Phase 2 and they only go through to construction of non-circular tunnels which has many Phase 3 if there is a calculated indication that that is advantages. It also allows construction of openings necessary. All of the experience on the Jubilee Line between tunnels for passageways and so on. It Extension, the JLE, has confirmed that the results of provides a means of rapid mobilization of the plant the Phase 2 exercise are conservative, and that is and equipment. It is a highly mechanised method. deliberately so. The programme and the sequencing has a flexibility which I hope has been illustrated by that sequence 379. Slide 32 introduces the diVerent damage risk that I described earlier. There are variations that can categories and these are adopted from the very well- be provided to that which provides a lot of known categories the Building Research advantages. There is considerable experience of this Establishment have defined, and you will see here technique. It was used widely for the Jubilee Line that there are three categories shown,64 category risk Extension, principally at Waterloo and London damage 0, 1 and 2 down the left-hand side, and the Bridge Stations and it was also used on the CTRL, descriptions relating to each of those categories are the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. “negligible”, “very slight” and “slight”. For each of 62 those three categories of damage, there are 377. Slide 30 shows diagrammatically other forms of descriptions of the typical damage. These are mainly construction that can also cause settlement other applicable to masonry buildings and brick buildings than tunnelling. The excavation of boxes or circular and it is important to appreciate that the negligible shafts for stations, tunnel boring machine launch damage category is hairline cracks at the worst, less chambers, tunnel portals, all of those involve walls than about 0.1mm, so very, very fine indeed. Very supporting the ground and essentially vertical slight, the next category, is fine cracks with typical excavation and there will be some settlement cracks up to about 1mm, just about possible to get a associated with such excavations. The extent of that fingernail into the crack. Then the next category settlement will depend on the shape and on the depth above that, slight damage, is slightly greater. All of of those excavations. The magnitude of the these three categories are of potential aesthetic settlement is related to the dimensions of those significance and there is no structural significance. excavations, the stiVness of the props illustrated in This is merely an aesthetic appearance and in all cases this slide63 and also on the type of ground. can be very easily repaired, and that is a very important point to make. 378. Slide 31 introduces the damage assessment process. This is done in three phases. In the first 380. CHAIRMAN: I see that you are referring to phase, Phase 1, we use simple criteria based on tensile strain here, but what about compressive predicted settlement and slope at the ground surface strain? to eliminate buildings which are subjected to minimal (Professor Mair) I was coming to that, thank you for eVects. By that we mean any buildings subjected to reminding me. That is a most important point, that settlements of less than ten millimetres are judged to masonry is extremely, as we have known for many be only experiencing minimal eVect. Ten millimetres centuries, good in compression. Stonework and is a very small amount of movement. Phase 2 brickwork have great strength in compression, but considers all other buildings. Phase 2 is a are much more fragile in tension, so it is tensile strain conservative assessment of the potential damage to that is important in the context of potential damage, buildings through the distortions the buildings might so what we do in the assessment process is calculate experience based on “greenfield” displacements. I the maximum tensile strain that the building could should explain what we mean by greenfield. We mean potentially experience. Depending on the magnitude that we ignore the presence of the building and simply of that, we assign it to these diVerent risk categories make the prediction of what the ground surface shown on the slide, so the tensile strain is an would do if it were greenfield, in other words, with no absolutely critical factor because that is illustrating buildings present, and we then subject the building to the potential cracking a building could experience that kind of movement and we calculate how much and that enables us to assign a potential damage65 the building might distort. Then we have a further category. phase, Phase 3, which would be a detailed assessment for every building to determine the risk of potential 381. Slide 33 has higher risk damage categories. structural damage and design of protective measures, These go, as you will see in the left-hand column, to if they are necessary, but the important point is Phase damage risk category 3 and damage risk categories 4 2, which is a screening exercise, so a lot of buildings and 5. Category 3 is described as “moderate” and
62 64 settlement (LINEWD-RJM01-030) Potential aesthetic significance only (LINEWD-RJM01-032) 63 65 (LINEWD-RJM01-031)Crossrail Ref: P6, Other forms of construction that cause PotentialCrossrail structure Ref: P6, damage Definition (LINEWD-RJM01-033) of Damage Risk Categories— Crossrail Ref: P6, Potential damage assessment—3 phases Crossrail Ref: P6, Definition of Damage Risk Categories— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 51
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement categories 4 and 5 are “severe” or “very severe”, and is illustrated in both these two cases here. On the you will see on the right-hand side that these left-hand side we see the sagging mode that I just correspond to higher magnitudes of tensile strain referred to and there you can see that at the bottom than the previous damage categories. These damage of the wall there tend to be cracks opening up at the categories all would indicate potential structural bottom, whereas higher up it is actually in damage. The diVerence between these and the compression, if you can visualise that brick wall previous ones is that there could be potential going through the sagging deformation. structural damage as opposed to aesthetic damage, Correspondingly, on the other diagram, you see the and the important point to emphasise is that these reverse happening in the hogging mode, that the categories shown on this slide—in other words, compression is at the bottom of the wall, but the categories 3, 4 or 5—are not permitted to occur and top of the wall is experiencing the tension, the tensile that is the fundamental point about this whole staged 66 strain that I described earlier. This means that the assessment procedure. buildings are more prone to damage in the hogging mode than they are in the sagging mode because 382. Slide 34 shows an example. This example is for there is no restraint preventing the tensile strain the Liverpool Street Station area and you will see higher up in the wall of the building in the case of what is shown here are predicted settlement the hogging, whereas in the sagging case the contours at the ground surface and where you see foundations themselves tend to restrain and restrict minus 10, for example, that means that the predicted the tensile strain that might be developing close to settlement is 10mm for that particular contour, and the bottom of the wall. everything outside the yellow area is eliminated at Phase 1. As I described earlier, if the buildings are assessed to experience less than 10mm, they are 384. CHAIRMAN: These are brick buildings, but eliminated. Inside the yellow area, all buildings what about buildings made of other materials? inside the yellow area proceed to Phase 2 which is (Professor Mair) The broad principles that I have the next stage of the assessment process. I think it described would also be applicable to concrete is important to emphasise that all of those buildings buildings and most buildings, if they are old inside the yellow area, although they are proceeding buildings, they are almost certainly brick buildings to the Phase 2 stage of the assessment, it does not and masonry, but, if they are modern buildings, they mean that they will actually experience significant may well be reinforced concrete, they may be steel damage; it is simply taking them to the next stage frame, but very often there is brick cladding or of assessment. masonry cladding in some form or other, so what I 67 have described here has a very wide applicability to 383. Slide 35 indicates what we do in the Phase 2 most buildings in fact, but it is specifically assessment. This is, I emphasise, a highly appropriate for masonry buildings which form a exaggerated picture here of a building undergoing very large number of the buildings that we would the distortion corresponding to what is predicted for be considering. the greenfield case, as I described earlier, so you 69 have to tunnel below causing the settlement trough 385. Slide 37 shows the results of a Phase 2 that I described earlier, and you will see that the assessment. In the Liverpool Street Station area, it building is subjected to two kinds of movement. There is what we call a ‘sagging zone’ to the right is shown here as an illustration only and what you of the building where, as the name implies, the see now, as I said earlier, is that all buildings within building is feeling a sagging kind of deformation, the yellow zone were all considered as part of the Phase 2 assessment and the ones shown in the red and to the left-hand side it is going through68 a ‘hogging’ sort of deformation, and I will say a bit shaded zone within that have been identified as more about the significance of those two kinds of needing to proceed to Phase 3. In other words, the deformation in the next slide, slide 36. The damage category that has been identified as important point to illustrate is that buildings, if they potentially being possible for those buildings is such settle completely uniformly, really are unlikely to that they need to go to the next phase of assessment experience any damage because uniform settlement where really much more detailed work is done. It is does not lead to any strain. They only experience also worth noting that all listed buildings and strain if they have diVerential settlement, and that special case buildings with deeper foundations will
66 automatically proceed to Phase 3 if they are Station (LINEWD-RJM01-034) anywhere within the 10mm contour, so listed 67 buildings have a very special status. (LINEWD-RJM01-035)Crossrail Ref: P6, Phase 1 settlement contours—Liverpool St 68 69 (LINEWD-RJM01-036)Crossrail Ref: P6, Deformation of a building above a tunnel Station (illustrative only) (LINEWD-RJM01-037) Crossrail Ref: P6, Assessment—Deformation Types Crossrail Ref: P6, Phase 2 Assessment Results—Liverpool St Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
52 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement
70 386. Slide 38 summarises the volume loss aVected only by the running tunnels are unlikely to experiences on recent tunnelling projects, and you experience any damage of significance. will recall that volume loss was defined. This is the 72 same diagram as we saw earlier shown here on the 389. Slide 40 summarises the protective measures that right-hand side and it represents the total amount would be contemplated. There are really three of the settlement trough expressed as a percentage of categories, three quite distinct categories of the total tunnel volume. For earth pressure balance protective measures. At-source measures mean that machines on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, these actions can be taken from within the tunnel or from volume losses were typically in the range of 0.5 to within the excavation process to minimise 1 per cent. For the Jubilee Line Extension the same settlements. This is particularly appropriate for figures applied and also for the more recent spray-concrete lining kind of tunnelling where there Docklands Light Railway Woolwich extension. is more versatility and more opportunity for varying Those figures are applicable for earth pressure the tunnel process, but one can actually take balance machine tunnelling which will be used for measures from within the tunnel to reduce all of the running tunnels on Crossrail between the movements to a minimum. The second category are stations. For spray-concrete linings, the Jubilee Line ground treatment measures which involve improving Extension experience was that the volume losses or changing the engineering response of the ground, were a little higher, typically between 1 to 1.5 per usually by grouting. Grouting means usually the cent. Now, for the Crossrail assessments in the injection of liquid cement into the ground either to Environmental Statement, that is the assessment of strengthen it or to minimise the settlement eVects and all the potential settlement eVects, the assumed I will be describing that a little bit later on. The third volume losses were 1.7 per cent for all the running category are structural measures which involve tunnels and 2 per cent for the stations, so you will actually increasing the capacity of a building itself to see that these are conservative figures used in the resist, modify or to accommodate movements, and a Environmental Statement, significantly higher than typical example of that would be the use of tie-rods almost all of the cases actually experienced on other for masonry buildings. It is not a terribly common tunnelling projects. measure, but it is sometimes used and it can be very eVective to minimise the tensile strain that might be 387. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: induced in a piece of masonry by putting tie-rods in What was the diameter of the Jubilee Line the masonry. Extension? (Professor Mair) The Jubilee Line Extension 73 running tunnels are typically 5 metres, so smaller 390. Slide 41 illustrates a ground treatment measure, than Crossrail. a protective measure, known as ‘compensation grouting’. This was developed just before the Jubilee 388. Smaller, but more compression? Line Extension project and it was used very (Professor Mair) Certainly smaller, yes. The station extensively on that project with great success. Its principle is summarised on this slide. If the tunnels were71 much bigger of course, up to 10 metres in diameter. Slide 39 really summarises the general construction of a tunnel beneath a building is conclusions from the Phase 2 potential damage potentially likely to cause a severe settlement trough, assessments. The first point is that for buildings as illustrated in the red trough here, then the purpose aVected by the running tunnels for Crossrail, the of compensation grouting is to put a shaft down into potential damage category is in almost all cases the ground outside and away from the building, this negligible to slight. For buildings close to shaft sites, is before the tunnel is constructed, and from that and there are of course a number of shafts planned shaft drilling is done to insert steel tubes, grouting for Crossrail, the potential damage category is tubes, into the ground and each of those tubes are generally slight, occasionally some buildings are in known as ‘sleeved grouting tubes’. There are typically the moderate damage category and at the stations holes in each one of those tubes at half-metre centres a proportion of the buildings are in the moderate or and it is then possible to inject liquid cement from any indeed the severe potential damage categories and, one of those holes in a very controlled manner, for those, Phase 3 assessments will determine the defining precisely the amount of grout that is need for protective measures. I should emphasise injected. The principle is that, when the tunnel is that what we are seeing here is that the overall being constructed, there is very careful measurement conclusion is that the buildings near the stations of what is happening to the building, instrumentation require more attention than elsewhere, so buildings is placed on it, surveying is done, and, depending on
70 the response of the building, grout is injected from (LINEWD-RJM01-038) 72 71 73 damageCrossrail assessments Ref: P6, (LINEWD-RJM01-039) Summary of Volume Loss Experience compensation grouting (LINEWD-RJM01-041) Crossrail Ref: P6, Protective Measures (LINEWD-RJM01-040) Crossrail Ref: P6, General conclusions from Phase 2 potential Crossrail Ref: P6, Ground Treatment Measures: principles of Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 53
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement any one of these various tubes in such a way as to side shows a photograph taken at night of a drilling compensate for the movement of the ground that is rig being lowered into that shaft from which being caused by the tunnel construction, hence the horizontal steel grout tubes were installed into the name ‘compensation grouting’. With this technique, ground right beneath the foundations of Big Ben. if it is used in its best way, you can end up with only Grout was then injected for about a period of 18 very slight settlement of the building as a result of this months to two years throughout the construction of process, so it is a way of actually injecting grout and the station in response to very carefully observed eVectively preventing the building from experiencing readings of what Big Ben was doing, how much it was the larger settlement that might have occurred in the moving, and it was a very successful operation. It was absence of this process. controlled, Big Ben was kept in a suitably vertical 74 position and the compensation grouting for this 391. Slide 42 illustrates various ways in which those project was an excellent example of how well grout tubes can be installed. I described in the controlled the process can be. It was also used for previous slide how a shaft is put into the ground and many other buildings on the Jubilee Line Extension, tubes are installed from the shaft, but there are but I have chosen this one to demonstrate how alternative techniques from much shallower eVective it can be. excavations, as shown here, or indeed from the 77 ground surface itself, as shown on the right-hand 394. Slide 45 shows a settlement example of a side. There is even the possibility of using existing building, Elizabeth House. This a 1960s building, a tunnels to install these grout tubes, so there are four reinforced concrete frame building. It is sited along diVerent ways here in which those grout tubes can be York Way immediately adjacent to Waterloo station. installed into the ground. 75 This is a building which was subjected to a significant amount of tunnelling for the Jubilee Line78 Extension 392. Slide 43 gives two photographs of the actual beneath it and I am going to describe what happened equipment being used. The lower photograph shows to the building and how the assessment was made. an operative inside a shaft actually installing what is Slide 46 shows a plan view of the building. Here you called a ‘packer’. This is pushed right down through will see the building shaded in purple and you will see the grouting tube and it may be pushed many tens of the running tunnels for the Jubilee Line Extension metres to the point of location where the grout needs shown, but of particular significance is a crossover to be injected and it is then inflated in such a way that tunnel which was sited right beneath the building it isolates that particular injection point and then the which involved much bigger tunnelling which grout is injected and it only goes into the ground from potentially would have79 caused, and did cause, more that one hole. It is a very controlled process and it movement. What we are going to look at is a section means that we can very accurately decide which bit of through about a 100-metre length of the building in the ground requires the grouting. 76 the next slide, slide 47. Slide 47 is a plot of settlement shown on the left-hand scale in tens of millimetres 393. Slide 44 illustrates a particularly well-known site and on the bottom scale over about a 100-metre to all of us. This was the use of compensation length of the building. The green line is the prediction grouting to protect the Houses of Parliament and, in from the Phase 2 assessment and you will remember particular, to protect Big Ben, the clock tower, from that I explained earlier that, because this was like a leaning during the construction of the Westminster station tunnel, in fact it was a crossover tunnel, the station for the Jubilee Line Extension which we all volume loss assumed was 2 per cent, so the 2 per cent know. That was a very deep excavation and, in was used for that prediction, and it was predicted that addition to the very deep excavation which went the building would experience a maximum settlement almost 40 metres below the ground surface, there of 53mm. Then closer to the start of the actual were also two new platform tunnels constructed project, a project prediction was undertaken and that along Bridge Street. Now, the combination of the is shown as the red line, and the project prediction deep excavation and the platform tunnels would was in eVect the best estimate of what we actually potentially have caused Big Ben to lean by an amount predicted would happen to the building, so it was that would not have been acceptable, so the process using slightly smaller volume loss figures because, as of compensation grouting was used and a shaft was I said earlier, the 2 per cent used for the Phase 2 constructed, a vertical shaft, in Bridge Street, shown assessments is deliberately a conservative figure. circled here on the right-hand side, and the left-hand Therefore, the red line represents what we predicted,
74 77 tube installation (LINEWD-RJM01-042) (LINEWD-RJM01-045) 75 78 RJM01-043)Crossrail Ref: P6, Compensation Grouting: Methods of grout (LINEWD-RJM01-046)Crossrail Ref: P6, Settlement Example: Elizabeth House 76 79 compensationCrossrail Ref: grouting P6, Grout equipment injection (LINEWD-RJM01-044) equipment (LINEWD- ObservationsCrossrail Ref: (LINEWD-RJM01-047) P6, Location of tunnels and monitoring section Crossrail Ref: P6, View of Houses of Parliament and Crossrail Ref: P6, Elizabeth House: Assessment, Prediction and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
54 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement our best estimate of what the building would do, and project prediction for the building. So here is another the third line on the plot, which is the plot with the example, a very diVerent kind of building from purple squares, is the actual observed settlement of Elizabeth House, of a good agreement between the the building after all the tunnels had been completed. project prediction and the actual observed You will see that there is, on the whole, a fairly good performance. agreement between what the building actually did and our best estimate of what we assessed that the 396. CHAIRMAN: Did you do any grouting for building would do just before the project began, and that? the actual maximum settlement was just a little less (Professor Mair) No, there was no grouting for that than 40mm, as shown here. This building was because it was the project prediction and, indeed, the predicted by the Phase 2 assessment process to Phase 2 assessment indicated83 that it would experience experience no worse than negligible damage and that only negligible damage. The final slide really in fact proved to be the case and, despite experiencing summarises what I wish to present about ground nearly 40mm of settlement, the building experienced settlement and its eVects. Firstly, to say that there is no damage of any significance at all. considerable experience in the London area from the 80 Jubilee Line Extension and, also, from the Channel 395. Slide 48 is another kind of building and I Tunnel Rail Link. For both those projects very little thought this would be appropriate to also show you. building damage has been reported. I believe I have This is a three-storey brick building. This was built in explained to you the very robust and, indeed, conservative methodology that is used for settlement the 1930s in the East81 End of London and this was potentially a much more fragile kind of building, assessment, and that we also have protective being entirely one of brick, and slide 49 shows a plan measures that are available. I outlined compensation view of the building. The building is Neptune House grouting, particularly, but the protective measures and you can see Neptune House shown here shaded that are available have been well-proven and they are purple. One of the tunnels goes right underneath it very eVective. That completes what I wish to present. and the other tunnel goes to one82 side of it. The building is about 40 metres long and we are going to 397. MS LIEVEN: I just have a couple of follow-up look at the whole length of the building as to how it questions I wanted to ask Professor Mair. First of all, performed in the next slide, slide 50. Rather as in the can you explain the degree to which buildings settle case of Elizabeth House, what we see here is a naturally regardless of tunnelling going on comparison of diVerent predictions and comparing underneath them—for example, by seasonal factors? that with what actually happened, so plotted on the (Professor Mair) Yes. It is well-known to house left-hand side is the settlement scale, and you will see owners and, indeed, to insurance companies that here that the settlements are very much smaller than sometimes, depending on where the building is in the the settlements we were looking at for Elizabeth country and what kind of soil it is on, very hot House. This is because the tunnels were running summers can cause problems. That is because clay tunnels using earth pressure balance machines, five soils, in particular, are sensitive to seasonal changes metre-diameter tunnels, and we are looking at the in moisture content. If there is a change in moisture settlement over the entire 40-metre length of the content there is an accompanying settlement or building. The green line, as before, is the Phase 2 reverse heaving of the soil that takes place. It is well- assessment using the volume loss assumption of 1.7 known from many measurements that we have taken per cent, and you will see that the maximum that buildings can quite easily experience movements settlement predicted there was about 17mm. The red of the order of 10 millimetres just seasonally from line is the project prediction; the best estimate of what eVects such as hot summers followed by wet winters. the greenfield would be if there were any building there. That is showing rather smaller settlements 398. To some degree, is that something that should be using a smaller volume loss that was actually picked up in the background monitoring that we estimated to be likely to take place. Then the project intend to do before the works commence? prediction of what the building would do is this line (Professor Mair) Yes, it is a crucial part of the here, this dark blue line, which is a straight line going monitoring process for a project like Crossrail that all the way across from one end to another. The there would be surveying and there would be actual observed performance of the building is shown measurements being taken well in advance of any as the purple squares which you will see here, which, actual construction. So one would have, as you say, again, are very similar, slightly diVerent from the background readings for a significant period before 80 construction starts as to what buildings are doing 81 simply due to other eVects, such as seasonal eVects. (LINEWD-RJM01-049) 82 Crossrail Ref: P6, Neptune House (LINEWD-RJM01-048) 83 ObservationsCrossrail Ref: (LINEWD-RJM01-050) P6, Location of tunnels and monitoring section (LINEWD-RJM01-051) Crossrail Ref: P6, Neptune House: Assessment, Prediction and Crossrail Ref: P6, Ground settlement and its eVects—Summary Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:33 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 55
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement
399. The other thing I wanted you to expand on a 405. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, my Lord. little bit was when we were looking at slide 40 you talked about “at source measures” that could be 406. CHAIRMAN: I have one other question: how taken to protect buildings, but that was particularly do you get the tunnel-boring machine in? I can quite in the context of spray-concrete lining. Can you give see that it goes through the portals, but I see that you us a very brief outline of what at source measures can talk about chambers as well. If it is introduced be taken in respect of the tunnel-boring machine halfway along the route of the tunnel what is involved operation? I think concerns about this were raised in in that process? They are pretty big machines. the other place, so I just want Professor Mair to (Professor Mair) You are absolutely right, they are touch on it. big machines. In large part, the tunnelling machine is (Professor Mair) The first point I should, perhaps, erected underground. make is that, as I said earlier, all the buildings along the whole Crossrail project aVected by the running tunnels are likely to experience no worse than 407. It comes in bits? negligible or very slight. So the need to take special (Professor Mair) It comes in bits, that is right, so it additional measures from within the running tunnel can be erected in chambers from shafts underground. construction is very unlikely. However, to answer your question, if it was necessary then there are ways 408. So the lorry traYc is not likely to be in which the higher pressures can be used at the “abnormal loads”. tunnel’s face to minimise volume loss, and there are (Professor Mair) No, not certainly bringing in the established ways of ensuring that. entire tunnelling machine as you have seen in the diagrams, no. 400. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much. 409. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman, I 401. CHAIRMAN: Professor Mair, there will be a have one query on the actual type of soil. You have in number of Petitioners who want to talk about one of the earlier geological sections something called particular buildings, some of them listed buildings. I the Lambeth Group. Is that something quite diVerent am not asking you to do anything about it now but from London Clay? It seems to be in two shades. will you be prepared to have a view about what the (Professor Mair) You are right, it is diVerent from eVect might be on those buildings? We are going to London Clay. It is in two shades—a sort of darker see some of them this afternoon—Whitechapel, brown and a lighter brown—to broadly indicate that Hanbury Street and so on. the upper part of the Lambeth Group tends to be (Professor Mair) Yes, of course. stiV, strong clay rather similar to London Clay but, if anything, stronger. The lower part tends to be sands. 402. I think it is inevitable that the Petitioners will want to ask your opinion about what is likely to 410. From the layman’s point of view you have a happen to their building. bigger layer of clay than would appear at first sight. (Professor Mair) I will be pleased to. (Professor Mair) Yes, that is correct. 403. MS LIEVEN: My Lord Chairman, if I can just outline to the Committee, in the other place Professor 411. The other question I wanted to ask: all your Mair was never actually called as a witness, apart illustrations were for tunnels coming into an area from giving the presentation, because, in the main, where there were no other tunnels, but, of course, we we found it appropriate for Mr Berryman to deal know that the whole thing is criss-crossed with with site-specific settlement issues where we felt that existing tunnels. Does that have any eVect? that fell within his very extensive area of competence. Presumably not or you would have mentioned it. If there are specific issues where we feel it is necessary (Professor Mair) Well, it is very important. You are to call Professor Mair we will do so, but we hope— absolutely correct, the presence of other tunnels is a particularly, I have to say, because of Professor very important consideration, and when the new Mair’s availability—the Committee will bear with us Crossrail tunnels are constructed beneath existing if we choose which witness seems most appropriate to tunnels then there has to be a very careful assessment us at the time. of what will happen to the existing tunnel. It will be subjected to potential settlement, and there has to be 404. CHAIRMAN: I think we are entirely in your a very clear evaluation of that to ensure that the hands, Ms Lieven. What we have heard this morning existing tunnel is not adversely aVected. is extremely interesting to us all and we realise the great expertise that you are bringing to bear. 412. There could, presumably, in theory at least, be Anyway, we will see what happens. considerable damage. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:34 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
56 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement
(Professor Mair) In theory, but it would be absolutely (Professor Mair) I think they would find that the case that that would never be allowed to take argument hard to pursue. Both methods that we have place. You are completely right; if, for example, it been talking about this morning produce very small was a running London Underground tunnel then it is volume losses and very small settlements. very important to London Underground and to the population at large that the operation is not in any 419. But the sprayed one more than the earth- way impaired. So, therefore, the amount of pressure balance machine. movement must be restricted to a suitably small (Professor Mair) Yes, the sprayed one is more. That figure. is correct. It could be argued that stations should, therefore, be constructed by tunnelling machine 413. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: rather than spray concrete. This would require a lot Which, Professor Mair, is the most expensive of thought because stations are not very long— method: the pressure balance machine or the spray- typically only a few hundred metres long—and they concrete lining? Is that a factor which is taken into do not lend themselves well to a tunnelling machine account when determining which should be used? which is much more suited to a long drive. (Professor Mair) It is a diYcult question to answer straightaway because the machine tunnelling, the 420. Finally, we have opted for a 7-metre Crossrail earth-pressure balance machine tunnelling, will be tunnel as opposed to the 8-metre link for the Channel used for the smaller size for the running tunnels—the Tunnel. Is there any reason for that? 7-metre diameter running tunnels—whereas the (Professor Mair) I am not the best person to answer sprayed concrete is used for the much bigger station that question. I think there are operational reasons tunnels. So it is not immediately easy to compare the for train sizes, and so on, which others could provide two in terms of cost. the answer as to why Crossrail is requiring only a 7- metre diameter, compared with the Eurostar that 414. The sprayed concrete was used in the Channel needs an 8-metre diameter. Tunnel primarily, was it not? (Professor Mair) It was used for the crossovers. Do 421. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman, I you mean the Channel Tunnel itself as opposed to the take it there is no other method of tunnelling which Channel Tunnel Rail Link? anybody is likely to come up with, superior or diVerent from the two that you have outlined? 415. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link. (Professor Mair) The Channel Tunnel Rail Link, 422. CHAIRMAN: The Brunel? linking from Folkestone up to St Pancreas, used both (Professor Mair) I can confidently say there will be no techniques: it used spray-concrete in parts and it used other method of tunnelling that would be proposed. earth-pressure balance machining in other parts—for both. Both methods were used. 423. LORD SNAPE: Arising from that, Professor Mair, I was on the hybrid bill in the other place 20 416. I am trying to work out in my head, when you years ago, on the Channel Tunnel Bill. What has start with a gleam in your eye, what is the driving changed, as far as tunnelling and construction force? Is it, in fact, trying to avoid or minimise the generally, in that 20 years? amount of disruption which might arise from it, or (Professor Mair) I think there have been very whether it is a cost factor which is the prime driver? substantial changes, both to earth-pressure balance (Professor Mair) Do you mean in the choice of machine technology—and that has advanced tunnelling technique? considerably. It was barely in existence 20 years ago—that is, the technology of having a pressurised 417. Yes. space. That has immediate eVects on settlement (Professor Mair) I think it is both. Both techniques control, of course. Sprayed concrete technology was minimise the amount of settlement. As I explained in existence 20 years, but, again, there have been very earlier, the station construction—if you use sprayed substantial technical advances in that process as well. concrete it gives you much more flexibility because you do not have to stick to circular tunnels. 424. Have they been learnt from overseas practice or has it just developed in the UK? I am thinking, 418. I am just wondering if someone could come and particularly, of some of the Japanese tunnelling. argue that their property was going to be disrupted or (Professor Mair) I think tunnelling is very much an their big commercial development was going to be international industry. There has been a huge amount disrupted and they would prefer you to go for a of development in places like Singapore and Tokyo as diVerent type of tunnelling method because it would well as in Europe. So it has not been a solely British be less disruptive. series of innovations; it has happened worldwide. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:34 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 57
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement
425. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, do I see that you 430. CHAIRMAN: Is that something that local might have been given the answer to why 7 metres? planning authorities will tell applicants?
426. MS LIEVEN: I have a couple of answers, my 431. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, the position is that we Lord. First of all, why 7 metres? It is because the believe that the people who are likely to be most Channel Tunnel Rail Link was designed to the directly aVected by this are aware of it because it has European gauge, so it has a slightly larger tunnel than arisen in discussions that have taken place between Crossrail needs to have. The other point to make at Crossrail. The number of properties aVected by this this stage is that it was certainly the case in the other change we believe to be very small, and in instances place that no Petitioners came into Committee and where we may be aware that there may be an impact argued that a diVerent tunnelling method should have and a change they have been discussed either directly been used—so, for instance, tunnel-boring machines with the developers in question or with their legal in their location rather than spray-concrete lining. To representatives. the best of my knowledge, none of the Petitions before your Lordships raise such an argument. That is not to say that nobody may raise it orally before your 432. CHAIRMAN: Do the local planning authority Lordships, but I am not conscious of it being raised planning departments know about it? specifically in any Petition.
427. Unless there are any questions for Professor 433. MS LIEVEN: I cannot answer whether there Mair, I just need to say something about the have been any discussions with the planning settlement policy and the settlement deed. I do not authorities yet, but everybody will know about it after know if that is an appropriate moment. today’s announcement because we are going to put it on the website and it is going to be flagged up on the website. Obviously, the only planning authorities that 428. CHAIRMAN: Are there any more questions for are aVected are those which cover the area of the Professor Mair? Professor Mair, thank you very central tunnels (this is not a point for the limbs), and much. We may have the pleasure of seeing you again, we will ensure that it is expressly brought to their and, if so, so much the better for us. attention. (Professor Mair) Thank you.
The witness withdrew 434. The other point I need to make clear is a clarification to the policy rather than a change and it 429. MS LIEVEN: I am very grateful, my Lords. The has just been clarified what we believe was already settlement approach which Professor Mair has just implicit within the policy, that the buildings in outlined is set out in our settlement policy which is question must have been substantially completed by contained within one of our information papers, in the time that the owner has to serve notice on the this instance D12, on ground settlement. As is nominated undertaker under the terms of the explained in that policy, in order to put the policy settlement deed. In eVect, that is ten months before the approach into eVect the Promoter will enter into what relevant part of the works are intended to commence. is called a settlement deed with any qualifying owner That is not a change to the policy but when we came to so that the policy which has been described to you is look at the change we thought we would make this contractually enforceable between the qualifying absolutely clear. Sothe policy has beenclarified in that owner and the nominated undertaker—it gives a respect. I just needed to draw those two points to the direct and easy enforceability mechanism. What is attention of the Committee. meant by a qualifying owner is set out in appendix 1 to paper D12, and in essence the owner must have a legal 435. CHAIRMAN: As you say, they will go on the interest in all or part of the relevant building. The website. buildingin questionmustbe within30metres, onplan, of the relevant works—they might be a tunnel, they might be a station, they might be a shaft, or whatever 436. MS LIEVEN: Yes. My Lords, the only other the works in question are. What I need to make clear thing I need to do before we break is that I think the today is that the policy set out in D12 has been Committee would like to be informed as to the likely amended to state that in order for a building to fall course of next week, so if any Members of the within the policy and, therefore, to meet the qualifying Committee are minded to do any pre-reading I can criteria, it must have been granted planning minimise the amount of wasted time. I do not know permission by 1 March 2008. So buildings which gain whether that would be helpful. I am conscious that we planning permission after 1 March will not be eligible are not going to meet again in formal session until next for a settlement deed. Monday. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:07:34 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400399 Unit: PAG1
58 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
20 February 2008 General presentation by the Promoters on ground settlement
437. CHAIRMAN: Can you do it on the bus? 441. CHAIRMAN: I think we may meet one or two of the potential Petitioners. 438. MSLIEVEN: I can certainlydo it on thebus, my Lord, yes. I will not take more than one minute but I 442. MS LIEVEN: Certainly there are going to be can do on the bus. Petitioners there. 443. CHAIRMAN: We will not formally meet, 439. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Are except in the bus, twice, and otherwise it will be next there any documents we need to take with us? Monday at half-past two. We will then start dealing with the Petitions that you are going to tell us about 440. MS LIEVEN: We will be providing packs, my this afternoon. Lord, with the relevant plans on it, so I do not think it is necessary for the Committee to take any documents. 444. MS LIEVEN: Indeed, my Lord. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 59
DAY THREE TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Jones of Cheltenham, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Snape, L Fookes, B Young of Norwood Green, L James of Blackheath, L
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
445. CHAIRMAN: Good morning to you all. Ms 451. CHAIRMAN: It seems to be very sensible. Lieven, are you going to present the case on immobility/disability? 452. MS LIEVEN: If I can start by opening briefly on Crossrail’s approach to people with restricted1 mobility. We have produced an Information Paper, 446. MS LIEVEN: I am, my Lords, yes. This E5—and perhaps we can flash up the front page of morning, my Lords, we are dealing with the petition 2 it—which presents Crossrail’s position on this topic. of the London Borough of Newham. Newham raise All I am going to do is take the headlines or highlights points about the provision of step-free access at two out of that document to explain it to the Committee. stations within their borough Manor Park and The Crossrail project overall involves a very Maryland. significant improvement in accessibility to key locations in London. There are 28 stations now on 447. CHAIRMAN: Maryland on the Docklands the Crossrail route, including all the central stations, Light Railway Line? which will be made step-free from street to platform. Approximately 93 per cent of all passenger trips on Crossrail will start and end at a station with step-free 448. MS LIEVEN: No, my Lords, they are both on access. E5 sets out the position. the north-eastern line. I will put up a route plan in a moment to show you. 453. Perhaps if we turn to the second page of E5, it is worth highlighting to the Committee that when the 449. CHAIRMAN: Is this a generic point? Bill was first introduced, there were five fewer stations being upgraded to full accessibility. In the course of the Commons we gave further 450. MS LIEVEN: No, my Lords. The way we are consideration to the matter and put forward four going to deal with this is we are going to have a more stations—Forest Gate, Goodmayes, Gidea generic presentation on the Crossrail approach to Park and Harold Wood—all on the north-east people with restricted mobility, which is often called section to be upgraded to full accessibility. There was PRMs but I will try and drop the acronym and stick one other additional station, Chadwell Heath, which to “people with restricted mobility”. Dr Alice is now being made fully accessible under the Maynard, who is sitting to my left over there, is going Department for Transport ‘Access for All’ scheme. to give that presentation. Then we are going to deal with the site specifics of the two stations that the 454. Very briefly, the criteria that we have used to London Borough of Newham are concerned with. I decide whether stations should be upgraded in this think it is important that the Committee understands way or not consist of three factors: the number of the overarching policy approach on Crossrail before passengers; the capital cost of the upgrade; and the you come down to looking at the issues around the ease of access to alternative fully accessible stations. two specific stations. What I was proposing to do— When we are dealing with the third of those criteria, and then I will later in the morning or day call Mr the ease of access, it is important to remember that Berryman to give evidence on the engineering and that is not just a function of distance, because transport issues around the provision on the two although some people with restricted mobility will be specific stations—was to give a brief outline on the 1 generic position in opening, then touch on the factual Reduced Mobility, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD- issues around the two stations, and then hand over to IPE5-001) 2 Crossrail Information Paper E5—Provisions for People with Dr Maynard to give a presentation, if that course is Reduced Mobility, p1, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk acceptable to the Committee. (LINEWD-IPE5-002) Crossrail Information Paper E5—Provisions for People with Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
60 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility getting to the station in question under their own that the platforms have to allow freight services to get steam, as it were, whether it is by electric wheelchair past. That means it is not possible to give completely or pushing a buggy, or whatever, there will be many level access between Crossrail and the platforms people who will be getting to the station in any event because if you did that you would stop the freight on a bus or a taxi or by Dial-a-Ride service, so it is trains getting past, so that is obviously not possible. not a simple function of how far it is and issues such as bus routes become critical in this respect. 458. CHAIRMAN: That is clearance, is it?
455. The next issue on the3 overall approach is that of interchanges. At Annex 2 of document E5, we set out 459. MS LIEVEN: Clearance, that is absolutely a full list of all the Crossrail works and accessibility right. Then the final issue I wanted to touch on from provisions by station. The approach here is to the IP is the train facilities themselves once you are on provide fully accessible interchange wherever the trains, and these are governed by the Rail Vehicle reasonably practicable. I am sure it is obvious to the Accessibility Regulations 1998. Trains will all Committee, who will be familiar with the London provide dedicated spaces for wheelchair users so they Underground network, that there are huge will be fully accessible. That is a very brief summary diYculties at some London Underground stations in of what we set out in Information Paper E5. putting in step-free access. I do not intend to go Obviously the Committee has it in front of them, and through all this because in the main I think the local if there are any questions on that Mr Berryman will authorities are content with the approach we have be giving evidence later, and indeed Dr Maynard on taken and the specifics we have taken, but there are the generics. some London Underground interchanges where it is extremely diYcult, in engineering terms, to provide a fully accessible interchange, and Dr Maynard will 460. Can I then turn very briefly to the specifics of the refer to some of those when giving her presentation. Newham Petition and the two stations they seek to make step free. 456. There is a vast improvement in the interchange network thanks to Crossrail, but you will have seen 461. BARNONESS FOOKES: What precisely is already from looking at the fourth column that there meant by “passive provision” which I see in these are some places where we have said no, we cannot tables? provide an interchange. The one that springs to mind on that page is the Bakerloo Line at Paddington where we have made passive provision for a step-free 462. MS LIEVEN: If we take the example of the interchange, but whether or not it can ever be fully Bakerloo interchange at Paddington, the diYculty is provided obviously will depend on future LUL that there is a very narrow space between the improvements. Bakerloo Line platforms at Paddington and there is—and I cannot remember whether it is a signals 457. The next issue I ought to touch on is platform- room or an electrics room—a critical room in that to-train accessibility. It is all very well to get people space for London Underground operations, so what with restricted mobility from the street down to the we are doing is making step-free access to the point platform, but again members of the Committee who above the platform where the lift would have to come are familiar with the rail network will know that it down. Because we are not going to re-engineer the can be quite a large issue getting from the platform whole of that bit of the Bakerloo Line under the onto the train. In the central section there will be Crossrail scheme, you would still have to go down completely level step-free interchange between the steps, but at the point where the Bakerloo Line is platform and onto the train, so there is no issue in the upgraded under London Underground’s own central section. In the outer limbs, where there is proposals, that signals room can be moved and a lift shared working with overground Network Rail can be put in. So we have taken it up to the point services, Crossrail is committed to ensuring that step- where London Underground under its own free onto the trains will be achieved, but the precise proposals can do the next stage and actually put the design solution to that has not yet been settled on, lift in, but for us to do that would involve major and Mr Berryman can give more evidence on that if works to the Bakerloo Line, which is completely the Committee wants to hear about it. There are outside the remit of Crossrail, and Mr Berryman can various diVerent possibilities and we are still working give you much more detail on the precise problems. on what is the best one. The issue in the outer limb is That is what we mean by passive provision.
3 Reduced Mobility, Annex 2, Proposed Crossrail Works and Accessibility by Station, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk 463. BARNONESS FOOKES: You mean future Crossrail(LINEWD-IPE5-005) Information Paper E5—Provisions for People with provision? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 61
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
464. MS LIEVEN: Future provision. new station ticket hall. Maryland is the next blob on here which I am indicating and it is about 600 metres 465. BARNONESS FOOKES: I just wonder why from Stratford Station. Then we come to Forest Gate you use the word “passive”. and then the next one is Manor Park and east of Manor Park is Ilford. Stratford, Forest Gate and 466. MS LIEVEN: It is the normal jargon in this Ilford are all going to be fully accessible with step-free situation (which is probably no excuse!) which allows access down to5 the platforms. the next person who comes along to fit the last piece of the jigsaw. So if, for instance, we were putting steps 469. If I can then put up 001, this is our plan of step- in further back along the passage, then we would free stations. The full green blobs are fully have stopped step-free access in the future. We are accessible. There are on the western limb a few half not doing that; we are allowing it up to this critical green blobs which show accessible in one direction point and that is what we call passive provision so only, which we fully accept is not a perfect solution then somebody else can come along and do the last but does not really arise on this petition, and then the bit. That issue I think arises at two or three locations very few red blobs are the ones that are not going to but the Bakerloo Line at Paddington is the one I am be made accessible for people with reduced mobility, most familiar with. so one can see those there. 6
467. Turning on then to Newham’s position, we did 470. Then if we just put up 003 please, just to show the say before that we would just very briefly explain Committee and7 give some context. That is Maryland where petitioners had been in the House of Station (Indicating) and that is a photo from the side Commons, as it were. Newham did appear in the of Maryland Station. Then if we can put up Manor House of Commons but only to explain that they had Park please. There we are—that is a photo of generally reached agreement on issues. Their major Manor Park. concern in the House of Commons was that trains should stop at Maryland at all because the original 471. And to show the Committee where these stations proposal was, because of the low usage of Maryland lie in real terms rather than railway terms, if we can and its proximity to Stratford, Crossrail trains would go back to 004, this is Maryland Station on the not stop at all. We agreed with Newham before they railway and there is a bus route that comes past it.8 appeared in the House of Commons that we would Stratford Station, as I say, is about 600 metres to the approach HM Railway Inspectorate to allow trains west and this is the shopping centre of Stratford to stop at Maryland without all the doors opening. (Indicating) with pedestrian accessibility through it. Because the platforms at Maryland are too short for all the Crossrail carriage doors to open, there is going 472. Just to put it in context up here are the Olympic to be what is called “selective” door opening so one lands, the Stratford railway lands which are at the set of carriage doors will not open because the moment being redeveloped for the Olympics. One platforms are too short. That was Newham’s can see to the east, Forest Gate Station. There are principal issue in the Commons and we reached various other points on these maps but I will go agreement on that and they did not appear. They did through those with Mr Berryman. put down a marker that they were concerned about accessibility at Maryland and Manor Park, and the 473. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD: Just before issues of accessibility were dealt with generically in you move on, I presume that the buses that run are the House of Commons, and Dr Maynard made a wheelchair accessible? generic presentation. Newham did not come back at that generic stage to press the point on Maryland or 474. MS LIEVEN: They are all wheelchair Manor Park, so although it was raised in general they accessible, yes, they are all low-floor buses. did not come back in front of the Commons and seek to argue the point. 4 475. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I also have a question. Could you go back to the map please 468. If I could then turn to the facts. If we could put with the limited access where you have only got it up the north-east route map please. The Committee one way? will remember from the opening the north-east 5 section going up to Shenfield. The first station is access to Crossrail stopping platforms (NEWMLB-53 04-001) 6 Stratford which is a major interchange, the CrossrailPark (NEWMLB-53 Ref: P8, Crossrail 04-003) Line 1—Diagram 2—step-free Committee will be familiar with it, it comes at the end 7 Crossrail(NEWMLB-53 Ref: P8, 04-006) Transport for London—Buses from Manor of the termini of the Jubilee Line and is a relatively 8 4 Crossrailproviding Ref: direct P8, links Maryland to Stratford Station—View Station (NEWMLB-53 of station entrance 04- (LINEWD-OPN1-016) 004) Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station—Local bus services Crossrail Ref: P1, Crossrail Line 1—Northeastern Route Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
62 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters9 presentation on people with reduced mobility
476. MS LIEVEN: Yes, 001. are not doing anything to stop accessibility in the future, so you could call it ‘passive provision’, but, as 477. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: In that we are not doing anything on that side of the track, particular case is it feasible for somebody who is we have not chosen to call it that. seriously handicapped to have the disability problem that they cannot use the platform going the right way, 481. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: The can they in that case go easily to another station with final bit then of this question is this: that, if one is easy access to the next platform back the other way if going from Langley or wishes to get oV at Langley they wanted to and get to the point they have got to but is handicapped or disadvantaged by the fact that platform on the right way with the right access by there is no access to a platform where they can get oV going back to another station? because it is only on one side, would they then go on to West Drayton, which appears to be the next one 478. MS LIEVEN: Yes, there are really two that they go to, or would it be Iver? alternatives I would suggest in those situations over on the western limb. Either somebody could get on the platform going in the wrong direction, go back to 482. MS LIEVEN: West Drayton . the next accessible station, which in this case would be Slough, go from Langley back to Slough, and then 483. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: When change back on to the fully accessible service going they get to any other station where they want to the other way. The more likely scenario, I suspect, change platforms, is there anything which would not and Dr Maynard may want to comment on this, is be reported as a problem if we were looking solely at that a number of people who are seriously disabled, the straightforward access on a single route so that it for example, in wheelchairs, will not be going to the is completely step-free on the eastbound, say, but, if station, as I put it colloquially, under their own steam you wanted to change from the eastbound to the in any event. For example, they will be getting a Dial- westbound platform, are there any little problems a-Ride or a lift or a taxi or a bus. Now, in reality, that have crept in whereby there are some steps which probably most people in that situation, even if they have been left because it was not assumed that it was live close to Langley, will actually just get the bus or a problem as there was free access, so there is nothing the Dial-a-Ride to Slough, so, rather than doing a which presents an extra hazard there? rather complicated journey of going to Langley, going in the wrong direction and then coming back, they will probably just arrange their aVairs so that 484. MS LIEVEN: Nothing at all, my Lord. Where they go straight to Slough. Of course there may be a it says ‘step-free’ it means step-free, fully accessible small number of people who are so close to Langley for people who cannot manage steps. The fact that that that is not their most convenient thing to do, but, there is a full green dot at West Drayton means full in reality, it is relatively unlikely that people would do accessibility. that journey. 485. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I was 479. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: There just concerned that there might have been some are two spin-oV questions that come from that, if I forgotten steps left in the transfer from one platform may. First, picking up from Baroness Fookes’ to another which would be self-defeating to have to question, the limited access there does not imply that go back a station. this is a passive solution in the short term, but it will have a full solution in the longer term, so these are as they will stay? 486. MS LIEVEN: No, absolutely not. I do not know whether it would be helpful for me to very 480. MS LIEVEN: These are as they will stay in the briefly outline what are the reasons why we are not present circumstances. I put it like that because upgrading Maryland and Manor Park. I appreciate accessibility for people with restricted mobility is a this is going to go slightly beyond the absolutely very high priority for the Department for Transport objective and factual, but it may be helpful for the and it has got a scheme called ‘Access for All’ and Committee if I, in three or four sentences, outline our that is gradually upgrading stations across the UK. position before you hear Newham’s case so that you Now, it may well be that, as a number of stations are, can understand where Mr Berryman’s evidence is as it were, done under that scheme, stations such as going to be coming from. It is one of the slightly odd Langley necessarily go higher up the priority list. things about this process, that, unless I do that now, There is no question at stations like Langley that we the Committee is not going to know until it hears Mr 9 Berryman, but I am entirely in your Lordships’ hands access to Crossrail stopping platforms (NEWMLB-53 04-001) as to whether that would be helpful or not. Crossrail Ref: P8, Crossrail Line 1—Diagram 2—step-free Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 63
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
487. LORD SNAPE: Before you do, Ms Lieven, stopping at a relatively little-used station is actually may I just ask a couple of questions? Am I to of significant disbenefit to all the people who are understand from what you said earlier that Maryland stuck on the train while it stops. Station was included, if I can put it this way, as an afterthought and it was not in the original proposals 493. LORD SNAPE: Lastly, on this particular for the Crossrail scheme? point, is it then an accurate, albeit somewhat cynical, way of looking at Newham’s case that, having 488. MS LIEVEN: Stopping at Maryland Station petitioned for this station to be included in the was not in the original proposal because of the length Crossrail services, they have then said, “But it’s not of platforms, yes. It has always been on the route. disability accessible, so you have got to spend lots of money to make sure that it is”? 489. LORD SNAPE: I understand that. Was Maryland included as a result of the original Petition 494. MS LIEVEN: It is certainly one interpretation from Newham Council and was it accepted then by one could put on the position. To be fair to Newham, the Promoters initially or at the insistence of the they have always made it clear that they are keen to Committee in the other place? see full accessibility at both of these stations, but it is true to say that there has been a bit of a war of 490. MS LIEVEN: No, it was not at the insistence attrition on Maryland and I think the Promoters’ of the Committee; it never got to the Committee. view would be that, when we agreed to stop at Newham lobbied and then ultimately petitioned on Maryland, we did not believe we were going to have the issue and we looked at it carefully. We were to do quite a lot of work at it. initially concerned that Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate would not be content for a new scheme, 495. LORD SNAPE: Having said that was my last such as Crossrail, to have selective door opening. As question, it does lead me to another one. Had you Mr Berryman can explain, selective door opening is known what you know now, would you perhaps have eVectively essential at Maryland because to extend been less enthusiastic about accepting the case for the platforms at Maryland would be enormously Maryland? diYcult. It would involve the cutting out of embankments, closing strategic roads, all sorts of 496. MS LIEVEN: I think we might have been less problems, so it was the concern that we would not be enthusiastic, my Lord, yes. Would it be helpful if I allowed to do, if I can use the acronym, SDO that very briefly outlined the issues at the two stations? meant originally we were not going to stop, but it was not at the insistence of the Committee because the 497. CHAIRMAN: Please. issue never got to the Committee. 10 498. MS LIEVEN: Perhaps we could put up the 491. LORD SNAPE: Lastly on this particular point, plan, first of all, of Manor Park please because the why then did the Promoters accept the case for issues are slightly diVerent at the two stations. At Maryland, given the fact that stopping trains on a Manor Park, the issues are really engineering ones. new railway within 600 or 800 metres is regarded in This is an exhibit we have produced to show what we railway circles as a bit of an operating problem? Two would need to do to make provision for lifts at the stations within such a short distance actually has station, which is of course the way that accessibility some impact on the overall rail capacity because of is given at stations such as this. At Manor Park at the starting and stopping. Why were the Promoters so moment, there is a walkway, a large concrete keen to accept Maryland? structure, which goes over the platforms. It will be Mr Berryman’s evidence that, in order to make 492. MS LIEVEN: Well, my Lord, with respect, provision for lifts at this station, that walkway would that is a very good question which Mr Berryman is have to be completely demolished and rebuilt in better qualified to answer than I am. I think the order to find the space to put the lifts in, and he will Promoters found themselves in a diYcult place. describe it in more detail, and it is his professional Newham petitioned very hard for us to stop and view that it would be, even in those circumstances, argued strongly that it was in the interests of the local extremely diYcult to get the lifts in. community and regeneration to stop at Maryland, and my recollection is that there were quite 499. The other factor your Lordships should be considerable proposals for new development at aware of here is that there is a loop, a railway loop Maryland and, in those circumstances, we decided it running to the south. Now, under the original was appropriate to stop. Mr Berryman can give 10 further evidence as to the balance that was struck provision of PRM lifts without platform extensions there, but of course your Lordship is quite right, that (NEWMLB-53 04-010) Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—Proposed details for the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
64 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility scheme, it was proposed to close that loop because to Stratford and bus routes running from the east that was the only way that we could extend the down here (indicating). That is the end of Romford platforms to allow for the platforms to be the 200 Road that runs close to Manor Park as well coming metres required for Crossrail. When HMRI agreed to down to Stratford, so for most of the catchment of selective door opening at Maryland, what the project Maryland they are actually very close to Stratford decided to do was also to have selective door opening anyway and it is very easy for them to get to Stratford at Manor Park and, by doing that, it meant that we on the buses. The other point to make is that there is could keep the freight loop. The Committee will no parking at Maryland, whereas there is parking at know, perhaps Lord Snape in particular, that there Stratford, so for people coming on Dial-a-Ride or are huge benefits in keeping the freight loop, benefits even by taxi or being taken by a member of the family to freight in particular, and the freight Petitioners or a carer, actually Stratford is the much better and have petitioned hard to keep freight loops and indeed more convenient station in any event. to build new ones, but also benefits to other rail users because it allows a more flexible operation on the 501. That is a very brief overview. Unless the railway, so, if there is some problem on the slow line, Committee has any questions for me at this stage, I you can push people on to the loop. The current was going to hand over to Dr Maynard for her scheme is that we do not extend the platforms, we presentation. maintain the freight loop and we have selective door opening at Manor Park. If we were to have PRM and 502. LORD SNAPE: Is that a bus-rail interchange lifts were to be installed, then it would be, as I say, a at Stratford? Is it all within the same complex so major engineering operation to remove this structure getting from the bus to the train for people with and rebuild it and then to get lifts in and all that disabilities is not going to be particularly diYcult? would be extremely expensive by anybody’s normal standards, something in the region of £12 million. Mr 503. MS LIEVEN: Getting from the bus to the train Berryman will go through this in more detail, but, if is extremely easy. There is a brand-new, well, I say we put up the plan of Manor Park, the map at 014, ‘brand-new’, it was built at the time that the Jubilee one can see that just to the south of Manor Park is Line Extension was opened, but a very swish, new Romford Road which has buses going up and down ticket hall, bus station, integrated interchange at between Ilford and Stratford and most of the Stratford, and I suspect that will be even further catchment of Manor Park lies to the south because upgraded with the Olympics because of course one can see that to the north there is a very11 large Stratford is going to be the main station for the cemetery, Wanstead flats and another large park, so Olympics, so it is an all-singing, all-dancing, fully most of the catchment lies to the south within easy integrated public transport interchange. While Dr distance of buses to Ilford and Stratford. The Maynard is giving her presentation, I will try and find judgment that the project reached was that, in those a photo of it because I am sure we have one circumstances, given the engineering diYculties, the somewhere in the documents. costs and the easy accessibility, it was very poor value for money to provide lifts at Manor Park. 12 DrAliceMaynard, sworn and examined 500. If we then move on to Maryland, the argument is somewhat diVerent, if we can put up 011. Mr 504. MS LIEVEN: Perhaps we can put Dr Berryman will explain how the lifts would be Maynard’s presentation up and, Dr Maynard, I am provided here and, although it is costly, it is nowhere going to hand over to you to introduce yourself. near as complicated or disruptive as works at Manor (Dr Maynard) My Lords, I have been asked to talk Park, but the real issue at Maryland is the one that we to you today about the approach that Crossrail is have already touched on which is its close proximity taking to the provision of access for people with restricted mobility and I just wanted to talk a bit to Stratford and the ease by which people could13 get to Stratford who currently use Maryland. If we can about that term ‘people with restricted mobility’. It is put up 004 again, we have Maryland there a European term that Crossrail has adopted and it (indicating) and Stratford there (indicating). It is includes not just disabled people, but also other about a 600-metre walk, but, perhaps more people who have diYculty travelling, such as parents importantly for people with reduced mobility, there with pushchairs or people with luggage, anyone who are bus routes coming down here (indicating) going is sometimes called ‘encumbered’. The terms that I am going to use in the presentation may actually vary 11 Catchment Plot—2001 LATS Data (NEWMLB-53 04-014) because some of the presentation is going to address 12 the needs of disabled people directly and specifically provisionCrossrail of Ref: PRM P8, lifts Manor (NEWMLB-53 Park Station—AM 04-011) Peak Access 13 and some will address the needs of that broader providingCrossraildirect Ref: P8, links Maryland to Stratford Station—Proposed Station (NEWMLB-53 details for 04- the population, people with restricted mobility, and 004) sometimes I will use terms, such as ‘mobility Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station—Local bus services Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 65
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility impairment’ if that is what I mean or ‘visual monetary valuation for certain access features. This impairment’ if that is what I mean, so the says “currently researching”—in a sense that it is a terminology will vary, and I hope I do not make it too lifetime’s activity; I am indeed still currently confusing. A key focus of this presentation is going to researching the value of access. be on step-free access and this is because thus far in the design process it has been appropriate to focus on 510. My role in Crossrail is as an inclusivity advisor step-free access. Step-free access benefits disabled and I was responsible for drafting the inclusivity people and other people who experience barriers in policy, which covers all seven equality strands, the physical environment, and it is particularly including, disabled people, older people and men and important for wheelchair-users and for some people women, and women in particular—three groups that with walking diYculties. Those that present an have particular diYculty on the transport network. absolute barrier if there are steps, you just cannot use that particular facility. Crossrail is fully aware that not all disabled people are wheelchair users, and will 511. I now maintain a watching brief over the take that into account in design. I am sorry if I implementation of the policy as the project develops, reinforce that particular stereotype at the moment but I have got a particular interest in accessibility but that is because of the stage of design. I will come because of the background that I have in the back to that later in the presentation. transport industry and in particular in rail. In this respect I complement the work of David Bonnett 505. Before I begin I am just going to tell you a little Associates who are architectural access consultants bit about myself and my background. From 1998 to to the project. Both his company and mine have had 2003 I was Head of Disability Strategy at Network input into the Crossrail Design Manual. Rail, and I was responsible for developing a strategy to make the rail network accessible, which involved 512. I am going to talk briefly about the law because working with industry regulators, train operators most of you will be familiar with the law that applies and disabled people. in the rail environment and thus to Crossrail, but I think it is worth going over it again because of the 506. Since 2003 I have been running Future complexity of it. Inclusion. Future Inclusion’s transport clients include: Transport for London, London 513. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as Underground, Network Rail, some of the franchise amended by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 bidders in the former Strategic Rail Authority. We applies both to infrastructure and to vehicles. have undertaken a range of projects for them looking Stations are covered under Part III of the DDA and at disabled people’s transport needs and their have been since the various Part III elements of the inclusion in mainstream transport provision. My DDA were enacted between 1995 and 2004; so own personal transport experience as a user and as a coverage of stations came in in stages. Vehicles are consultant incorporates most modes, but in covered, as was mentioned earlier, under the Rail particular rail, bus, tram and underground. Vehicle Accessibility Regulations which were introduced under Part V. 507. I was involved in developing good practice guidance for rail in relation to COST 335, which was the European project on accessibility to heavy rail 514. Although in the rail industry we often talk about systems, where I was a member of the Stations compliance with the DDA, it is actually only possible Working Group and I wrote the report chapters on: to comply with the RVAR, the Rail Vehicle stations, information and training; and in relation to Accessibility Regulations, as there are no clear the Strategic Rail Authority’s Code of Practice, standards for station infrastructure with which we which is now the Department of Transport’s code of could comply; so we have to grasp the somewhat practice, into which I had significant input during my amorphous concept of good practice in order to tenure at Network Rail. conform to the DDA’s requirements, which is the way that I prefer to word it. 508. I have also been involved in developing good practice guidance for bus and rail operators in 515. The level of service provided to disabled people Ireland, jointly developing the Irish National has again always been covered in relation to stations Disability Authority’s guidance document. under Part III and now, I can thankfully say, since the DDA 2005 was brought in it is covered on 509. Lastly, I recently competed a doctorate looking vehicles as well. So you cannot be refused or given a at access for disabled people in the appraisal process worse service on the train simply because you are a in major transport projects and provided the disabled person. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
66 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
516. The DDA’s Part III provisions are information, that is unequal treatment in eVect, in anticipatory—that is to say, service providers should order to achieve an equal outcome. not wait until a disabled person needs to use their service, but they need to think about the needs of the 522. Likewise, steps with no ramp or lift range of disabled people who are likely to want to use disadvantages wheelchair users and some people with the service and respond to them in advance. walking diYculties, whereas a ramp with no steps disadvantages others with walking diYculties who 517. In addition, since the DDA 2005, we have a find steps with a handrail easier. There is no absolute public sector duty which applies to public sector solution to the provision of good access—what is bodies and requires them to promote disability important is that disabled people are not equality in all their functions. Planning would be one disproportionately disadvantaged by any provision of these functions, the stage that Crossrail is at. that is made.
523. In practice, the approach to implementing the 518. The public sector duty applies to Crossrail’s law in the rail industry has been patchy but it is shareholders, Transport for London and the improving, I am pleased to say. In the national rail Department for Transport. Crossrail was industry, major industry changes over the past ten incorporated into the Department for Transport’s years have shifted the focus away from accessibility, Disability Equality Scheme, which they published a and it has taken time and political will to get that couple of years ago, and undertook a disability focus back. impact assessment of its policies as part of that Scheme’s preparation. 524. In the early 1990s British Rail had begun to implement accessibility measures, but privatisation 519. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: sidelined it for a few years. You talked about the diYculty of applying good practice. When you are applying it what do you use as 525. In 2000 Hatfield and the resultant industry analogous or comparative—Where do you look: the changes stifled the development of an industry UK, Europe or internationally? How do you strategy. The former Strategic Rail Authority then establish the benchmarks? revived that development and, with the advent of (Dr Maynard) One of the things I discovered when Access for All and the Department for Transport’s we were doing the COST 335 work was that the UK focus on the issue, it is to be hoped that accessibility is pretty much ahead of other countries in the world. is now firmly entrenched. I would say we are kind of up there with the best. When I use the term “good practice” I mean good 526. There is some shining evidence of good practice, practice in other sectors actually, so looking at the in particular in light rail. However, it is easier to kinds of things that might be expected in some of the provide good access in a newly built closed system. sectors that are perhaps a little in advance of the rail Most often it is the legacy of existing infrastructure, industry. that I spoke about earlier, that causes problems.
520. In theory the policy intention behind the law in 527. A good example of that is SheYeld Supertram relation to transport is to remove the disadvantage where, when it was originally built, it was almost that disabled people experience and make travel completely accessible but the interchange with the easier for them. It should move us towards a seamless mainline station was not accessible. It has taken a journey, where disabled people can leave their very long time to get that accessible but it is, I am glad homes, travel on public transport and reach their to say, now so. destination without experiencing barriers. It should reduce the need for additional assistance. On the 528. EVectively the central part of Crossrail between other hand, it should not overburden the provider, Paddington and Whitechapel is obviously not closed and this is where the concept of reasonableness comes but it is eVectively like a closed system, and it is thus into play. fairly straightforward and cost-eVective there to provide access. The problems with Crossrail begin 521. It is important to recognise that the way to when it rubs up against existing infrastructure, both remove disabled people’s disadvantage is almost in London Underground and on the National Rail certainly not going to be through equal treatment. network. Providing a visually impaired person with a standard print information pack is equal treatment but it does 529. The DDA has certainly focussed attention on not achieve an equal outcome. Most visually accessibility and things are now improving; but the impaired people need an alternative form of current appraisal system, as I found in my research, Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 67
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility tends to militate against good practice because accessible, low floor buses with ramps, and black projects have to jump the value for money hurdle cabs are all wheelchair accessible. first , and the value of disabled access is now well accounted for. 536. Crossrail has taken a very proactive approach to the issue of inclusion. It is being integrated into the 530. Crossrail has still managed to work within that design at the appropriate stages. As I mentioned system to increase accessibility. As was mentioned earlier, straightforward layout and step-free access earlier, a couple of years ago four more stations were are being addressed now and other issues will be brought into the accessibility fold, as it were. addressed as the design matures. The next stage of the design, due to start later in the year, will focus on a 531. The rail industry has made marked progress in range of other access features such as tactile paving relation to access for people with restricted mobility for blind people and seating. Further still down the in general, but in particular for disabled people. In line, things like signage, induction loops, colours and the past disabled people were not considered in the finishes will be considered. design either of vehicles or of infrastructure. If you wanted to participate as a disabled person in the 537. An Equality Impact Assessment looking at the community and to travel on rail you had to fit in; and impact of Crossrail including the design on all seven you had to adapt yourself to whatever provision was of the equality groups has already been undertaken made for the travelling public. Many people either and is due to be reviewed this year now that the therefore did not travel or had great diYculty in project is becoming more established. doing so. I myself was once refused access to a guard’s van because I did not have the necessary 538. Broadly, there are four types of stations for permit signed by the Area Station Manager to allow Crossrail: there are new builds, such as Farringdon, me to travel with the post. Now we are much clearer and that provides 100 per cent step-free access; there about the problems that stem from poor design of the are major rebuilds, such as Ealing Broadway, which system, so the solution is the removal of barriers in provides 100 per cent step-free access; there are that system to ensure disabled people can travel. upgrades, such as Southall; and there are platform extensions only, such15 as Burnham and Manor Park. 532. Unfortunately, however, because of the position in the past we are left with some very sizeable 539. This diagram is the companion of the one you barriers, many of which are costly to remove and were shown earlier. This diagram shows you at the some of which present design and engineering present moment, at the stations where Crossrail is problems that are diYcult and, on a few rare going to call, where access is step-free. occasions, impossible to solve without rebuilding, as you have just been hearing. 540. A filled green blob indicates 100 per cent step- free access; a half green blob indicates 50 per cent 533. Increasingly now the will and indeed the step-free access, and that was the problem discussed funding, which again is incredibly important, is there earlier—you can get to one side of the station but not to solve these problems to the betterment of everyone cross the track; an empty red blob means that there is with restricted mobility. no step-free access to any of the platforms. As you can see today very few of these locations are 14 534. This slide gives you an idea of the diVerence that accessible to people with restricted mobility16 who Crossrail will make in London as a whole when it need step-free access. opens in 2017. London Underground has a clear strategy up to 2013 which will result in 18 per cent of 541. This is the slide you have seen before. You can journeys beginning and ending at step-free stations. see from this one the eVect that Crossrail will have on the ability of people who need step-free access to get to and from the locations on the diagram. 535. On Crossrail, on the other hand, 93 per cent of journeys will be step-free, so it will both enhance 542. One of the things I would like to add to what was existing transport provision when it opens and lead said before was, with a half green blob one of the the way for rail. This underlines the problem of provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act is existing infrastructure which London Underground, that of reasonable alternative provision; and at the and indeed the national rail network, are wrestling moment on the national rail network the way that is with; but it also demonstrates the very real diVerence eVected is that an operator will provide a taxi for a that Crossrail will make. Of course, then you can add to that that all buses in London are now wheelchair 15 free access to platforms (LINEWD-XR4-011) 14 16 (LINEWD-XR4-009) accessCrossrail to Crossrail Ref: P8, stopping Crossrail platforms Line 1—Diagram (LINEWD-XR4-012) 1—Current step Crossrail Ref: P8, Future Transport Access in London Crossrail Ref: P8, Crossrail Line 1—Diagram 2—step-free Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
68 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility disabled person if it is not reasonable for them to do the time Crossrail completes, much work has been that transfer up to the next accessible station and done already looking at, for example, London back again. They will provide a taxi back from the Underground’s existing interchange plans, and the accessible station to the one on which they boarded proposed stations that are going to benefit from originally. Access for All money.
543. There are still a few locations where Crossrail 549. Crossrail is going to continue to take a proactive does not provide step-free access. We believe that the approach to engaging partners in its planning negative eVect on people with restricted mobility will process. In addition, agreement has been reached be minimal because of the proximity of Crossrail that where changes are made to national rail stations stations where step-free access is being provided. This at which Crossrail will call those changes will be is exactly the issue we are dealing with today. Many delivered by Network Rail; and where changes are to of these stations provide interchange with other London Underground interchanges those changes transport modes, such as the bus terminals at Ilford will be delivered by London Underground. That is an and Romford. Others provide better ticketing eYcient way to achieve access, drawing on those facilities, more staV assistance (which is important partners’ existing expertise. At Tottenham Court for disabled people), and generally because of their Road, Crossrail has worked with LUL to provide a larger size and greater importance to the network station with fully accessible ticket halls, with better stations to use, and many people prefer to use accessible links to the Central and Northern Lines them as evidenced by the greater passenger numbers from street to platforms, and with interchange passing through these locations, and Stratford would between all three lines. That is an example of good be one of those. practice engagement between partners. At Paddington, as was mentioned earlier and as I, also, 544. Crossrail has looked at the nature of transport mentioned, there is passive provision for lifts being links to the stations from the surrounding area and is made where it is not currently possible to provide satisfied that, even now, there are suYcient bus routes step-free access when Crossrail first opens. to make the access straightforward. Given that Transport for London is one of Crossrail’s owners 550. This is an example of a rebuild17 that will provide and is also the body that regulates bus routes in a significant improvement for people with restricted London, we are satisfied that the picture will mobility, and it is at Ealing Broadway. These are just improve, if indeed it needs to improve, rather than a couple of pictures I produce now. As you can see, deteriorate. they are18 all of steps. Here is the artist’s representation of what those two aspects of Ealing Broadway, as it 545. Making a station accessible involves a number currently is, will look like once Crossrail has finished of thorny, practical issues, such as the available with it. Access has been a very long time coming at space—it may not be physically possible to Ealing Broadway, and it is Crossrail that is going to incorporate a lift or ramp within the given space make the diVerence. available. 551. I did mention at the beginning that Crossrail 546. The level of use versus the expense in providing recognises that accessibility is not just about access, the business case, is also an important wheelchair users, walking diYculties and step-free consideration, although it is not the only one. access. However, today’s issue, because of the design stage, is essentially about step-free access. The 547. The Access for All programme, for example, fundamentals of the infrastructure, such as takes such issues into consideration when it selects straightforward layout, which is only possible in a stations to upgrade. If you take something like brand new build, and that assists many disabled Clapham Junction, which calls itself the busiest people but, particularly, those with learning station in Britain, it is likely to cost £10 million plus. diYculties, and step-free access, need to be designed If you look at the Access for All funding, which is in from the outset, and Crossrail has focused on that £365 million over ten years for 220 stations, that is a so far. Now that the design is maturing and large proportion. developing, Crossrail is going to be looking at other fixtures important to access, which are things like seating, and eventually it is going to be looking at, for 548. Making a journey experience seamless for example, colour and materials, which are of people with restricted mobility will have to involve particular interest to people with visual impairments. working with partner organisations such as London Underground and Network Rail, and also a level of 17 XR4-014) investment by them. Although it is still not clear at 18 this stage how much partners will have achieved by XR4-015)Crossrail Ref: P8, An example: Ealing Broadway (LINEWD- Crossrail Ref: P8, Ealing Broadway as it will be (LINEWD- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 69
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
552. Towards the end of the project, as the provision 558. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I am not trying to of information including signage is considered, the avoid the question, I just suspect that Mr Berryman needs of people with sensory impairments and would be the better person to answer it. learning diYculties will become paramount. Crossrail’s programme of involvement and 559. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I would consultation is going to be key throughout the like the question noted for future reference. project to engage the right people at the right time to provide good advice where there are no standards or accepted good practice. Indeed, Crossrail is going to 560. MS LIEVEN: We have noted the question, my be contributing to developing those good practice Lord, and I will ask Mr Berryman to deal with it. standards for as long as it operates at the cutting edge of design for disabled people in the transport 561. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I environment. was looking at Ealing Broadway, as a downtown Ealing resident in Southall. I could not quite understand it. It is a mixture of escalators and lifts, I 553. Finally, I would just like to say that access is not presume? just about the hard stuV. When Crossrail opens, good (Dr Maynard) Yes, it will be a mixture of escalators management of both the station infrastructure and and lifts, and those sort of curvy thingies—those vehicles will be crucial in providing an accessible green square jobbies—they are stairs. Are they stairs service, as is training, eVective co-ordination with or escalators? Keith Berryman is probably better at interfacing operators, journey planning and answering this one, too. assistance, and as the specification for Crossrail’s operation is developed this must be borne in mind. 562. MS LIEVEN: They are stairs, my Lord. Thank you.
563. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 554. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, Dr Maynard is happy The main thing is, having used it frequently, it is a to answer questions. I do not know whether Mr Reed significant improvement from where we are now. has questions for her. (Dr Maynard) Yes. Ealing Broadway is currently an absolute no-go for anyone who cannot manage steps. 555. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: No reference has been made to the close proximity of 564. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Are three major football grounds within the area of these there any travelators involved anywhere in this stations, and I am concerned as to what the impact network? How are they regarded, in terms of might be of anybody in a handicapped situation compatibility with handicap use? trying to travel while there were hordes of rather robust football supporters trying to gain access or 565. MS LIEVEN: There are no travelators, to the travel on the same trains. Has any thought been given best of my knowledge, anywhere on the Crossrail to that and what protection might be aVorded, and network, and I know a little about travelators, so I whether the stations themselves are in any way likely think I would know. to be vulnerable to having made football rioting easier because it has opened out the space for 566. BARONESS FOOKES: Dr Maynard referred fighting? to the possible use of a taxi by someone where provision could not be made for step-free access. 556. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I do not know whether How would that work in practice? I presume you Dr Maynard is that familiar with the area of these would be using a more limited idea of impaired particular stations. It may be that Mr Berryman will mobility because you referred to the European be better placed to answer those questions. definition, which includes everyone encumbered with prams and heavy luggage. They are not going to get taxis, are they? 557. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I would (Dr Maynard) What I referred to was the provision be very concerned to know the answer to this because in the Disability Discrimination Act that would I have had some experience of rioting to be controlled apply to those who are substantially disadvantaged and I know that it is a near-impossible situation, and under the Disability Discrimination Act. What I said that they will take any opportunity for an open space was it is current practice in the national rail network to get stuck into each other. I am just wondering where there are issues like that, and it certainly came whether we have created a situation here where we up in Keith Roads v Central Trains Limited. That was have created natural battlegrounds. one of the cases where taxi provision was— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
70 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
567. Where it is practised already, does it actually 574. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I work? I presume you have to give advance notice. was going to return to that statistic, because it seemed (Dr Maynard) Actually, you have to give advance to me, if you looked at it and rated it against other notice on the national rail network anyway. It is networks, that 93 per cent must be top of the range. always best to give advance notice, but it is not (Dr Maynard) Absolutely over the top of the range. absolutely vital, depending on which station you are It is unheard of. talking about. That is really about the kind of half- green blobs (if I can put it that way) that are at the 575. That was one point I wanted to make so that we other end from today’s issue. do understand the context within which we are discussing the eVorts that Crossrail have made. The other one has been addressed by our learned counsel 568. While you are with us it seemed a good here, but it is not just looking at it in relation to opportunity to inquire into these matters. Maryland; you have to look at what access people (Dr Maynard) Indeed, indeed. Yes, you would need have got to the other stations as well. People with to give notice. disabilities, obviously, make an assessment of what is in their best interest when they are making a journey, 569. It sounds like a brilliant idea but sometimes to a certain extent, unlike most of us. They have to brilliant ideas do not actually translate into practice make a planned journey, more or less, every time, to when you are travelling on X day at X time. one extent or another. The point I am going to ask (Dr Maynard) Yes. I am not sure I would call it such you is, in that context, is it right what counsel has just a brilliant idea; as a way of alleviating a problem. said to us, that if you look at it holistically, taking into account Stratford and Forest Gate, would the fact that we cannot also include Maryland be 570. Overcoming a problem. regarded as wholly bad in the circumstances? (Dr Maynard) Yes. (Dr Maynard) As a user of the rail network I would not regard it as wholly bad. If I did I would not be 571. BARONESS FOOKES: Thank you. here. There are going to be some people who would find it unacceptable but, actually, I think the majority of people would regard it as entirely acceptable—in 572. LORD19 JONES OF CHELTENHAM: My particular because one of the other ways that Lord Chairman, on slide 9 we have statistics that the disabled people get to stations is in their own vehicles, number of step-free journeys on Crossrail is going to in their own cars, and Stratford has disabled parking be 93 per cent. Looking forward to our discussion available. So quite a lot of people are likely to use with London Borough of Newham, of course, we Stratford as a travel solution anyway. have got two empty red circles there. Do we have any figures for the number of step-free journeys of those 576. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: people getting on or oV in the London Borough of Ninety-three per cent of journeys will be step-free— Newham? Presumably it will not be 93 per cent. that is projected for 2017, is it not? That is the projection. (Dr Maynard) 573. MS LIEVEN: We do not, in front of us, my That is the projection, yes. When Lord. I suspect the analysis could be done by Crossrail opens 93 per cent of the journeys that factoring the Newham catchment areas into the people make will be step-free. provision of stations within Newham. If one takes the example of Maryland, when Mr Berryman gives 577. It is based on the number of people with evidence he will show you that the natural catchment disabilities at that time. area for Maryland is entirely overlapped by the (Dr Maynard) No. This is the number of journeys on catchment area for Stratford and Forest Gate. So the Crossrail. So this is the whole population; it is people fact Maryland does not have PRM accessibility may travelling from one station to another on the actually have no eVect, or a miniscule eVect, on the Crossrail network. percentage figure within the London Borough of Newham—if that makes sense—because it is so close 578. Has any work been done on the likely growth to Stratford. I am sure we could produce the that might take place as the population ages and the equivalent figure for Newham, but I doubt we would number of people with disabilities grows too? be able to produce it today. So perhaps we should put (Dr Maynard) I do not know the answer to that that on a shopping list for a note to be produced on question. I am sorry. that figure. 19 579. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: (LINEWD-XR4-009) Could we have an answer to that? Crossrail Ref: P8, Future Transport Access in London Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 71
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
580. MS LIEVEN: We will look into that, my Lord. 588. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I am entirely in the It may be in the equality impact assessment. We will Committee’s—and, indeed, Newham’s -hands as to look into it and if we cannot deal with it today we will whether they want to ask Dr Maynard questions now put it down on our shopping list. or would rather have that opportunity later in the day when we have heard the Newham evidence. 581. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: My next question would be, then, if we have not any 589. CHAIRMAN: This was going to be a general plans to try to put that right in the future when would presentation and it has been. I believe that specific the real squeeze point come when they would need to points may arise this afternoon, on which I do not be put in? wish to forestall questions at this stage, but when we have heard the Petitioners it might be that they want to ask Dr Maynard something, and so may we. 582. MS LIEVEN: I think I should explain the 93 Therefore, it would be very convenient if she could per cent. It is 93 per cent of journeys if people go to stay. their nearest station and then travel to another Crossrail station. So, self-evidently, if you do not go to your nearest station—say you live right next to 590. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, my Lord, I will check Maryland and you travel to Stratford—then you that with her over the short break. could say 100 per cent of journeys can be step-free. The 93 per cent is based on going to your closest 591. CHAIRMAN: We will have a short break. station. It is also appropriate that I explain that it is Shall we come back at half-past eleven? Very well; assuming you go from a Crossrail station to your adjourned until then. Crossrail destination. If, for example, you are going from Stratford to Goodge Street—so you go from Stratford to Tottenham Court Road on Crossrail— After a short break that counts as a step-free journey. The fact that, actually, your ultimate destination is Goodge Street 592. CHAIRMAN: I think we will now resume. I am on the Northern Line and that is not fully accessible reliably told that there will be tea and coVee in the is not taken into account in the 93 per cent. I think it upper waiting room tomorrow; unfortunately things is important that the Committee understand what broke down today but it will be put right. Mr Wills, that 93 per cent actually means. We will look into the did you want to ask some questions of Dr Maynard question of the degree to which we have taken into now or do you want to do it later? account the likely growth of disabilities in the community with the ageing population. 593. MS LIEVEN: I think it is Mr Reed, my Lord.
583. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Lieven. Tell me this: how are you going to deal with this point as it is 594. MR REED: Mr Reed, my Lord and I represent raised this afternoon by Newham? For instance, is Dr Newham Borough Council. I do have some generic Maynard still going to be here, because she may be questions at the moment on some matters relating to very relevant to some of the points they want to the criteria that were applied. I simply want to make? understand with Dr Maynard the extent to which she has had any involvement in those matters.
584. MS LIEVEN: I hope that Dr Maynard could stay, and then if there are points that the Committee 595. CHAIRMAN: I do not see any reason why you or, indeed, Mr Reed want to recall her on, I am sure should not ask generic questions. Dr Maynard is we could do that. going to stay this afternoon, and if they are to do particularly with the stations you are concerned with, she can answer then too. Go ahead on the generic 585. CHAIRMAN: The only thing is I do not want points. her to disappear just at the point we are going to be dealing this afternoon with these very issues. Cross-examined byMrReed
586. MS LIEVEN: No. I will discuss the matter with 596. MR REED: Dr Maynard, can I first of all Dr Maynard. understand with you the role that you have had in Crossrail, please? Am I right that you are the policy 587. CHAIRMAN: It is possible Petitioners might adviser to Crossrail on accessibility issues for the want to ask some questions of Dr Maynard. disability and mobility impaired? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
72 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
(Dr Maynard) No. (Dr Maynard) Absolutely none.
597. What is your role? 604. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, what is the date of this (Dr Maynard) I am policy adviser to Crossrail on document roughly? I see it is signed by Mr Twigg, so inclusivity issues so I am policy adviser particularly in it is certainly within this Government. relation to the inclusion policy. What I am very specifically not is an access consultant, and there is 605. MR REED: My Lord, I understand that it is quite a blurred boundary between the two because round about 2006. I apologise for not knowing the obviously accessibility issues are very important to specific date. March 2006. inclusion and therefore I am very particularly interested in them but, on the other hand, there are 606. CHAIRMAN: Fine. some very technical aspects of accessibility about which I do not advise Crossrail and that is the job of David Bonnett Associates. 607. MR REED: Going over the page, if we can Dr Maynard, to page 3 and under “Background” at 1.2, 598. I see. Am I right that you do however advise we can see that point reiterated where the them on the policy to be applied in respect of Government says: “There is no single measure or inclusivity generally? estimate of disability, but the most recent figures for (Dr Maynard) Yes. the number of disabled people in Britain is around 10 million. Government policy underlines the importance of mainstreaming the needs and 599. In that regard do you know about Government requirements of diVerent social groups. The policy on those matters? Government values the importance of social (Dr Maynard) Yes. 21 inclusion and providing access to aVordable transport services is a key part in improving 600. MR REED: Can I ask you please to be welfare.” The Government’s approach in general provided with—and I think you already have a copy terms is to recognise the importance of public of it—an extract from Railways for All, a policy transport for improving the well-being of the document produced by the Government. My Lords, disabled or mobility impaired? there is a copy I understand being handed up to you. (Dr Maynard) Yes. You will be receiving a bundle of documents which will be relevant to the questions that I will be asking Dr Maynard. They are only extracts and limited in 608. Go on, if you will please, to page 5 and I want nature. Within that bundle there should be one of the you to turn, if you would, to paragraph 2.1 of that documents headed “Railways for All—The document on that page under “Disability in Great Accessibility Strategy for Britain’s Railways”. Britain” and you will see a second paragraph there saying: “Transport is essential for providing access to employment, health services, education and leisure 601. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have certainly got that. pursuits. Disabled people are particularly dependent on public transport with 60 per cent of disabled 602. MR REED: I am grateful to you, Lord people having no car in the household, compared Chairman, for that. Are you aware that the Railways with 27 per cent of the general population. But for All document then led to the Access for All policy spontaneous travel is diYcult or impossible for many approach of the Government? disabled people. Indeed a survey for the Disabled (Dr Maynard) 22 Yes. Persons Transport Advisory Committee 2002 showed that disabled people made only two-thirds as 603. Can we understand then what informed the many journeys as non-disabled people.” Again, that Government’s approach to lead to the production of is the Government reiterating the importance for the the Access for All policy? Can I ask you please to turn disabled generally that that there is full and adequate to page 2 of that Railways for All document and the public transport; is that right? foreword in particular and the third paragraph (Dr Maynard) Yes. down: “However, we recognise that there are challenges on the railway. The rail network can be a 609. Just so I can pick up on one matter that arose diYcult environment for disabled people. With 20 during the presentation. In respect of the advance around 10 million disabled people, it is important warning that is necessary on the rail network; is that that our society takes steps to remove barriers which going to be the case with Crossrail? restrict access.” And you would not have disagreement with that policy approach? 21 Strategy, March 2006, p5 (SCN-20080226-002) 20 22 Strategy, March 2006, p3 (SCN-20080226-001) StrategyCommittee, March Ref: A1,2006, Department p7 (SCN-20080226-003) for Transport, Railways for All Committee Ref: A1, Department for Transport, Railways for All Committee Ref: A1, Department for Transport, Railways for All Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 73
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
(Dr Maynard) It has not yet been decided as to (Dr Maynard) Sorry, third paragraph? whether that is the case with Crossrail. It may have to be at external stations outside the middle bit where it 617. Forgive me, it is the fourth main paragraph, it is is already the case on the national rail network. It my misreading. “The project consists of . . . ”—that depends who the operator is. is the Crossrail project—“a number of separate infrastructure components whose eVects vary 610. It may have to be and it may not have to be? between locality and priority group. On a wider (Dr Maynard) It may not have to be. Perhaps by then community level the new railway will have social and it will not be anyway. economic eVects by delivering aVordable and accessible travel for London and the South-East, and at a local level by supporting regeneration and by 611. Thank you very much. If you can go on to providing new and improved transport another of those documents, the Equality Impact infrastructure”. That is the general intent of Assessment, it is the grey-coloured document. This Crossrail, is it not? set out, did it not, the position of Crossrail as at (Dr Maynard) Yes. January 2006? (Dr Maynard) Yes. 618. That is to say the Promoters of Crossrail and they acknowledge that it is going to be a new railway, 612. Tell me, did you have a hand in the drafting of do they not? any of this document, Dr Maynard? (Dr Maynard) Yes, they use the term “new railway” (Dr Maynard) Yes, I had a hand in the drafting of it. but it uses parts of the existing rail infrastructure.
619. As a generality, if one was dealing with a new 613. So you advised on its content and disagreed with railway and if one wanted to deliver aVordable and those parts that you did not think should be in the accessible travel, the usual way to do that would be to document? ensure such accessibility at each station? (Dr Maynard) Yes. (Dr Maynard) The usual way to do that is to ensure accessibility where possible, reasonable, et cetera, 614. At the end of that process did you disagree with and to try and mitigate the problems where there are any part of it? problems that cannot be overcome. It goes back to, if (Dr Maynard) Sorry, it is a long time since January I can just elaborate on that, the example that I gave 2006. I cannot remember whether I disagreed with of the SheYeld tram system where it was a new any particular part of it. What I can remember is that system but it hit up against existing infrastructure at I agreed with the general thrust of it because it was SheYeld mainline station and there access was not about trying to improve issues for the seven equality provided until considerably later. strands in relation to Crossrail in relation to its planning, its construction and its operation, so all 620. Yes but the intent was nevertheless to provide three aspects of Crossrail. A lot of it was relating to full accessibility at each of the stations, was it not? the construction side of it. I do remember that I did (Dr Maynard) Actually I think probably by that not disagree with the general thrust of it. I also have stage the intent was not to provide access at SheYeld to point out that in relation to the actual detail of mainline station? specific bits of it, as I was advising on the overall generic document, I may not have been actually au 621. Is that something you would agree with or not? fait with very specific details in it, so there may have (Dr Maynard) No actually, it is not something I been bits that I neither agreed nor disagreed with. would agree with.
622. Thank you. Let us carry on in that case to 615. Very good, thank you for that. Turn on please 23 paragraph 3.1 of the document which you will find as to the extract that I hope you have within that bundle an extract at page 23, under “Improved access to which is page 7 in the top right-hand corner, under transport facilities”: “Government research Methodology Development; do you have that? recognises that transport can be a significant barrier (Dr Maynard) Yes. to social inclusion. People may be restricted in their use of transport by low income, the absence of routes 616. In the third paragraph: “The project consists of to desired destinations, or because facilities are a number . . . ”—that is the Crossrail project, is it not, inadequate or diYcult to use. Age, disability and low Dr Maynard? income can prevent people travelling by car, making 23 them reliant upon public transport. In turn, these can Assessment, January 2006, p7 (SCN-20080226-004) restrict or prevent access to employer opportunities Department for Transport, Crossrail Equality Impact and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
74 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility 24 and key services such as schools, hospitals, shops and (Dr Maynard) Yes it does. leisure facilities.” Can I ask you this, Dr Maynard, in terms of those various categories of person who find 630. MR REED: And the result of taking into diYculty in accessing particular locations; they are account that factor comes to this, does it not, if you those who firstly are on a low income, secondly turn to page 28 in the document— disabled and thirdly old age? (Dr Maynard) Sorry, was there some kind of 631. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD: Is that the priority order? last page in our bundle? After 25 they are not numbered. 623. No, there was no priority order; I am simply reading what is said midway through that first 632. CHAIRMAN: They are—at the top left-hand paragraph. corner. (Dr Maynard) Yes, that is correct. 633. MR REED: My Lord, at 3.1.3 under “Access for people with restricted mobility”, as I say, it comes 624. And if particular people who want to access the to this, does not it that the position of Crossrail in transport system have more than one of those January 2006 was: “One of the most significant particular characteristics then that is a cumulative benefits relates to access to new services through the problem that they would face, for example low provision of step-free facilities improving access to income and disabled? the West End, City and the Isle of Dogs. The (Dr Maynard) Indeed, and indeed many disabled Crossrail project aims to minimise any undue eVort people are in the low income category. by, or special treatment of, passengers with restricted mobility. Where new platforms are used exclusively 625. And in terms of understanding the significance by Crossrail trains, Crossrail will cater for people of of that particular issue in the context of whether one restricted mobility (PRM) by providing independent, should upgrade particular stations, one should look step-free access from street level to platform. Existing to the levels of deprivation within and around that stations served by Crossrail will be refurbished to particular station; is that fair? cater for PRM wherever26 it is reasonably practicable (Dr Maynard) Yes, one needs to look at the levels of to do so. Where step-free access is not available, deprivation in that area and the level of transport dignified, alternative arrangements or auxiliary aids provision in that area. will be employed.” So the approach to be taken towards existing stations is that wherever reasonably practicable there would be an upgrading of those 626. MR REED: And can I ask you please to turn stations? over the page to page 25, figure 3.1, it is in black and (Dr Maynard) Absolutely. white but it is capable of being read, is it not, in that25 the grey areas that one can see on that plan show 634. Yes. Can I ask you please just to turn to the areas of deprivation, that is to say the 20 per cent extract from the First Special Report of the House of most deprived in the index of multiple deprivation? Commons 2006-0727 and Volume I in particular. It should be a three-page extract and I hope you have a 627. BARNONESS FOOKES: It is pink. copy of that. Page 17 is the first page after the frontispiece. To understand this, are you aware of 628. MR REED: You have coloured versions, my the fact that the London Borough of Havering Lady. I do not and I am at a disadvantage in that appeared in Committee and highlighted their case. Thankfully I can read it but in any event what concerns? Are you aware of any of that detail? it is showing, is it not, is that in respect of Newham (Dr Maynard) I am not aware of the detail of it; I am and the stations that pass through Newham it is aware that it happened. identified as being a significantly deprived area? (Dr Maynard) Yes it is. 635. The report says this, does it not, that Havering “appeared in Committee to highlight their concern that the planned Crossrail works at Romford Station 629. And this document recognises the importance of did not provide adequate facilities for mobility deprivation indices and the accessibility or the impaired people. The Promoter, at the request of the reduction of stations within such deprived areas, does Committee, worked with the London Borough and it not? 26 24 Assessment, January 2006, p28 (SCN-20080226-007) Assessment, January 2006, p23 (SCN-20080226-005) 27 25 SpecialDepartment Report for Session Transport, 2006–07, Crossrail Crossrail Bill Equality, HC 235, Impact paras and 53 Assessment,Department January for Transport, 2006, Figure Crossrail 3.1 (SCN-20080226-006) Equality Impact and to 54 (SCN-20080226-008 to -009) House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Department for Transport, Crossrail Equality Impact and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 75
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility explored the possibility of: a) building a southern 639. Tell me, in so far as there was there an indication entrance through the existing station structure; b) that there should be provision for access for those widening of the existing mezzanine passageway; and with disabilities over the entire breadth of the c) how the design of the station foyer and treatment Crossrail operations, is that met by not providing any of the area beneath the railway bridge could improve accessibility at two of the stations within Newham access to the station from the south.” I do not want Borough? to go into the detail of that, you will be pleased to (Dr Maynard) I am sorry, I thought we were doing know. I just want you to look at paragraph 54 which the generic stuV now but I will carry on. I thought says: “The Committee invited the Promoter to find a that the nature of the alternative transport way to provide appropriate access for mobility- arrangements and the accessibility to the other impaired people to the developed station in the stations in Newham Borough is such that it could be location of the current ramp. We re-emphasise the considered to be the same level of regard. What you need for implementing disability-friendly policies would need to know in order to be able to make that and we remain grateful to the London Borough of judgment is what the provision was in the local area Havering and Crossrail for the re-design of the for Romford and how close by the nearest accessible station to ensure that passengers can access the station to Romford was and what the issues were. building readily. We expect the same level of regard For example, one of the things that I mentioned in to be shown in providing access for those with my presentation was about the bus station at disabilities across the entire breadth of the Crossrail Romford and, therefore, Romford is quite an operations.” Is it fair in terms of understanding the important transport hub, if you like, transport approach of the Committee there to take this interchange between bus and rail, whereas, to the best conclusion from what is said: that there is a of my knowledge and belief, neither of the two requirement on the part of Crossrail to have the stations that we are talking about in Newham is a equivalent level of regard to that which they had in transport interchange hub. respect of Havering’s petitions? (Dr Maynard) Yes, that is what they say. They say 640. Can we move on please to what you said in your they expect the same level of regard. presentation and could you turn up please slide number 10 in your presentation, just to understand28 636. Tell me, in terms of the approach that Crossrail where you come from in respect of the policy have now taken towards other stations, has there approach that should be taken by Crossrail, and you been any positive response as a result of that say it in terms, “inclusion is fundamental”. indication? (Dr Maynard) Yes, it is. (Dr Maynard) From Crossrail? 641. To the extent that inclusion is fundamental, tell 637. Yes, that you know of? me, the provision of no accessibility at two of the (Dr Maynard) Crossrail is continually trying to stations within Newham, is that inclusion? ensure that in all aspects of the work that it does it (Dr Maynard) It is, provided that the alternatives are provides a high level of regard for disabled people in inclusive and that the information that is provided to relation to access. people means that they readily understand that those are what their options are. A lot of access is about understanding what you can and what you cannot 638. And to the extent that they have decided not to do. You can have the most accessible place in the proceed with accessibility works at particular universe and it is actually not inclusive because the stations, would that be having that level of regard as information that you are provided with does not is identified by the Committee at paragraph 54? make it very eVective. (Dr Maynard) Yes, I think they are compatible 29 because it depends on the environment in which the 642. Can I ask you please now to take up Information particular station is; it depends on the nature of Paper E5. I hope that the Committee have a copy of transport provision in the local area; it depends on a that. Can I ask you to turn to page 1 in that whole raft of things and you can have the same level document. Did you have any part in the production of regard. It is not conflicting to have the same level of this document? of regard to do one thing in one place and one thing in (Dr Maynard) I reviewed this document. another and it is much like I was talking about earlier about equal treatment not necessarily achieving an 643. And again no doubt indicated what you equal outcome. In this case you can have diVerent disagreed with? treatment that achieves diVerent outcomes because 28 actually the circumstances are diVerent and the 29 environment is diVerent so it would actually depend Reduced Mobility, p1, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk on the detail. (LINEWD-IPE5-002)Crossrail Ref: P8, Crossrail’s Approach (LINEWD-XR4-010) Crossrail Information Paper E5—Provisions for People with Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
76 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
(Dr Maynard) Indeed. Underground and Crossrail. Do you see that it deals with that? 644. Looking at the criteria that have been applied to (Dr Maynard) Yes. existing stations, those are identified in paragraph 2.3, are they not? 651. It says, “In some cases, therefore, severe (Dr Maynard) Yes. engineering constraints or obstructions, and the very significant disruption to existing services that would 645. We were told this morning by Ms Lieven that result during construction, mean that it is not there were three criteria for inclusion. Do you recall practicable to provide step-free interchange with that? existing railway and London Underground services”. (Dr Maynard) Yes. We can see it being dealt with at the beginning of 2.5 where it says, “Step-free access between Crossrail 646. Let’s go through 2.3: “Existing stations have platforms will be provided where reasonably been selected for upgrading based on the projected practicable”, so what is meant by Crossrail in respect passenger numbers at the station, the capital cost to of ‘reasonably practicable’ is whether there are upgrade to step-free and the distance to the nearest engineering diYculties preventing that particular accessible station. The Promoter has also taken into upgrade. Do you see that? account the incidence of disability in the population (Dr Maynard) I think that is possibly slightly surrounding the station”, so in fact there are four distorting it. I think yes, severe engineering criteria. Is that right? diYculties is one of the issues that needs to be taken (Dr Maynard) Yes, if you consider the last to be one into account and could be the absolute barrier. It of the key criteria. It depends. There are three key depends on the nature of the station. criteria and Crossrail also took into account another one. 652. Do you see any other criteria taken into account in paragraph 2.5? 647. I see, so that is not a key criterion, the incidence (Dr Maynard) No, I do not. of disability within, and about, the area of a station, is it? 653. So, if that is the approach of Crossrail as to what (Dr Maynard) I would have said no, it was not a key is to be meant by ‘reasonably practicable’, when we criterion because of the distance to the nearest go back to where we were a little while ago at the accessible station because what you are doing is you beginning of January 2006, Crossrail then said, are accounting for that in there. “Well, we will do upgrades where reasonably practicable”. Do you recall that? 648. Is that not a relevant issue going to the question (Dr Maynard) Yes, I do. of the importance of accessing a particular station, the number of disabled people that may be in the population surrounding that station? 654. But now they do not refer to ‘reasonably (Dr Maynard) It is an important issue. If the nearest practicable’, but what they refer to in Information accessible station is near enough, then it is not a key Paper E5 is a set of criteria, a set of hurdles which issue. Since you are being quite specific about this, I have to be got over, do they not? shall be quite specific about this, so where you have (Dr Maynard) A set of criteria, yes. You can call got the two stations which are 600 metres apart, them ‘hurdles’ if you like, but I think that is a actually that is quite close to the nearest accessible particularly snarled word though. station, so you could argue that the incidence of disability is the same for both those stations. 655. But what it is, is a more stringent set of matters to take into account rather than the simple one of 649. Yes, I was going to deal with that point a little reasonably practicable in the way in which we looked later on, but the position of the Promoter in respect at it. of distance is actually 700 metres, not 600 metres. (Dr Maynard) ‘Reasonably practicable’ is actually a Were you aware of that, Dr Maynard? completely meaningless statement, unless it has (Dr Maynard) I am sorry, but 600 metres was used criteria attached to it, so what Crossrail has done is it this morning and I have not personally been out and has tried to define what ‘reasonably practicable’ measured it. It is detail. means.
650. It is detail, I see. Let’s return though to this 656. Yes, and it did do that, did it not, in Information document please. I want you to look, if you will, at Paper E5 because we saw that it was referable to the middle of paragraph 2.5 which deals with the engineering matters, not to any other criteria. Do you interchanges between existing railways, London see that? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 77
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
(Dr Maynard) Yes, that is your interpretation of it. (Dr Maynard) No, I do not agree with that.
657. And you disagree with that interpretation, do 666. I do not understand then why that is the case, so you? perhaps you could explain, Dr Maynard. (Dr Maynard) I think you have to look at it in the (Dr Maynard) I do not agree with that because context of this whole section 2 which is called “Access actually the issues for disabled people, as you to Crossrail platforms” and what you have got is sub- yourself earlier got me to agree to, are much greater paragraphs within this and, when you are writing a in relation to access than the issue for other people section, you do not necessarily keep repeating the with restricted mobility. It is important to consider information from the previous paragraphs in every everyone who has restricted mobility because it is subsequent paragraph. about making more inclusive provision for everybody, yes, absolutely, but, if you are looking for 658. Can we look please just at those criteria in a little criteria for determining whether you need to upgrade detail. It may be that you cannot help me on this, in a station, for example, then actually disabled people’s which case I will ask the questions of Mr Berryman. needs are more stringent, generally speaking, than Tell me, in terms of the criteria in 2.3, were you others’ needs and also they are less temporary. For involved in their production? example, if you are a disabled person, you are pretty (Dr Maynard) I would have had input. much likely to be always a disabled person, failing a miracle, whereas, if you are a woman with small 659. So you had input into what is there stated? Is children, those small children will grow up. that right? (Dr Maynard) Yes. 667. As I understood it, Dr Maynard, when you were giving your presentation as to how it was that the various Crossrail stations were accessible, you were 660. As we clarified earlier on, you no doubt looking at it in the light of people with reduced disagreed with those parts that you felt you ought to mobility, not simply those who are disabled. disagree with? (Dr Maynard) Absolutely correct. (Dr Maynard) Correct, I would have disagreed with parts I felt I should disagree with. 668. So what I do not understand is why then, if you are looking at criteria to decide whether to make a 661. And those criteria you do not disagree with? Is station fully accessible, you do not take into account that right? the people with reduced mobility which was the (Dr Maynard) No, I do not. subject matter of your presentation, Dr Maynard. (Dr Maynard) I am sorry, but you do. You take them 662. The first of those criteria that I want to deal with into account in relation to the distance of the nearest is the last of those criteria, the non-key criteria, as you accessible station. That criterion takes into account put it, Dr Maynard, of the numbers of disabled in the the needs of people with restricted mobility. population surrounding the station. You of course in your presentation referred to people with reduced 669. Forgive me, but the criterion dealing with the mobility, did you not? incidence of disabled, that takes into account people (Dr Maynard) Restricted. with reduced mobility? (Dr Maynard) No, the distance to the nearest 663. Forgive me, restricted mobility, but not simply accessible station. the disabled. Is that fair? (Dr Maynard) Yes, that is correct. 670. In that case, we are at cross purposes, Dr Maynard, because I was asking you about the 664. So to the extent that a criterion did not take into incidence of disability in the population surrounding account those other forms of mobility-restricted the station. people, that would be a defective analysis. Is that (Dr Maynard) Yes, I know and what you said to me fair? was that, because there is this criterion which is about (Dr Maynard) Hang on a second, let me get my brain the incidence of disability in the population, that around that. Inasmuch as what, sorry? meant that the needs of people with restricted mobility are not taken into account, full stop, in 665. To the extent that other mobility-restricted looking at whether or not a station should be people were not taken into account in understanding upgraded in relation to step-free access. Well, that is the incidence of those types of people in and about an flawed logic. If you take one criterion and you say, area, that would be a defective criterion for deciding “This doesn’t account for people with restricted whether to upgrade a station? mobility. Therefore, in these four criteria, you Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
78 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility haven’t accounted for people with restricted 679. Of all passengers? mobility”, yes, you have, you have accounted for (Dr Maynard) Of all passengers, and I believe that them in criterion three. there is a number or a percentage for specific people with mobility impairments. 671. You see, that is not the question I asked you. I simply asked you whether or not it was right in terms 680. Have you seen that in the information that has of that criterion to be restricted simply to the been put before this Committee? disabled. (Dr Maynard) I have not seen all the information (Dr Maynard) I think that is fine for the reasons that that has been put before this Committee. I outlined.
672. Next, in terms of the distance to upgraded 681. Tell me, have you seen anything in the slides that stations, if it were simply done on the basis of have been prepared by Mr Berryman that are going distance rather than ease of accessibility as a to be produced later on? criterion, that would be a flawed criterion for (Dr Maynard) I have not seen the slides that are deciding whether to upgrade a station. Is that fair? produced by Mr Berryman. (Dr Maynard) Yes, and I think actually I would agree with you on that one. 682. Tell me, if there were no figures, if there was no analysis of the numbers of the mobility-restricted 673. So, if we can just look again please at 2.3, we can using those particular stations, would that be a see that the criterion was the distance to the nearest defective assessment of that particular criterion? accessible station. (Dr Maynard) I am not sure that it would be (Dr Maynard) Yes, that is true. necessarily a defective analysis unless it was clear that there was a larger disabled population in Newham. 674. And that is a flawed criterion, is it not? As far as I am aware, there is no, for example, school (Dr Maynard) It is if in this paragraph you mean or segregated institution for young disabled people or distance as the crow flies, then that would be a flawed college for disabled people around that area. criterion. If you mean distance as the road goes, then that would be less flawed, but still not as good as 683. Tell me, did you have a role in deciding whether journey time. Maryland Station was to be upgraded or whether Manor Park was to be upgraded? 675. That passage is clear, is it not, as to what (Dr Maynard) No, I did not. criterion was taken into account? (Dr Maynard) Yes, well, it is not clear in that it does not say whether it is as the crow flies or road actually. 684. So were you asked for your view on the decision to upgrade either Manor Park or Maryland? (Dr Maynard) No, I was not. 676. There was one other point I wanted to ask you on the question of numbers of disabled within the vicinity of a station. Have you seen any figures put 685. Do you think that it would have been wise for before this Committee as to what numbers there are you to have been involved in that decision-making within, and about, either Maryland or Manor Park? process? (Dr Maynard) No. (Dr Maynard) In retrospect, yes, it probably would have been, but it is very diYcult for an organisation 677. Turning then to the question of projected to know to what level of detail they should be numbers, that is the first of the criteria at 2.3, can I involving an external consultant. It is not that understand with you this: that the analysis that has straightforward and I can understand why they been undertaken, as we understand it, is looking at might have thought in this instance that it was not passenger numbers, that is to say, non-mobility- appropriate. restricted passengers? Is that right? (Dr Maynard) No, I do not think so. 686. If there were Petitions in respect of the Lower House indicating the need for full accessibility, would 678. What do you understand the position to be of that have been an indicator that yes, a disability projected passenger numbers of those who are of adviser should have been involved in the decision- restricted mobility? making process? (Dr Maynard) I understand that the projected (Dr Maynard) As far as I am aware, there was not a passenger numbers are just projected passenger Petition in relation to these stations in relation to numbers. accessibility. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 79
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
687. Forgive me, accessibility generally. If I put the generality. Tell me, have you sought to understand position any diVerently, then I withdraw that the numbers of disabled people within the wards question. around either Maryland or Manor Park stations? (Dr Maynard) Can I just clarify momentarily what (Dr Maynard) No, I have not personally, no. you mean by ‘accessibility’ because there are two ways of using the term ‘accessibility’ in the transport 695. In terms of what we were looking at earlier on industry, one of which is about ease of access to that Crossrail identified itself, namely the importance transport hubs and to essential services for everyone of deprivation as well as disability and the need to and one of which is about access for disabled people. have accessibility to overcome those two aspects, is it fair to say, when looking at Newham, given that it is 688. Step-free access is what I am pointing to, an area of high deprivation, that upgrading accessibility for the disabled or the mobility- particular stations is still more significant for those restricted. who are either disabled or mobility-restricted? (Dr Maynard) To the best of my knowledge and (Dr Maynard) Can you ask that question again, belief, there was not, though I do not know. please?
689. If there had been indications that accessibility 696. I will ask it a shorter way. Firstly, dealing with improvements should be made at stations, is that a Newham generally, you are aware that is an area of reason for considering carefully whether or not to high deprivation, are you not? undertake them and involve somebody like yourself (Dr Maynard) Yes. in that decision? (Dr Maynard) If there had been, yes, it might have been, but what might have happened was that David 697. Looking at those who are disabled or mobility Bonnett was involved because of his greater technical restricted, if they are in an area of high deprivation input in relation to specific accessibility issues. they are likely to benefit still more greatly by accessible stations near to them because they are 690. MR REED: We were told earlier on by Ms generally on lower incomes than other less deprived Lieven that there was a cost-benefit analysis areas? undertaken as to whether to upgrade Maryland or (Dr Maynard) Disabled people in a deprived area Manor Park. would benefit from the presence of accessible transport so, yes, to that extent the presence of an 691. MS LIEVEN: No, My Lord, just so that there accessible station would be of assistance. Transport is is no misunderstanding at any stage, I did not say about getting from one place to another, so what that. There has not been, and I did not say there had matters is that in terms of the overall transport been, a cost-benefit analysis of upgrades of individual system it is easy to get around; it is easy to get to stations, and I make that absolutely clear. I did not where you need to get to. That is back to the say it because it would not have been true. transport industry definition of accessibility, which is accessing key services. Therefore, I cannot answer your question yes or no, because you are taking a 692. MR REED: Forgive me, if I misunderstood the piece of the system out and saying, “Is it a good thing position, then I apologise for putting it to you like to make this piece of the system perfect?” The answer that. Do you think it would have been worthwhile to is, “Well, probably, yes, it might be a better thing”, have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis as to whether but actually what you need to look at is the system to upgrade particular stations? and not the individual chunk. (Dr Maynard) On an individual station basis?
693. Yes. 698. Can we have please a copy of the first plan; we (Dr Maynard) It might be. There are all sorts of can either look at Mr Berryman’s first plan or, indeed issues involved in undertaking a cost-benefit analysis. one of your plans in your presentation,30 number 7. It is a huge undertaking. I do not know whether it Looking generally at Newham, the stations within would have been in this instance. Actually in relation Newham are Stratford, Maryland, Forest Gate and to disabled access, access for disabled people, doing a Manor Park and also Custom House. Is that right? cost-benefit analysis would probably be the last thing (Dr Maynard) I will take your word for it. you would want to do if you actually wanted it to go ahead. 699. That being the case, if one just looks generally at the position in respect of those stations that are 694. Can I just turn briefly then please to the stations? accessible on the Crossrail lines, Newham has the Before doing so, however, I want to understand with 30 you the position in respect of Newham as a access to Crossrail stopping platforms (NEWMLB-53 04-001 Crossrail Ref: P8, Crossrail Line 1—Diagram 2—step-free Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
80 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility highest proportion of inaccessible stations of any of (Dr Maynard) Leaving aside that Network Rail the boroughs within London, is that right? would not consider it was capable of finding private (Dr Maynard) It would appear so, yes. means to upgrade stations, I do not think I said that.
700. At the same time the level of deprivation in 706. Forgive me, did I misunderstand you? Newham, and we will look at the evidence later on, (Dr Maynard) I think you may have done. It is is the fourth highest within London. Are you aware indeed the case that Access for All may one day, one of that? day, come to Maryland and Manor Park; but you can (Dr Maynard) No, I was not aware of the ranking, be well assured that they are highly unlikely to get but I will take your word for that too. there in their current £365 million, or indeed possibly the next £365 million. 701. If we cross back to the question of cumulative eVect of high deprivation and restricted mobility, in 707. You anticipated my question. To be clear, you those broad circumstances is it fair that it is an are not suggesting that the currently inaccessible inequitable situation that one finds in respect of the stations are going to be made accessible by some provision of accessibility at those stations within other means. Is that right? Newham borough? (Dr Maynard) Not to the best of my knowledge and (Dr Maynard) Not necessarily. You are taking the belief, no. chunk out of the system again. Newham is not a walled city; and it is not that people have to have the 708. So in that sense upgrading Manor Park or password in order to exit Newham and get to Maryland is an opportunity to be taken now or it will somewhere else. Actually they may want to travel in not happen. Is that right and out of Newham borough anyway. Yes, there may (Dr Maynard) Saying “it will not happen” is making be the highest number or even proportion, depending assumptions that I would choose not to make. I on how you define proportion, of inaccessible would have said it is unlikely because of the nature of stations, but that does not necessarily mean that Maryland and Manor Park, and all the reasons why Newham is doing worse than anywhere else; that is a Crossrail has decided not to go ahead with making flawed leap. them accessible. What you seem to be suggesting is that Crossrail should decide to make them accessible because nobody else is going to and we should have 702. Can I understand, please, in terms of the pity on them, or something. We should decide to take application of the criteria themselves I should be the charitable approach and make them accessible. asking those questions of Mr Berryman. Is that right? (Dr Maynard) I think you might want to ask those 709. Have I understood it correctly? Your position is questions of Mr Berryman. that it is unlikely that there will be other means by which these stations will be upgraded in the future? 703. Perhaps I ought to be clear, I am talking about (Dr Maynard) I do not know whether they will be the criteria that were applied by Crossrail in para 2.3 upgraded or not in the future; but, given the nature in its E5 Information Paper. Those are questions to of the stations, they are going to miss other people’s Mr Berryman, is that right? criteria too. (Dr Maynard) 2.3 and 2.5 I would suggest because, as I have said, they would go together. 710. I see. In terms of those criteria, do you know what those are in respect of the Access for All system? 704. In that case, can I just deal please with one other (Dr Maynard) They are similar to the Crossrail ones. matter that you raised in your presentation, which is the ability to obtain the upgrading of the currently 711. In terms of the Access for All financial inaccessible, and indeed proposed inaccessible, contribution, can we be clear that it is some £320 stations through other means: namely, either by the million over ten years. Is that right? Access for All financial provision or by private (Dr Maynard) I thought it was £365 million. In fact means, for example Network Rail? originally it was £370 million; we appear to have lost (Dr Maynard) Could you just repeat that again? £5 million along the way.
705. I want to deal with you, please, in respect of your 712. That has led to a decision to upgrade some 200 comments in your presentation to the eVect that stations, yes? inaccessible stations are capable of becoming (Dr Maynard) 220 I think, yes. accessible either through the Access for All policy, or through private means, for example, by Network 713. That is in the context of some 2,500 stations Rail? within the rail network? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 81
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
(Dr Maynard) Yes, that is correct. public resource, you need to make some pretty tough decisions, and this is one of the pretty tough decisions 714. In terms of understanding the likelihood of that you have to make. It is about balancing need. I getting, at least in the foreseeable future, monies via would say exactly the same about this as I would the Access for All system, it is not likely, is it? about Hanwell, and I would do that hand on heart. (Dr Maynard) No, it is not particularly likely. 719. Of course, you were not involved in that decision 715. Finally, you were asked a question in the itself, in respect of these stations, were you? Committee stage in the Commons. Can you turn to (Dr Maynard) No, I was not. the second of the Special Report documents, and the last page. The document should be headed “Volume 720. We can take it then that from your answer in IV: Oral evidence”. Turn31 to the last page, the respect of nobody doing enough that Crossrail have righthand column number 13107. At 13109 is Mr not done enough in this regard? Binley, who was the Chairman of the Commons (Dr Maynard) Neither has the House of Lords; Committee, is that right? neither has the Department for Transport; neither (Dr Maynard) Yes. has the Department for Health; and neither have I actually in relation to my own company done 716. He says: “Can I ask a question of Mr Maynard enough. . . . ”—and that must be a typographical error. That is you, is it not? 721. MR REED: I am grateful for your indulgence, (Dr Maynard) It is me, yes. my Lord. 717. “ . . . because I guess you have a special interest in this. Can you put your hand on your heart and say, 722. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven? ‘Yes, I think they have done enough’?” Your answer to that was this: “As a disabled person, I would like 723. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, the only issue I wanted everywhere to be accessible yesterday, and 2016 to come back on was that of Romford and the certainly qualifies as yesterday for London. I work in comparison with Romford that was made; but I the rail industry and the transport industry in think I will do that with Mr Berryman who is much general, and there is a limited amount of resource; it more familiar with the detail of what is being is public resource. If it gets spent in one place it does proposed at Romford and the diVerences between not get spent in another. To an extent, you have to Romford and Manor Park. I have not got any re- spread it about it a bit and that involves making some examination of Dr Maynard. pretty tough decisions. It involves making decisions that result in some people not getting access. If I lived Examined by THE COMMITTEE in Hanwell, I would not be using that Hanwell station, that is pretty obvious, and I might well feel a bit annoyed about it. If I could get on a bus and go 724. LORD SNAPE: The first question from Mr to West Ealing or Ealing Broadway, then I might find Reed, Dr Maynard,32 referred to the document those more convenient anyway. I do not know much “Railways for All”, the accessibility strategy for about Hanwell Station. If it is not staVed there are Britain’s railways. Could you go back to that for a many reasons why somewhere like Ealing Broadway moment, please? He referred you to the third might not be a better place to go”. What you did not paragraph of the foreword, the second sentence there say was, “Yes, I think they have done enough”, which begins, “With around ten million disabled did you, Dr Maynard? people”. Do you recognise that figure of ten million? (Dr Maynard) No, I did not. (Dr Maynard) I am always fascinated by figures in relation to disabled people. If you listen to the RNID, 718. Is that because you, hand on heart, do not think the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, there they have done enough? are eight and a half million severely deaf people in the (Dr Maynard) Hand on heart, I do not think UK; there are two million people with visual anybody has done enough. I do not think anybody impairments; there are four million people with has done enough to make the world accessible to learning diYculties; and there are one million disabled people until the world is accessible to wheelchair users. If you take into account that some disabled people; but I would reiterate what I said people have multiple impairments and you add them there which is that, in order to spread around that all up you are still in the range. So ten million, 20
31 million, you can read 20 million in some places. Special Report Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235-IV, paras 32 13107 to 13109 (SCN-20080226-010) Strategy, March 2006, p3 (SCN-20080226-011) House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Committee Ref: A1, Department for Transport, Railways for All Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
82 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
725. I was rather looking towards the other end of the planning of Havering Station so far as Crossrail was spectrum. Would that ten million disabled people concerned? I think he did ask you this question and I mentioned in that foreword include the people with think your answer was no, is that right? restricted mobility to whom you referred in your evidence earlier today? 730. MS LIEVEN: It is Romford, my Lord. It is in (Dr Maynard) It is more the other way round, that the London Borough of Havering, but the station is people with restricted mobility would include that ten Romford. million. What you need to consider in relation to the ten million is that of those ten million there are many 731. LORD SNAPE: I am sorry. Romford Station people with visual impairments, hearing impairments in the Borough of Havering. or learning diYculties none of whom need step-free (Dr Maynard) I did not have anything to do with the access in this particular context. If you are looking at detail, but I was party to the discussions about the need for step-free access it is much more about the Romford. million wheelchair users or the 800,000, depending on whose counting you take any notice of. I believe 732. Do you happen to know the distance between that one figure is around four million for people who stations in the Romford area? have some kind of walking diYculty, and whether or (Dr Maynard) No I cannot remember, to be honest. not they have a walking diYculty that prevents them It was quite a long time ago that we did this. This is going the 50 metres that you get a blue badge after, I one of the areas where I think there is quite a do not know. significant diVerence between this and what we are talking about. 726. People in wheelchairs, you mentioned a figure there, could you just repeat it? 733. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, can I just deal with (Dr Maynard) It is between 800,000 and a million. that point so that the Committee is factually clear on Some of those are not permanent wheelchair users. this. Romford Station has always been proposed to There are no good figures for this kind of thing; it be fully PRM accessible—always; it has always been depends how you count and everybody counts part of the scheme. The issue that arose before the diVerently. House of Commons was about whether there should be a secondary step-free access to the south side of the 727. Could you give the Committee an estimate? station. Mr Berryman gave extensive evidence about Country-wide how many people, in your opinion, how, one, that was not necessary; and, two, it would would find enormous diYculty, in fact diYculty be extremely diYcult, extremely diYcult, in which would put them oV travelling if they had to use engineering terms. In the end we reached agreement stations like the ones we are talking about, Maryland with Havering to provide a diVerently orientated and Manor Park? station, so we met Havering’s concern in respect of (Dr Maynard) I have two answers to that question. that access issue from the south side of the station, The first is: no, I am sorry, I cannot possibly give you but it was never, in truth, about PRM accessibility an estimate. because the station was always proposed to be fully accessible. The real concern that Havering had was 728. And the second! Maybe you will! about interchange between the bus stops, which were (Dr Maynard) It would be a fairy story. I have no to the south of the station, and getting into the idea. The second is: if you are saying “would have to station, which involved going underneath the bridge. use Maryland and Manor Park”, actually most of the That was the nature of the issue, but it was always a people would not have to use Maryland and Manor fully accessible station. Park. If there is anyone who has to it would be somebody who lived next door to one of them, and 734. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: for whom it made absolutely no sense to go anywhere When you were answering Lord Snape’s first else. Having lived within probably about 100 metres question, and you said you could not give an answer, of an inaccessible station, what matters is that you was it because you did not know the answer but the know where you can go to access an accessible station answer may be available from the Department for and that that remains accessible, and the way you get Transport or from other quarters? there is fairly straightforward and, in some instances, (Dr Maynard) I do not think there is an answer to that actually it is a better station, as we were talking that. The question was about if you were required to about Stratford earlier. use Maryland or Manor Park, but the problem is then what does that mean? Why might you absolutely 729. LORD SNAPE: Moving oV that particular have to use Maryland, for example, when Stratford is subject, Mr Reed compared Havering Station to 600 metres away? That is the problem. It is that Manor Park. Did you have anything to do with the judgment as to whether you have to use it or not. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 83
26 February 2008 Promoters presentation on people with reduced mobility
735. I think the first question was about the 742. CHAIRMAN: The Disability Commission? anticipated growth in numbers. (Dr Maynard) Remind me of your first question! 743. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, we will both follow up contact but also look at websites to try to find some figures. 736. LORD SNAPE: That was yours as well. 744. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 737. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Dr Maynard, given the 93 per cent step-free access, When we say that people at present who are visually would you agree that overall this will result in a impaired would not necessarily require to use no- significant improvement for people with reduced step, what I am trying to establish is, with the growth mobility who are travelling either across London or of older people in the country and the growth in the into London than the current situation? number of people with disabilities of one sort of (Dr Maynard) I think it is an unbelievable another, are there figures around which will indicate improvement and I hope I am still alive in 2017. the likely growth, say, in 2015, 2017 or 2019, and that those people who now would not have a problem 745. You share the same objective, I think, as all of us with a single step actually could, conceivably, have a on this Committee! We have demanded the ability to problem in ten years’ time or 15 years’ time? do that. God willing, we will. The other point I (Dr Maynard) It may be possible to get those sorts of wanted to ask you was that in relation to the two figures from the Department for Transport; it may be documents that Mr Reed quoted from, one was the possible to get them from the Department of Health. Crossrail Bill First Special Report of the Session, and he referred to paragraph 54 on page 18. He said, in relation to Havering and Crossrail, the last sentence: 738. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: And “We expect the same level of regard to be shown in the Disability Commission? providing access for those with disabilities across the entire breadth of the Crossrail operation”. Would you agree that you cannot just read that in isolation? 739. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, you were going to Indeed, if we then go to Information Paper E5, we see see if you could do something about this. that 2.5 says: “step-free access between Crossrail platforms and other railway and London Underground platforms will be provided where 740. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord, we are going to do reasonably practicable”. So you have this contrast what we can overnight. There is one figure that may between those two phrases. It does not mean that one be of some assistance to Lord Brooke. My should be read exclusively of the other one. If we do instructions are that our analysis of the likely level of accept that “reasonably practicable” might be a use of step-free provisions within the stations has broad criterion, then somewhere or other, as you been based on a figure of 4.4 per cent of total usage, rightly said, it has to be defined. which itself is a figure used by Transport for London (Dr Maynard) Yes. I do not think any of this stuV in its station planning, and which is based on survey should be read in isolation. That was kind of what I data back to the 1990s. So it does not incorporate was struggling with during the cross-examination, Lord Brooke’s point about the likely increase in because I was being asked to say yes and no to things people who are likely to need step-free because of the that I felt were taken out of context. I think that in the ageing population, but it gives the current baseline concept of “reasonably practicable” there is always for station planning. tension, and it is a tension between keeping the needs of disabled people and people with restricted mobility in due regard and actually keeping the needs 741. The other thing I can say at this stage, on of the railway in due regard, and it is about moving instruction, is that all our step-free provision, such as the boundaries—always pushing the boundaries of the sizing of lifts, gives scope for a massive increase what we consider to be reasonably practicable at the over the existing analysis of how many people would moment in the railway. I do think, at the moment, use it. So it is both because there is hidden demand— that Crossrail has been doing that. there are people who do not travel at the moment because they are put oV by the steps, as it were—but 746. Pushing the boundaries? it is also taking into account the fact that there is (Dr Maynard) It has been pushing those boundaries. likely to be an increased demand in the future because I start from the premise that if I spent a day in a of an ageing population. In terms of the statistical wheelchair I am sure I would want to wave a magic basis for that, we will do some work on it overnight, wand and I would certainly want to convert most of if we may. London Underground because it is bad enough just Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
84 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham being a pedestrian with a dodgy hip, as I am, and and I will have very few questions for him, I am sure, finding it, at times, diYcult. Even starting from that but questions will be asked—then I will call Mr premise, we are then back to the world of priorities Berryman to put the engineering case. and what can be done. That is why, to me, I wanted to be sure that we felt that we are, in fact, pushing the 750. CHAIRMAN: In the meantime, Dr Maynard, boundaries on this; that if we look overall at what is if you can stay this afternoon I think it will be very being achieved it will make a significant improvement helpful. for people with reduced mobility. (Dr Maynard) I can stay for a while. (Dr Maynard) It will, yes. 751. MS LIEVEN: I think Dr Maynard’s position is 747. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: she has another meeting at about 4.00 but she can Thank you. certainly stay till half-past three. 752. CHAIRMAN: In that case, would it be better if 748. CHAIRMAN: I have no questions, thank you, we adjourned now but, possibly, start a little earlier? Ms Lieven. I am wondering what we are going to be doing . It is hardly worth calling Mr Berryman now, 753. MS LIEVEN: If that is acceptable to the is it? Committee that would be excellent, yes.
749. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I think the way we 754. CHAIRMAN: Twenty-past two, then. I will were proposing to deal with this matter now is that I adjourn till then. will hand over to Mr Reed who may want to make an opening, probably after lunch, and will then call his The witness withdrew witness, Mr West. When we have heard Mr West— After a short adjournment
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of the London Borough of Newham.
SharpePritchard appeared as Agent.
755. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, are you ready to go? 761. MR REED: Yes, my Lord.
762. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, we do not need to 756. MR REED: I am, my Lord, yes. My Lord, may bother about that. 33 I just make some brief comments in opening to set the scene for the evidence that will be given by Mr West, 763. MR REED: Thank you very much, my Lord. whose slides I hope you have already had advance My Lord, it has come up on to the screen as slide 26. copies of. The position is that we are seeking to request that the Committee recommend that the Promoter should require the nominated undertaker to carry out works 757. My Lord, can I deal with the nature of to Manor Park and Maryland Stations to bring them Newham’s appearance today by reference to those to a standard of accessibility for the mobility slides and, indeed, the last page of that set of slides? impaired that is equivalent to the standards proposed for the majority of the other above-ground, existing 758. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, while you are just stations which are to be serviced by Crossrail looking at that, can I ask you what happened to EVectively, a request that there be a recommendation paragraph 10 of your Petition about cut-and-cover at for lift provision for step-free access at those stations. North Woolwich? Nothing further about that at all? 764. My Lord, the position in relation to the provision of lifts at both of those stations is that, as 759. MR REED: I understand that that has been Newham understand the position, the lift provision is dealt with and, no, I am not proposing to deal with capable of being made within the limits of deviation that at all. of the works that are set out as part of the Bill, except for certain temporary worksites. My Lord, for the reasons that Mr West will elucidate, the prospect is 760. CHAIRMAN: You are not proposing to deal there would be no diYculty in being able to achieve with that? I think we might be quite interested to 33 know at some time what has happened. 53 05-026) Committee Ref: A2, What Newham is Seeking (NEWMLB- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 85
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham that. In short, there is the ability to provide the new 774. My Lord, if I can turn to the two stations in lifts to provide step-free access at both Maryland and question, Manor Park and Maryland are, of course, Manor Park. two of the 37 stations on the Crossrail line. Thirty- seven stations and only seven do not have step-free access. My Lord, seven do not have step-free access 765. Before I deal with some of the reasons as to why and of those seven, of course, two are in the Newham that should be made as a recommendation and why borough. It means, consequently, that there is a we ask that there be that recommendation, can I deal significant number of the stations within Newham with the extent to which Newham have raised the that are not going to have that full, step-free issue of accessibility at both those stations accessibility. The context of that, Newham says, is previously? that there are high levels of deprivation (Mr West will comment on that) within Newham borough; it is the 766. CHAIRMAN: You did not do it in the fourth most-deprived borough in London. Commons, did you? 775. In that context, there is a greater significance, 767. MR REED: What we did was, in our Petition, Newham says, in not having full accessibility at those require, firstly, that there be stopping at Maryland two stations because the people who are not getting and, also, generally, that there should be accessibility accessibility within their area are, generally, likely to upgrades on the Crossrail line as it goes through the feel the cost of accessing other stations more greatly. borough. So we certainly raised it as part of the For example, going from the Manor Park area to Petition. Forest Gate, if buses have to be taken, costs more money. It costs more money particularly to those who are mobility restricted as opposed to the 768. CHAIRMAN: However, it was not discussed in disabled, because the mobility restricted will not be the Commons. able to get any benefits to take buses to access the fully accessible stations. So there is a considerable importance, the borough says, in making sure that its 769. MR REED: It was not discussed in the residents feel the full benefit of Crossrail. Commons, no. The reason being— 776. My Lord, you will hear from Mr West the extent 770. CHAIRMAN: It does not matter. However, in to which, for example, car ownership occurs within order to get it clear, this is the first time it has been the wards surrounding Manor Park and Maryland. I discussed. do not propose to give the details at this stage, but it is apparent that they are car ownership levels well 771. MR REED: That is right. What I ask your below the national level. So, again, being able to Lordships to bear in mind is that it does not indicate achieve what has been described by Dr Maynard as a the lack of importance that the issue holds for seamless transition to gain an opportunity to access Newham. the Crossrail system is less likely to occur if what you have is limited car ownership.
772. CHAIRMAN: I am not saying anything about 777. My Lord, in terms of Maryland, there is a it at all; I just wanted to make it clear that nobody has particular issue and it concerns the University of East previously had any submissions on this. London, which has its campus close to Maryland Station. Mr West will deal with that. That has a 773. MR REED: That is right. Your Lordship is relevance because the number of students that are hearing from Newham for the first time. The reasons disabled are much higher than the number of why we say that there ought to be full accessibility at disabled within the population generally. So there is these stations are these: the Government (as I asked a particular importance in terms of making sure that Dr Maynard) has identified the importance of full Maryland is properly accessible. accessibility or accessibility within the railway system. We have looked at the provisions within 778. If I turn briefly to the criteria that have been Railways for All with Dr Maynard, and we focus on applied, Crossrail tell us, in reaching a conclusion as those as the overarching policy approach as to why it to whether or not Maryland and Manor Park should is there should be, generally, upgrading at stations. be made step-free, it has been indicated that there has This is a new railway, Newham say, and as a new not been a cost-benefit analysis of any of those railway the opportunity should be taken to achieve particular stations; there has not, it appears, been any that full accessibility because it has the opportunity detailed work as to whether the costs in question of forming habits. override the benefits for step-free access (no doubt we Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
86 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham will hear more from Mr Berryman on that particular the detail of that at this stage; I wait to hear what Mr issue). If I look at those specific criteria in the context Berryman has to say. of both Manor Park and Maryland, the first issue, the significant distance of those stations—the degree of 788. On the incidence of disabled people in the distance from the wards surrounding those stations population surrounding those two areas, my Lord, I to another accessible station—if I can just touch on have not been provided with any details on that on Maryland and its distance to Stratford, we have been the part of Newham and my clients have not been told that it is 600 metres. Mr West will give evidence provided with those details either. We do not expect and he has undertaken a walk along the route that there to be any further details coming forward on one would take from Maryland to Stratford, and you that, despite the fact that that was identified as a will hear that it is about 850 metres to access that particular criterion justifying the station or not. particular station—it is a considerable distance. What Mr West will comment on is the extent to 789. CHAIRMAN: You have given us figures from which, when one looks at it in the context of buses the DWP Information Directorate. and taxis, those do not provide a suYcient opportunity to allow those mobility restricted people 790. MR REED: My Lord, we have but, in terms of within and about the Maryland and Manor Park projected numbers—that is to say in terms of the areas with an acceptable level of provision. incidence of disability within and about the area of those particular locations—that is something that 779. LORD SNAPE: Mr Reed (forgive me, my Crossrail themselves have not provided. In truth, we Lord Chairman), did you not say, in cross- have but it is something that Crossrail themselves examination of Dr Maynard this morning, that it was have not provided. 700 metres between the two stations? Now you have just said it is 850. 791. CHAIRMAN: Maybe you know, as the local authority. 780. MR REED: I may well have put the position wrongly, and to the extent I did I apologise for that. 792. MR REED: My Lord, it was one of the criteria Certainly that is what I am being told is the actual that was set out by Crossrail as to why it was they distance. reached the decision that they did. One would have expected, in those circumstances, to have some 781. LORD SNAPE: It is the 850? reference.
782. MR REED: That is correct. 793. Lastly, I turn to the question of the capital costs criterion. My Lord, we have just been told the capital 783. CHAIRMAN: It depends on the way you go, costs in respect of Manor Park today of some £12 Mr Reed, does it not? There is a big one-way system million and, as yet, we do not fully understand how for road-users, is there not? that figure has been arrived at. Mr Berryman will no doubt deal with it and when he does then, no doubt, we can find out the extent to which that cost is 784. MR REED: There is, my Lord. directly referable to the disabled works or accessibility works that are proposed at Manor Park. 785. CHAIRMAN: So somebody will have to tell us As yet we have not heard anything on the costs what is the route that you are going to take, whether applicable for Maryland. No doubt, again, we will it is 600 or 850 metres. hear what is said.
786. MR REED: Mr West will deal with that. As I 794. My Lord, what we do say is that insuYcient understand it, it was the shortest pedestrian route importance has been given to the need for through. maintaining full accessibility at those two stations in the light of the expected numbers that will be coming 787. If I can turn to the question of the numbers of to those stations in future. My Lord, no doubt Mr people within the vicinity of the Manor Park and West will deal with that when he comes to give Maryland Stations that are proposed to access those evidence. two stations in the future, my Lord, we will no doubt deal with that with Mr Berryman but I say, at this 795. My Lord, that is all I propose to say, by way of stage, that there appears to be, in terms of whether opening, and unless you have any questions arising that criterion is met at Maryland or Manor Park, a from that I propose to call Mr West. Can I point out degree of inconsistency when it is applied there as one matter from what my Lord, Lord Snape, pointed opposed to other locations, but I will not deal with out in respect of the 700-metre distance? The reason Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 87
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
I had that figure in my mind was because that was the 802. Has the question of accessibility been resolved? oYcial response that was given by the Promoters to (Mr West) The question of accessibility has not been our Petition. They said it was 700 metres rather than resolved at this stage. 600 metres. 803. And in terms of the approach taken by the 796. LORD SNAPE: You do not know, Mr Reed, Council generally towards accessibility in respect of where the 600-metre figure came from? the Crossrail proposals, whether the current Crossrail proposals or the original ones in 1994, what 797. MR REED: From Ms Lieven. has the borough’s position been? (Mr West) My Lords, I would like to point out the MrDominicWest, sworn Council’s position has been consistent throughout Examined byMrReed the years. Indeed, when the petitioning period for the first Bill was introduced in 1994, the Council did 798. MR REED: Mr West, could you introduce actually raise the issue of mobility access then. Whilst yourself, please, to the Committee? the Council welcomes the inclusion of Forest Gate (Mr West) Yes, my Lords. My name is Dominic Station as part 35 of the amendment of provisions in West, I hold a Bachelor Honours Degree in Town 2006 to the list of stations as being accessible, it does Planning and am a member of the Royal Town regret that the stations at Maryland and Manor Park Planning Institute. I am employed by the London will not be so. Borough of Newham as the Group Leader for Transportation and I have been involved in planning 804. Before turning to the detail of those two stations, and public transport matters for over 25 years. I have can we just look please at the position of Newham in previously worked for the London Borough of respect of deprivation rankings, and the like? What is Camden where I was the oYcer responsible for the position36 in respect of Newham and its deprivation dealing with Crossrail issues in the original Bill in ranking, both in London and in England generally? 1994, so I have had some experience of Crossrail over (Mr West) My Lords, if I could perhaps turn to slide a considerable number of years. five, that one there, you will see that Newham is the 34 11th most deprived borough in England and ranked 799. Just so that we can orientate ourselves, I think, fourth in London overall in the index of deprivation. on the first slide that has come up we can see the I would further point out that Newham is also ranked location of Newham. Is that right? second in London in terms of employment (Mr West) That is right. We are an inner London deprivation and first in terms of income deprivation. borough to the East of London. 805. Why is that matter significant in this case, Mr 800. For the Committee’s benefit, can you indicate, West? please, the Council’s general position on the scheme (Mr West) I think it is significant because we are in principle? asking people who are on low pay scales, who are on (Mr West) Yes, indeed. The Council supports the low pay, or who do not have much disposable income Crossrail scheme in principle and takes the view that to make trips on public transport, and the cost to the new railway would assist with the regeneration of those people who have small incomes is going to be Stratford and the Royal Docks. The new railway and quite considerable as a percentage of their total the additional stations, in particular, will provide disposable income. improved accessibility to these sites. This is widely 37 recognised as an essential requirement to regenerate deprived areas. Whilst strongly supporting the 806. Thank you. And can you go on to the next slide overall principle of the scheme, the Council did raise and look at the question of car ownership. We have a number of detailed objections to it. This position Stratford and New Town wards and also Manor was formally endorsed by a resolution of the Council Park ward. What does that tell you about the on 12 May 2005, which authorised oYcers to lodge a situation in those particular wards in respect of car Petition to submit the Council’s concerns. ownership? (Mr West) In respect of car ownership, the 801. In terms of the position since lodging the community has relatively low car ownership: 41 per Petition, have there been any meetings between the cent of households compared to a Newham average Council and representatives of the Crossrail team? of 51 per cent and a London average of 62 per cent. (Mr West) Yes, there have. There have been 35 for People with Restricted Mobility (NEWMLB-53 05-003) numerous meetings discussing a number of subjects. 36 34 005)Committee Ref: A2, Crossrail Stations in Newham inaccessible Newham within London (NEWMLB-53 05-002) 37 Committee Ref: A2, Index of Deprivation (NEWMLB-53 05- Committee Ref: A2, Location of the London Borough of Committee Ref: A2, Car Ownership (NEWMLB-53 05-006) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
88 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
807. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, could you say those again (Mr West) That is correct, yes. because they are not on the slide? (Mr West) I think they are on slide six. I will repeat 814. Those are shown at 2.3 per cent and at 3.5 per the point I made, my Lord. The figure I was quoting cent for Manor Park ward and for Maryland? was the 41 per cent of households—that is in (Mr West) That is correct, yes. Maryland, Stratford and New Town ward as shown on the slide, compared to a Newham average of 51 815. Do you know how that compares at all with the per cent, so car ownership in the wards that we are position either nationally or in London as a whole? referring to— (Mr West) Yes, the national average is 0.7 per cent so the figures in Newham are considerably higher than 808. That is the last box on the right-hand side. the national average. (Mr West) --- is actually lower than the Newham average of 51 per cent, and even lower still than the 816. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, I am sorry to interrupt London average of 62 per cent. you but you asked an awful lot of questions this morning about what was meant by disabled. What do 809. So the London average, which is not on that these categories in fact entail? table, is 62 per cent; is that right? (Mr West) That is correct. 817. MR REED: My Lord, as I understand the position, and Mr West will correct me, the figure of 810. Thank you very much. Can we look please at the 2.3 per cent is in respect of the higher rate mobility levels of unemployment in the Stratford and New component of Disability Living Allowance. Town wards, which are not the subject matter of these tables, are they? 818. CHAIRMAN: I can see that because it is in the (Mr West) No, they are not. My Lords, just to let you table. What does it mean? know that unemployment in Stratford and New Town wards, the wards relating to the two stations in 819. MR REED: My Lord, that is an allowance that question, Maryland and Manor Park, is provided to the more seriously disabled. It is the unemployment is 9.7 per cent as opposed to a highest level of disability, as I understand it, and in London average of 4.4 per cent, and economic that case, in those circumstances, it is a limited figure activity rates are at 61.9 per cent as opposed to the because it is taking the most severely disabled as London average of 67.6 per cent. opposed to those who may also be on lower rates.
811. And the number of students, do you have any 820. CHAIRMAN: I think we will want to know, figures on that? Mr Reed, in terms of accessibility of these stations, (Mr West) As far as the students are concerned, my what these people are suVering from. Lord, there is a higher than average proportion of students in the ward at five per cent as opposed to the 821. MR REED: Very good, I will endeavour to London average of just three per cent. make sure that we have that answer before you.
812. We are looking of course at the mobility 822. CHAIRMAN: This was the whole point of restricted as well as the disabled. Are there any other your cross-examination this morning, or one of the figures you can provide in terms of permanently sick points, and if you put these figures forward, what do or disabled generally within those wards and their they mean in terms of accessibility at the two stations comparison with the borough and their comparison that you are talking about? with the London position? (Mr West) Yes indeed. Newham has a higher 823. MR REED: All we put them forward as is an proportion of permanently sick or disabled people, indicator of the extent to which there is a proportion and a relatively high proportion of those employed of the population that is disabled. That is the extent work in hotels and catering. 38 of the information that we could obtain to put before your Lordships, so in that sense we have done what 813. And can we look please at slide number seven, we are able to do to identify the position. the numbers of disabled people. And if we can just (Mr West) My Lords, perhaps I could assist with look at the position in respect of again Maryland and some further information here, at the risk of boring Manor Park wards, we have there the numbers in you with more statistics. To give you an example receipt of the higher rate mobility component of from the 2001 Census, 68 per cent of Newham Disability Living Allowance; yes? residents declared themselves to be in good health. 38 That is the lowest figure in London for any London 53 05-007) borough. I could also tell you that 17.3 per cent of the Committee Ref: A2, Numbers of Disabled People (NEWMLB- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 89
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
Newham population consider themselves to have Tax Allowance works, as far as I am aware—and I some limiting long-term illness and that Newham is have to say that I do not hold much detailed fifth out of 33 boroughs in the league. I hope that can knowledge of that point. As far as I am aware, it is a assist with some of your concerns about Disability tax-free benefit which is available to all children and Living Allowance. adults who need help with personal care and have clear walking diYculties because they are physically 824. CHAIRMAN: I do not want to go on sick or mentally disabled. Insofar as Baroness interrupting the evidence but we listened very Fookes’ comments about access to a car, clearly a lot carefully to what you were saying this morning and I of those persons do not hold a driving licence so they think my colleague Baroness Fookes wants to ask a would not be able to drive a car. Whether they would question about this. be able to get hold of a car to make trips, like booking a taxi for instance, whilst I am not able to answer the 825. BARNONESS FOOKES: Am I right in question as to whether or not Disability Living thinking that the mobility allowance comes in the Allowance can be used for such payments, I would form of money which may be used for the use of a car like to make the point that simply by being able to by the person concerned? If in fact they have the use book a taxi does not guarantee that you will be able of a car, then they are not going to be so aVected by to make a trip at the time you actually want it. For the absence of access at a railway or other station, so instance, if you had a hospital appointment at half do we have any figures on that? nine in the morning and you made every eVort to book your taxi perhaps an hour or two or even a day 826. MR REED: On the number of people who are before, there is no actual guarantee that the taxi on the higher rate of Disability Living Allowance? would be able to actually get you to your destination on time. The other point about taxis in Newham is 827. BARNONESS FOOKES: And who has access that taxis do not normally go up and down the to a car by virtue of the mobility allowance, and I Romford Road, as they do outside this place for think there are other schemes that help people. instance. There are very few taxis in the London Motability is what I am thinking of. Borough of Newham because there is not the demand there for the use of taxis as there is in the West End 828. MR REED: My Lady, we certainly do not have of London. I do not know if those comments are those figures. As I understand it, this is the closest helpful. that we could get to figures that would indicate the levels of those who are disabled within those wards. 833. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD: You As I understand it not, but Mr West will be able to quoted a national figure for disability of 0.7 per cent. indicate if those are available. I was puzzled why you quoted that and you did not quote the London figure whereas in another set of 829. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, I do not want to hold statistics you quoted one lot of figures for the London your evidence up but you have got to this point and Borough of Newham and then you quoted the it troubles a number of my colleagues. I wonder if we London figure. All I would ask for is some could clear it up so far as Mr West is able to at this consistency. stage rather than to come back to it when it is out (Mr West) That is a fair point, my Lord. I am afraid of context. I do not have the London figure; I just have the national figure. If the London figure is available, I am 830. MR REED: That is very wise. sure we could make it available to you.
831. CHAIRMAN: I have two colleagues here who 834. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD: If I may want to ask questions. say so, that is not particularly helpful, is it, if on the one hand you are giving us a set of statistics and you 832. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I am incorporate London. For consistency you ought to amazed that you have not shown the lower mobility have used London again. I speculate that London rate. The one that you have given is the maximum also will have a pretty high disability rate compared one but there is a lower rate that aVects far more to the country as a whole. To give us a complete people who in fact are more mobile also than the picture, consistency would be helpful to us. people you have defined there. Have you got figures (Mr West) I take that point, my Lord. for those? (Mr West) My Lords, in giving the evidence we did not want to give you so much information that it 835. MR REED: I do not know whether it would would be diYcult to try and explain. If it would assist, assist but I have just taken instructions as to whether I could give you an explanation of how the Disability or not we can get hold of that figure, and I understand Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
90 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham that we can and we will endeavour to do so by 842. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, you cannot do it now, tomorrow. but I think really in terms of your Petition about accessibility at Maryland and Manor Park, we will 836. CHAIRMAN: You can only take it as far as have to have some more particularity about these you can. Please go on. figures and about the number of people who would actually be aVected by steps and the absence of lifts and that sort of thing. At the moment, it is a very 837. MR REED: I am grateful to you, my Lord. We broad generality and, although of course we were on the question of the University of East understand about disability, there is a particular London, Mr West. Is there any information that you 39 point here which needs to be explored, I think. would like to provide to the Committee on that? (Mr West) Yes if I could perhaps move to the next 843. MR REED: My Lord, yes. If it is capable of slide. A further factor is the University of London’s disaggregation, I am sure that Mr West will do it if he East London (Stratford) campus at Water Lane, is able to. He has certainly heard the request of the Stratford, edged in red on the slide. The site has Committee. recently seen an increase in the provision of teaching and oYce accommodation for students from over 4,000 in 2005 to over 6,000. Maryland Station is 844. BARONESS FOOKES: But, my Lord within 250 metres of the campus and that station is Chairman, the nub of the argument being advanced the most convenient station for both staV and is the concern over inaccessibility by virtue of the fact students. By their nature, a significant proportion of that there are steps, so any figures that relate to that students will travel to and from the site in the oV- are extremely important and central to the case, I peak and this will assist in increasing usage for this would have thought. station. It is also worthy of note that from published figures in 2005 and 2006, which are shown on the 845. MR REED: Indeed. bottom of the slide, 7.4 per cent of the University of East London students were in receipt of disabled 846. CHAIRMAN: You will not be able to do it student allowance and, in addition, 1.9 per cent of the today, but we are not going to be reporting on your University’s staV have a disability. The University Petition today, so there is a little bit of time. has actually set itself an employment target of achieving 2.3 per cent of all staV by 2009. 847. MR REED: Is there anything else you want to say on the University at this stage, Mr West? 838. CHAIRMAN: You will have to give us those (Mr West) No, I think that is all I have got to say for figures because they are not written down, I think. the moment.
839. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: If 848. Can we turn then to some matters relating to you are going to give us those figures, it would be accessibility policy please and perhaps you can give a useful if you would disaggregate them and tell us brief outline of the extent to which any policy those who have suVered from reduced mobility as documents that are referable to London indicate the opposed to other disabilities. need or otherwise for enhancing accessibility. (Mr West) The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 seeks to ensure that disabled people are not 840. MR REED: Perhaps I can try and understand discriminated against when accessing employment, your Lordship’s concern on that so that we can make goods and services. In transport and travel terms, this sure that we get the right figures, if we are able to means a substantial and long-term adverse eVect disaggregate it, because, as I understand it, the figures upon the disabled person’s ability to gain access to, that we have are in respect of those who are in receipt or travel independently on, transport systems, of disabled student allowance. notably public transport. The Greater London Act (Mr West) That is correct. That is my understanding 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to include in his of the information that has been provided to me, yes. Transport Strategy “proposals for the provision of transport which is accessible to persons with mobility 841. What I do not know, my Lord, is whether Mr problems” and “to specify a timetable for West can give us some information as to the extent to implementation of these proposals”. The Council which that is capable of disaggregation in any way. Is notes that the Promoters intend to provide access for it possible, Mr West, do you know? people with disabilities at Custom House Station, (Mr West) I will endeavour to get the information which is on the Royals branch, and the Pudding Mill and supply that to you, my Lord. Lane Station, which is on the Stratford branch, 39 within the borough. In addition, Forest Gate was (NEWMLB-53 05-008) included as an addition to this list as part of the Committee Ref: A2, Maryland Station: UEL Stratford Location Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 91
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham amendment of provisions in 2006. Consequently, the all council services, including housing benefit, stations of Maryland and Manor Park would housing repairs and social services referrals. continue with their current, i.e. inaccessible, provision. The Promoters further state in 852. What is the relevance of that in this case, Mr Information Paper E5, which was referred to this West? morning, that existing stations which are not being (Mr West) I think the relevance of that is that a altered by Crossrail, apart from platform extensions, number of council residents, local residents, will be are the responsibility of Network Rail and the using the local service centre and a number of local relevant train operators to be brought up to the residents will be accessing the local centre from all required standard. In December 2005, the Promoters around the borough and having an accessible station published an Equality Impact Assessment. This which is only 100 or so yards away from the local states, “No disability impacts were included in the service centre would be of great benefit to improving initial screening because it indicated that they were the local accessibility to that centre. 42 overwhelmingly positive”. Chapter 3 describes the likely equality benefits and paragraph 3.1.3 states, 853. If we turn to the next slide, we can see there that “Existing stations served by Crossrail will be there is a bus stop existing at Manor Park. The refurbished to cater for PRM where it is reasonably Promoters have referred to bus accessibility from practicable to do so”. Manor Park Station or the Manor Park Station area generally and the closest Crossrail stations to Manor 849. We obviously heard from Dr Maynard this Park. What comments do you have about the degree morning. In terms of that approach and how it to which there is an accessible link through to step- compares with the approach taken in Information free Crossrail stations? Paper E5, what do you say about the Crossrail (Mr West) My Lord Chairman, we are quite approach and the extent to which it does compare? fortunate at Manor Park in that the station has two (Mr West) I think there is still a long way to go. accessible bus stops in close proximity to its main entrance. This is the stop for services going northbound towards Wanstead and that is only 850. In terms of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, are about 20 or 30 metres away from the station. It is a there any matters that you want to raise in respect of well-designed bus stop which is fully accessible. The that and the extent to which that encourages the stop on the opposite side of the road is also accessible upgrading of stations generally or accessibility and, as you saw on a previous slide which showed the generally? entrance to Manor Park Station, there is easy access (Mr West) The only point I would add, my Lord to both sides of the road with a step-free crossing with Chairman, is that the Mayor’s Transport Strategy tactile paving and a properly accessible crossing. does specify a timetable for implementation and I would argue that this should also relate to Crossrail which, after all, is a Bill which has amongst one of its 854. Aside from the accessibility of Manor Park sponsors Transport for London. I have not been Station, what about getting from Manor Park made aware of any reference to a timetable for Station to, say, Forest Gate Station? Do you know implementation of any accessible proposals on the what the position is in respect of that? railway. (Mr West) The Promoters’ suggestion of the use of 40 Forest Gate as an alternative has been considered. This lies approximately 960 metres away from 851. Let’s turn to Manor Park Station please and Manor Park Station and Forest Gate Station cannot slide 9. Can you give some detail please to the be reached by direct bus without one change. The Committee about the nature of Manor Park alternative43 is a walk distance of 150 metres from the generally please? nearest bus stops on Romford Road, and perhaps if (Mr West) Manor Park Station is situated within we could go on to the next slide, this illustrates the Zone 3. The areas around the station consist of a point. That is the station at Forest Gate and, as you mixture of residential, commercial and light can see from that slide, the bus stops are a industrial use. The City of London Cemetery is considerable distance away. If you imagine that you situated approximately 700 metres to the west of41 the are coming from Manor Park Station or from near station with Wanstead Flats to the north. The Manor Park Station to Forest Gate by bus, as Council has a local service centre to the south, which suggested by the Promoters as the nearest alternative is one of eight such centres in the borough. It accessible station, you will see that the bus stop from provides comprehensive advice and information on 42 40 (NEWMLB-53 05-011) 009) 43 41 ManorCommittee Park Ref: and A2, Romford Bus Stop Road for Bus Manor Stops Park(NEWMLB- Station (NEWMLB-53Committee Ref: 05-010) A2, Manor Park Station (NEWMLB-53 05- 53 05-017) Committee Ref: A2, Forest Gate Station—Walk/ Bus route to Committee Ref: A2, Manor Park—Local Service Centre Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
92 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
Manor Park is not particularly close to the station. If Particularly the platform on the right, platform 1 on you look at the next slide, you will see the Romford the next slide, slide48 15, the staircase will be actually Road junction which is the next junction down and removed, the passing freight passing loop also the westbound stop where you would alight from the removed and a completely new staircase to add to bus coming from Manor Park to go to Forest Gate is platform 1 built. So there is considerable investment actually so far in the picture that you cannot actually being made by the Promoters at Manor Park Station. see it. To actually point out where it is, if you look at the centre of the slide, you see a white44 building and in front of that white building is a bus shelter and that 859. That is the position as was stated in what is the nearest accessible bus stop coming by bus from document, Mr West? Manor Park to Forest Gate Station. (Mr West) That was the position as stated in the original Crossrail documents, as published with the 855. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Bill. How far is that to Forest Gate Station? (Mr West) The walk to Forest Gate Station from there is about 150 metres, but it involves obviously crossing a busy junction as well. 860. There has now been a position taken by Crossrail in terms of what it is proposing for this 856. MR REED: So there is a distance of 970 metres station described today, and we will come on to that. with the two changes of bus? Is that right? In terms of what was proposed, what you have just (Mr West) Yes, well, one change of bus, so you take described is your understanding of the situation? two buses. (Mr West) Yes, that is correct, my Lords.
857. Yes, you take two buses, one change. You have gone on to slide 18, but can we go back please to slide 45 861. Do you have any view that you can give as to the 12 which is, I think, where we last were. You were ability to construct a lift system within those works as describing the bus stop and we are now looking at the were proposed? booking hall, is that right? (Mr West) Yes, my Lords. Clearly from the (Mr West) Yes, my Lords. Moving on to the actual information that is available to us and my local physical layout of Manor Park Station, which you see knowledge of the station, if you go back to the on this slide here, this slide shows the station’s previous slide which shows the island platforms then booking hall, which is at-grade and very accessible. it would be a relatively simple operation to sink a lift There are no steps to access the booking hall. from the concourse which you see above there, Following on from that is a step-free concourse on literally sink the lift down a vertical shaft which will the next slide which leads to the stairs leading to the 46,47 give you direct access onto the platform. The London-bound platform, that is platform 1; and then platform itself is considerably wide so it would allow to the island platforms, platforms 2 and 3, which are in relatively easy terms the construction of a lift shaft shown on the left slide and on this slide as well. to serve two platforms at Manor Park Station. These are the island platforms at Manor Park Insofar as platform 1 is concerned, which is on the Station. It is quite an easy walk route, albeit not next slide, the constraint at Manor Park, which you accessible because of the absence of lifts. can just about see from this slide, is that the platforms are very narrow; but on the proposals that49 have been 858. In terms of your understanding of what works submitted to Parliament as part of the works for are proposed at Manor Park, what do you Manor Park those platforms are extended eastwards understand to be the case at the present time? towards the left-hand side of the slide. That then (Mr West) My understanding from the information allows widened platforms to be constructed, and then that we have received from the Promoters to date is allows the possibility to sink a lift shaft to provide that substantial investment is being made at Manor direct access to that platform. All in all, in Park Station. The platforms are proposed to be engineering terms, I would argue that it is a relatively lengthened to accommodate ten-car Crossrail trains. simple engineering job to perform. The platforms are also to be extended eastwards and westwards to a total length of 205 metres.
44 on Romford Road (NEWMLB-53 05-018) 862. That was in the context of what was previously 45 proposed, is that right? 53Committee 05-012) Ref: A2, Forest Gate Station—Westbound Bus Stop 46 48 53Committee 05-013) Ref: A2, Booking Hall—Manor Park (NEWMLB- (NEWMLB-53 05-015) 47 49 (NEWMLB-53Committee Ref: 05-014) A2, Manor Park—Concourse (NEWMLB- (NEWMLB-53Committee Ref: 05-016) A2, Manor Park—Island Platform Committee Ref: A2, Lack of Accessibility—Manor Park Committee Ref: A2, Manor Park—Westbound Platform Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 93
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr West) That is correct, yes. (Mr West) That is on the next slide, my Lord.
50 863. We have looked at the question of the alternative 869. Is it right outside53 the station? provision that is suggested in respect of Forest Gate. (Mr West) This slide here, you can probably just Can we go on then to slide 19. Is that the next place make out on the bus stop flag it is actually signed as we should go to, Mr West? Maryland Station. That is the stop for Maryland (Mr West) Yes, that now takes us to the case for Station where you would get oV by bus if you came Maryland. This slide shows the51 entrance to Maryland from Stratford. Station which, as you see, has five steps. 870. How many metres from the station? 864. Moving on to slide 20. (Mr West) It is quite considerable. It is some (Mr West) This actually shows the walk route from considerable distance from the station because it is Maryland to Stratford, or Stratford to Maryland. actually on the wrong side of the road. As you can see Perhaps if I could explain how complicated that route from that picture, the stop is not accessible. The bus is to a pedestrian or to a person with mobility does not pull into the kerb. There is a significant impairment. The walk route from Maryland to amount of guard-railing around it. To actually get Stratford is a distance of 840 metres. There has been from Maryland Station to that bus stop you have to some discussion about that figure this morning. follow the pedestrian walking northbound. Roughly Perhaps if I could clear that up. That distance is the where you seethat lamppost there isa crossing facility. distance that Newham have taken from the TFL You have to cross the road there and then continue journey planner which is the shortest walk route, as north-eastwards and cross a zebra crossing to reach suggested by the journey planner. The actual walk Maryland Station. It is some considerable distance route itself from Maryland52 to Stratford necessitates away. crossing the road no less than five times and weaving passed street furniture and other obstacles, which are 871. MR REED: We have dealt with the walk route. shown in the next slide. Just looking at the position in respect of buses generally, not only for Maryland but also for Manor 865. Have you done this walk? Park, are there any comments you want to make on (Mr West) I have. Even if this journey is undertaken the accessibility diYculties or benefits of using a bus by an accessible bus, which has been referred to this system as well as the train system? morning— (Mr West) Yes, my Lords. We have heard evidence this morning to suggest that if the journey between the 866. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: station is served by an accessible bus then eVectively You were very helpful on the previous one where you that makes the journey convenient and possible. What showed where the bus stop was exactly in location to I would say to that is, one has to be aware of the the station entrance, as I see you have got a bus stop diYculties facing not just mobility-impaired persons which looks very close northbound, that is going but mothers or fathers with pushchairs, double- towards Forest Gate I presume, is it not? buggies, shopping and shopping trolleys. My Lords, I (Mr West) I am sorry, my Lord, are we talking about do not know if any of you have travelled on buses in the bus stop shown in this picture here? the school peak. You are probably aware that transport for schoolchildren in London is free and the 867. Yes. You keep talking about walking. It is very buses not just in Newham but throughout London are unlikely, I take your point, that somebody in a considerably well-used at the moment. Often it is wheelchair is going to go that 840 metres. Part of the diYcult for an able-bodied person, let alone a mother analysis we had this morning was total and you had or father with bags, shopping, trolleys and double- to look at the holistic picture, so to speak. Where is buggies, to actually get on the bus and make the the bus stop for Stratford? journey. The point I also want to make is that there is (Mr West) This photograph actually shows the route also restricted space within the bus to accommodate from Stratford to Maryland. We are about halfway wheelchairs and pushchairs. It is certainly the case at this particular point. that if a disabled user in a wheelchair tries to get on a bus and the bus is actually full up with pushchairs then 868. Where is the bus stop in relation to Maryland the driver has to say to the wheelchair user “Sorry, I’m Station? full. You’ll have to get onto the next bus”. I put it to
50 you, the journey as proposed by bus between, for 53 05-019) instance, Maryland and Stratford is not as easy as I 51 think others have suggested. (NEWMLB-53Committee Ref: 05-020) A2, Maryland Station Entrance (NEWMLB- 52 53 (NEWMLB-53Committee Ref: 05-021) A2, To Maryland—Walk Route from Stratford (NEWMLB-53 05-022) Committee Ref: A2, To Maryland—Walk Route from Stratford Committee Ref: A2, Maryland Station—Northbound Bus Stop Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
94 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
872. LORD SNAPE: Mr West, forgive me, would it (Mr West) It is quite small to see, my Lord. You not be a cheaper solution then to provide more buses probablyhavethesameproblem asme.Theonlypoint rather than to make dramatic alterations to Victorian I would like to make is that some of the information buildings or 1960s buildings? I see the point you are provided on this map is a little bit out-of-date. seeking to make but we have an integrated transport system in London, or so the Mayor and his rivals tell 875. In what sense, Mr West? us. Is not the solution to put on more buses rather than (Mr West) I think it does not show night buses. change station buildings and walking routes etc? (Mr West) That is a fair point, my Lord, but more 876. Do you know what numbers those are? If you do buseshavebeenput onandtheygetbusierso weputon not— more buses and they get busier and we put on more (Mr West) In respect of Manor Park, the map does buses and then they got slower. The argument is a not refer to the 474 bus route, which is 24-hour. circular one. In the ideal world you would put on so many buses you would have adequate capacity to 877. Does that change the position in respect of the cater for all users. number of changes that have to be made to access Forest Gate from Manor Park? (Mr West) The number of changes from Forest Gate 873. MR REED: Looking at where those buses will to Manor Park still means you have to take one bus go to, it is suggested that they will go to the Stratford to change. Station which is accessible. Are there any comments you want to make on the Stratford Station and the 878. MR REED: Unless there are any comments extent to which that is an appropriate alternative for you have on the local bus routing maps, I want you people wanting to access the Crossrail system? to go on to 007. (Mr West) You will be aware, my Lords, that Stratford is an extremely busy place at the moment 879. CHAIRMAN: Before you do that, Mr Reed, I with a minor local event taking place a few years’ think that we are not particularly helped by bus route hence, and also a large shopping centre being built. maps in the form that they have been presented to us. The StratfordCity shopping development isone of the I have got here the overall plan, which is the third55 largest shopping centres in Britain that is currently page, I think, of this evidence, which shows Crossrail under construction. We also have to accommodate an proposals in Newham and, of course, it shows increasingly large workforce which will be soon Maryland, Manor Park, Stratford and Forest Gate. arriving at the station to start the construction of all I have plotted on to it as best I can the University of these venues for the London Olympics. Special bus East London campus. What I think we are talking services are being provided to cater for those about is a large population who live in the East Ham construction workers. Added to that there is the influx and West Ham areas, which I know very well, and of regular commuters who are travelling through and what we have not got is any correlation between the to and from Stratford on a daily basis. Stratford is a streets that run through those areas and the bus major interchange with the Jubilee Line, the Central routes. We have got diagrammatic bus routes but I Line, the Great Eastern Lines and now the London am not sure we have any picture of the totality of the Overground Line, previously Silverlink Line, the bus access, for instance, to Stratford and Forest North London Railway. Imagine the scenario in the Gate. morning peak where hordes of passengers are making their way through the gates trying to exit the station 880. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, if I could intervene very briefly, at 004, which is up on the screen, you will andthewheelchair userorthemother withherdouble- see the bus routes super-imposed on the street plan buggy is trying to get through those gates at the same for Maryland, and at 005 we have done the same time. I put it to you, it would not be an easy journey to exercise for Manor Park, precisely because the make, certainly in the peak period. 56 Transport for London diagrammatic bus plans are useful when you stand at a bus-stop but not terribly 874. Mr Berryman has put forward a number of slides. useful when you are sitting in a Committee. So we have, I hope, done the exercise at 004 and 005 so that Can I ask you,54 please, to take those to hand? I want to ask you to comment on some of them briefly, please. If your Lordships can see the reality of the buses. The we can turn to 002, we can see there the buses from frequency is set out in the little boxes. It is probably Maryland. Are there any comments you want to easier to read on the screens in front of you, but we have got the frequency for the Manor Park buses make on that slide or the Manor Park bus routing slide? 55 Catchment Plot—2001 LATS Data (NEWMLB-53 04-013) 54 56 002) 53Crossrail 04-005) Ref: P8, Forest Gate Station—AM Peak Access Committee Ref: A2, Buses from Maryland (NEWMLB-53 04- Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park—Local bus services (NEWMLB- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 95
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
57 there on the box and on 004 we have marked the (Mr West) The only comment I would make, my frequency next to the bus routes, again, in little Lord Chairman, is that the catchment area really boxes. I hope that meets the concerns. relates to able-bodied people and their walk routes to the nearest station. 881. CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. The hypothesis is that people are not going to go to Maryland or Manor Park, they are going to have to 887. What is the significance of that as information in go, instead, to Forest Gate or Stratford from respect of those with restricted mobility? wherever it is that they live. This is the whole point of (Mr West) I think it would be a lot harder for those this Petition, as I understand it. That is, perhaps, a persons to get to their local station, unless it was more useful plan for your purposes, is it, than accessible. anything that you have produced? 888. Then moving on, please, to the last page, which 882. MR REED: Mr West? is 019, which is59 headed “2016 AM Peak 3 Hour (Mr West) The only point I would add, my Lord Passenger Forecast (Excluding internal interchange Chairman, if that assists in your deliberations, is you movements)”, do you want to comment on this table made reference to East Ham and West Ham. at all, Mr West? (Mr West) The only point I would make, my Lord, is 883. CHAIRMAN: I simply looked at that on that it shows the station at Burnham, which is shown your map. to be “made to be accessible” and it seems from the (Mr West) Yes. East Ham has a large population data that Burnham has a lower patronage than, for and, as it happens, the most convenient bus route and instance, Maryland. I think West Ealing and Acton most frequent bus route to East Ham to serve mainline seem to have very slightly increased, or Crossrail would actually serve Manor Park Station, similar patterns of, patronage than Maryland. because the buses run north to south. So if you are living in the East Ham area and you wish to get to your most convenient local station, that would be 889. What about Manor Park? Manor Park. EVectively, Manor Park becomes a (Mr West) Manor Park itself has a considerably more important station vis-a`-vis the local population higher level of patronage than, certainly, stations at of East Ham and even more important if we are Brentwood, Acton mainline and West Ealing, yet talking about people of restricted movement living in Manor Park is not proposed as a station where works the East Ham area. The journey time to Stratford to improve accessibility are proposed. from East Ham is considerably longer because both the routes that link Stratford with East Ham take a 60 circuitous journey to actually get to Stratford. I do 890. Thank you very much. Can we go back now, not know if that is helpful at all. please, to 007, which I hope is plans for Manor Park. I think it is 010. Looking at the proposed details for the provision of PRM lifts without platform 884. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. extensions, this is showing the situation as one would have to build it out in the event that lifts were 885. MR REED: Mr West, can I ask you, please, to proposed, and this is a new provision in light of the move on. We will look at the question of the fact that what is currently proposed is now somewhat feasibility of the works that are currently proposed, diVerent from what you previously understood to be shortly. Before doing so, since we are dealing with the the case. Is that right, Mr West? accessibility to Forest Gate, Maryland, Stratford and (Mr West) Manor Park, could you turn on to 010, which I hope Yes, that is right, my Lords. The first I you will find is a catchment plan for the am peak saw of these plans was, literally, five minutes before 2001—it says LATS data. Is that the London Area the proceedings began this morning. Transport Strategy? 58 (Mr West) London Area Transport Survey, I think. 891. Is that the first time you saw these plans, Mr West? 886. It is coming up as 013 on the screen. Looking at (Mr West) Yes, it is. To be correct, I actually received the catchment plans, generally, there are some three these electronically yesterday but, I have to say, with of them. Are there any comments you want to make little explanation. on what those are showing? 59 57 (Excluding internal interchange movements (NEWMLB- providing direct links to Stratford Station (NEWMLB-53 04- 53 04-019) 004) 60 Crossrail Ref: P8, 2016 AM Peak 3 Hour Passenger Forecast 58 Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station—Local bus services provision of PRM lifts without platform extensions Catchment Plot—2001 LATS Data (NEWMLB-53 04-013) (NEWMLB-53 04-010) Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—Proposed details for the Crossrail Ref: P8, Forest Gate Station—AM Peak Access Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
96 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
892. In terms of your understanding of what is now (Mr West) Having seen these drawings, my Lords, it proposed for Manor Park, when did you learn of does seem pretty clear to me that insofar as the that? physical works for the construction of the lifts are (Mr West) Five-to-ten this morning. concerned and, indeed, the ramp, these works are clearly within the limits of deviation. The only matter 893. Have you seen any documentation dealing with which would not be is the suggested use of a that revised layout? temporary worksite on Manbey Park Road just (Mr West) I have not. south of the westbound platform, which is a public highway, the responsibility of the London Borough 894. So what do you understand now to be the of Newham, and I do not see any instances in which current proposal for Manor Park? the Council would reasonably prevent those works (Mr West) Well, from a cursory look at these plans from being carried out. and bearing in mind that they have only been 62 discussed in this place this morning, clearly, Newham is getting a worse deal, if you like, in that the 899. That is Maryland. Any diVerent position in opportunity is not being taken to substantially terms of Manor Park, over the page? improve the passenger environment with wider (Mr West) In terms of Manor Park, again, the platforms, and the opportunity is not being taken to structural elements of the station and the demolish the staircase to platform one which, in construction of the lifts seem to be shown to be within itself, would greatly assist in the provision of an the hatched red line within the limits of deviation. accessible lift on the platform. Insofar as the central Again, the only temporary worksites which would be platforms are concerned, I do not see any major required would be on Manor Park Road, and, again, change there, but certainly so far as the access to as I stated for Maryland, it is a Newham public platform one is concerned, the westbound platform, highway and I do not see a scenario where the the most southerly platform, then these proposals are Council would unreasonably withhold any consents not as good as the previous proposals. for temporary access, or temporary closure of those roads. 895. Going on to Maryland, do you understand anything as yet of what is currently being proposed for Maryland? 900. There is a T1 and T2 there, which is identified, in (Mr West) Interestingly, my interpretation of this the top right-hand corner, as “Manor Park Road drawing shows the possible provision of lift access at may be temporarily interfered with between” those Maryland Station, which is obviously something that two points that the work is proposed. Is that right? we would heartily welcome and which is central to (Mr West) Yes, indeed. our case. 901. The last point, please, Mr West, I should have 896. In terms of where the lift provision is proposed, asked you earlier on. In terms of taxi provision—the is that in an existing building or a new building? ability to use taxis to access accessible Crossrail (Mr West) As I understand it from these drawings stations and the extent to which they are subsidised and my knowledge of the station, the lifts would be for those who are disabled—do you have any provided within the existing structure of the station, evidence that you can give on the ability to use that simply by sinking a shaft from the main structural system to access Crossrail? buildings. (Mr West) The only point I would make, again, as I mentioned earlier, is that booking a taxi requires this 897. In terms of what is being shown here, do you to be done in advance and there is no guarantee that have any knowledge as to whether or not the works your taxi will come at a given time if you have a themselves that are proposed are within the limits of hospital appointment or an urgent appointment. deviation of the works proposed under the Bill? (Mr West) Having looked at these plans, given that the lifts themselves are shown within the boundaries 902. Are there any benefits that can be applied for to of the operating railway— obtain free taxi provision, to your knowledge? 61 (Mr West) Not within the London Borough of 898. I think we have a plan coming round that might Newham, to my knowledge. I think this facility is be able to assist in respect of those two stations, to aVorded in other boroughs, but it is not something show the limits of deviation. Just briefly take us which is available to the residents of Newham. through what this is showing. 62 61 provision of PRM lifts without platform extensions (SCN- provision of PRM lifts (SCN-20080226-012) 20080226-013) Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—Proposed details for the Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station—Proposed details for the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 97
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
903. MR REED: Thank you very much, Mr West. Park is concerned, there has been a growing body of Those are my questions, my Lord. There may be opinion within Newham in recent months that has some questions from Ms Lieven. suggested that the Council should pursue its case vigorously, and we had the opportunity to do that in 904. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven? the first House, I think in June 2006, but from my recollection the evidence was put forward by the Cross-examined byMsLieven Promoters within a very, very short timescale, I think it was a matter of a week. Newham was at the last 905. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I have got a few minute given the opportunity to present information, questions. Good afternoon, Mr West. First of all, can but quite clearly we were not in a position where we I just establish the factual position. I understand you were able to do so, and rather than come forward are not an engineer, are you? with half a case we are now coming today with our (Mr West) I am not, no. Petition to your Lordships. I would also add that the issue of wheelchair access/disability is not new to 906. I do not think Newham are presenting any Newham. It was contained in the Council’s original engineering evidence on this Petition to show how petition in 1993, some 15 years ago, and of course in step-free access could or could not be provided, are the Council’s second Petition in 2005. The point I they? think I am trying to make is Newham’s requirements (Mr West) No I am not. for full accessibility of all the stations is not something that we have suddenly decided we wish to take up. 907. And you are not presenting any evidence on the costs of providing step-free access at either station? (Mr West) No, I am not. 911. No I understand that, Mr West, but what you have not done is come to us and say, “We want you, 908. Have Newham commissioned any engineering Crossrail, to explain why you are not giving PRM study on how access could be provided at either accessibility at Manor Park”, in which case we could station? explain to you what is shown on the diagram in front (Mr West) No, we have not. of the Committee. You have not come to us since the House of Commons and asked for that explanation, 909. We know you did not appear on the issue in the have you? House of Commons, as was explained in your (Mr West) We have not come to you for that Counsel’s opening, and you took what is called a explanation and I suppose Crossrail have not come Second House undertaking in the House of to us to explain why it cannot be done. Commons on this, amongst other issues. Since then has Newham approached Crossrail and asked for a 63 912. Can we turn very briefly to the number of feasibility study to be carried out on step-free access disabled people point, and if we could put up your at either station? figure 7 very quickly just to remind the Committee. (Mr West) Newham have approached Crossrail on a This is the exhibit that shows 2.3 per cent as the number of occasions and a number of issues have number in receipt of the higher rate mobility been discussed. This is not an issue which has about component in DLA. You will recall the 2.3 per cent. discussed recently, no. That is on the basis of wards which are in the left- hand column which you describe as Maryland, 910. Have any meetings been held between yourself Stratford and New Town wards, yes? and the engineers in which you have put forward (Mr West) That is correct, yes. your arguments for step-free access since you took the Second House undertaking? (Mr West) There have been meetings held to discuss 913. I am sorry we have not got copies of this but the a number of issues, including step-free access at point only arose when we saw your exhibits and Custom House, but no specific meetings in relation to heard your oral evidence but if we put up the ward these stations because in so far as Maryland is map, it is not a brilliant map but if one locates concerned we are still at this moment in time, so far Stratford over here (indicating), Maryland there in as I am aware, waiting to hear oYcially from the the centre (indicating), the ward in question is Railway Inspectorate. The Promoters have indicated actually called Stratford and New Town ward and that it is likely that selective door opening could be extends all the way up here onto the railway lands, all achieved. I think we have been told that it will be the way down here to the main road, and then up achieved but the oYcial line from the Railway here, so it is a ward that takes in the whole of Inspectorate is still awaited, so we have not taken the 63 issue of Maryland any further. Insofar as Manor 53 05-007) Committee Ref: A2, Numbers of Disabled People (NEWMLB- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
98 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham 64
Stratford and a considerable catchment area to the (Mr West) I suppose you could take that view. The south and west as well, does it not? information is not that comprehensive.
(Mr West) Unless I am mistaken, my Lord, this map 65 does seem to me to be based on the old ward 922. And then just briefly on the UEL campus point, boundaries. Do you know what date it was actually can we put up our bus map exhibit for Maryland, it produced because there was a boundary change quite is 004 please. We have got Maryland Station there recently? (indicating) and I think the Committee will see this better straight in front of them, but you can see 914. I do not. marked on that the University of East London (Mr West) I do not recognise this map as being campus; is that right. Have I got the right place, Mr current. I say that because some of the names have West? disappeared and are no longer wards within (Mr West) Yes, it was shown on my exhibit as well Newham. but it is in the same place.
915. But the point goes to your Exhibit 7. I do not 923. This is the bus map and straight outside the door know because Exhibit 7 does not say what the date of the UEL campus is the bus stop for route 86 which and the provenance of those figures are. Are you goes every six minutes and takes one directly to suggesting that the date of figures in Exhibit 7 Stratford Station and it is a fully accessible bus. postdate some ward change? (Mr West) Yes, it is fully accessible. (Mr West) I would say that the date on Exhibit 7 relates to the current Newham wards. 924. You made the point in evidence-in-chief that the easiest station for people in UEL to use was 916. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, perhaps we can deal Maryland, but if we can put up very briefly UEL’s with that outside Committee and establish whether own web page on public transport access, what is there is any material diVerence. clear there is that66 on the UEL’s own information, each of UEL campuses is connected by public transport to nearby town centres, central London 917. CHAIRMAN: I think you will have to because and further afield. There are two campuses, and we at the present moment there is complete confusion. can ignore the first one, so far as the Stratford campus is concerned, the railway station that the 918. MS LIEVEN: I quite agree with that, my Lord, University itself draws attention to is Stratford and it and we will sort it out outside the Committee. Can we makes absolutely no mention of Maryland take your 2.3 figure for the moment and focus on whatsoever. Maryland. We know in the am peak there are (Mr West) I imagine the reason why it makes something in the region of 2,000 people using reference to Stratford rather than Maryland is Maryland in the peak three hours? because Stratford is an interchange and that there are (Mr West) If that is the case, and I have no reason to more services serving Stratford, for instance, the dispute it, my Lords. Jubilee, the Central and the DLR, so it is encouraging students to visit the nearest interchange station 919. Just using the figure of 2.3 per cent for a rather than the nearest local station. moment, that would mean that if—and it is a very big if—all the people with the higher rate mobility 925. If one just scrolls down the page a little bit and component in DLA chose to use Maryland Station puts up the little map, and I do apologise, it is not a that morning that would be a maximum of 46 people, good copy, but again we have the campus there and would it not. we have this (indicating) which is Stratford and there (Mr West) If you say so. is no reference again on the map whatsoever to Maryland Station, is there? 920. That is simple maths, 2.3 per cent of 2,000. You (Mr West) I think one of the reasons for that, my have quoted a figure of 17.3 per cent as the people Lords, as you have seen from the evidence that has who responded to the Census I think in this ward as been shown today, is that Maryland itself as a station being those who said they had some limiting long- is not particularly attractive at the moment. It is a term illness; do you remember that? pretty decrepit station, if I can use that word. I would (Mr West) That is correct, yes say it is not a particularly safe station at present and in fact all the windows are boarded up and it stinks of 921. That 17.3 per cent tells us nothing about how 65 many of those people need step-free access, does it? providing direct links to Stratford Station (NEWMLB-53 04- 004) 64 66 Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station—Local bus services 20080226-014) 20080226-015 and -016) Crossrail Ref: P9, London Borough of Newham (SCN- Travel Wise, University of East London, www.uel.ac.uk (SCN- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 99
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham urine. With that in mind, I do not blame the (Mr West) If you see the intersection, it is basically University for suggesting that Stratford is the most the north-east quadrant of that intersection. convenient station for the students.
926. Can we move on briefly to Manor Park. You 936. So it is on the route of three buses, two of which made the point in respect of both Manor Park and go to Stratford every, I think it is, five to eight Maryland that, if people had to take a bus to get to minutes. Is that right? an accessible station, and it does not really matter (Mr West) Yes, it is. whether they are people to the north of Maryland getting a bus and going to Stratford or whether they 937. Then in terms of Stratford, you made a are people to the south of Manor Park and getting a considerable point of the diYculties of getting from bus along the Romford Road again probably to Manor Park to Forest Gate, and I am quite happy to Stratford or, if they are going east, to Ilford, you accept that is a relatively unlikely thing for people to made the point, “Well, that’s going to be an do, but the majority of the Manor Park catchment is additional cost”. Do you remember that? to the south of the station, is it not, because we have (Mr West) I probably did, yes. got a lot of open space to the north? (Mr West) Well, there certainly is a lot of open space 927. You said that one of the disadvantages of having to the north. I would have to look at the data relating to get a bus is that there will be an additional cost for to the actual area, but it may well be the case that people who may be on low incomes. Let’s just test there is more catchment to the south than to the that a little bit. If you are in receipt of a means-tested benefit, you get free bus travel, do you not? north, yes. (Mr West) I am not sure about that. I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. 938. Our figures are that 70 per cent of the catchment lies to the south. Have you got any reason to 928. Well, I will ask Mr Berryman to confirm that. If dispute that? you are registered disabled, you get free bus travel, do (Mr West) I suppose I have not, no. you not? (Mr West) Yes, you do. 939. For all those people, rather than trying to do a 929. MS LIEVEN: If you are elderly in London, and rather convoluted exercise of getting to Forest Gate, I cannot remember whether it is 60 or 65 now, I think if they want to travel west towards central London, it is 60, you get free bus travel? they can get on to the Romford Road and they have a bus service, two buses going every five to eight 930. LORD SNAPE: I am afraid we are elderly at minutes, so it averages out at a bus about every four 60 here! minutes on a good day which go straight to Stratford Station and drop them outside the station. Yes? 931. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: (Mr West) Certainly two of those routes would do Some of us are experts on this! that, yes.
932. MS LIEVEN: I apologise for my ignorance, 940. That does not involve two buses, that just but you get free bus travel, do you not? (Mr West) You do, but not before nine o’clock in the involves one bus, does it not? morning. (Mr West) That is correct, assuming they actually live on the Romford Road. 933. Also, if you have a Travelcard, I do not know which zone Manor Park is in, but is it in Zone 2 or 941. Well, they do not actually live in Manor Park Zone 3? Station. (Mr West) It is in Zone 3. (Mr West) Or they live in close proximity. I take the point that what applies to the north equally applies to 934. So, if you have got a Travelcard which covers the south. Zone 3, then you pay no additional cost for going to a station in Zone 3, do you? (Mr West) No, that is the case, yes. 942. Now, in terms of the benefits of going to Stratford Station, perhaps we could flick up the 935. You made reference to the Newham service picture of it just for those who are not familiar with centre in Manor Park. Can you tell us exactly where it. The buses stop right in front of the station, do that is? they not? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:16 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
100 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr West) They do. simple bus journey, as I said in my evidence, if you imagine the scenario of the mother with the 943. The station is fully accessible? pushchair, the mother with the pram and the kids and (Mr West) It is. the shopping bags travelling at 2.30/3.00 in the afternoon along with half the school population of 944. In terms of comparisons with Maryland, it is a the London Borough of Newham, I put it to you that lovely, spanking, new, I think designed by Richard that would not be a very convenient, quick or Rogers or somebody almost equally eminent, station, comfortable journey. is it not? (Mr West) It was not designed by Richard Rogers, it 949. I understand, Mr West, that buses get busy in was designed by Wilkinson, but I would go along London, but it is right, is it not, that trains also get with that one. busy, so, if one was brave enough to try to get a double-buggy on to a Crossrail train during the peak 945. It has got disabled parking here, yes? hour, that too is likely to be quite diYcult because the (Mr West) Currently, it has some limited parking, train might well be very busy? but that is all to be taken out as the station is to be a (Mr West) From the information I have seen on major construction site for the Olympics. loadings for Crossrail between certainly east of Stratford and Shenfield certainly in the oV-peak, 946. But Crossrail is not opening until after the there is nothing that suggests to me that there will be Olympics, so that does not really make very much a capacity problem at any time of the day, certainly diVerence to Crossrail, does it? not in the oV-peak. (Mr West) It does insofar as in 2016 the whole of Stratford will have been completely rebuilt and there will actually have been a new ticket hall and a new 950. We were just talking about peaks. If you change bridge where you are suggesting is the existing the goalposts, of course you are right, but, if you are disabled parking. talking about peak time on the buses with lots of people, you are also talking about peak time on the trains with lots of people. 947. But surely, if your Council is so concerned about (Mr West) Yes, except that in this particular case, if access for disabled people to railway facilities, it is you are going to Stratford, you are going against the going to ensure that there is an adequate amount of peak in the afternoon and, therefore, I would not disabled parking in any rebuilt Stratford Station, is imagine that there would be a lot of problems on the it not? train. There would be more problems on the buses (Mr West) We certainly are trying to ensure that, but because of course the bus peak is in both directions. of course there are other large organisations, like the Olympic Delivery Authority and Transport for London, who are involved with the planning of 951. There are just two other little factual points, Mr Stratford, but certainly, insofar as our role is West, which I ought to pick up with you just for concerned as the local planning authority, we will try completeness. You made reference to us providing an to ensure that there is adequate disabled parking in accessible station at Pudding Mill Lane and I am sure the vicinity of Stratford Station. that was a slip of the tongue. (Mr West) That was a slip of the tongue. 948. The other thing that you can do at Stratford that you cannot do at Maryland is what is known in the 952. There is no Crossrail station at Pudding Mill trade as ‘kiss and ride’. You can get a lift right up to Lane, is there? the door, be dropped oV and then the person who is (Mr West) That is well spotted. I apologise, that was driving you, whether it be a taxi, Dial-a-Ride, a a mistake. friend, partner, carer, whatever, can drive oV again? (Mr West) And even get a ticket. I think the point about that is that we have got to remember that, as I 953. You made reference also to the fact that mentioned in my proof, because we are talking about Burnham, if one looks at 019, is a bit of an anomaly people on relatively low incomes, a lot of those because it has a lower level of usage, but it is fully people to which you refer will not have access to a car, accessible. Burnham is a long way from Newham or so they may not be able to make those trips which you indeed Camden, so you are probably not aware of suggest are easy to make. They may have to rely on this, but Burnham, for historic reasons, is already the bus as their sole means of getting to Stratford. fully accessible and Crossrail is doing no work to Accepting your point that perhaps residents in the Burnham. I assume you were not aware of that. Manor Park area may prefer to travel to Stratford as (Mr West) I was not and I stand corrected. I an alternative because it is a relatively, on paper, apologise for misleading you on that. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:17 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 101
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
954. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much. 964. LORD SNAPE: Well, we will decide at this end, if you do not mind, what is rational and what is Examined by THE COMMITTEE not, Mr West. Looking at slide67 number 4, I think it is, which you put forward of the Crossrail proposals in Newham, Maryland is shown as a non-Crossrail 955. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: station on your original slide. Mr West, would you agree that, out of the Crossrail (Mr West) Sorry, bear with me, my Lord. proposals, you have actually got five stations in the Borough of Newham? 965. Actually it is slide 3 of Crossrail proposals in (Mr West) That is correct, yes. Newham, attached to the document bearing your name. Maryland is shown as a non-Crossrail station. 956. Three of those are completely step-free, yes? (Mr West) That was in the original Bill, yes. (Mr West) That is correct, my Lord, yes. 966. Indeed and I think that was Baroness Fookes’ 957. So would you agree that overall that is a benefit point, that, if you had not petitioned to include for all Newham residents, including those with Maryland in the Crossrail proposals, then we would disability? not be having this debate this afternoon. (Mr West) Insofar as it relates to those stations, yes, (Mr West) I take that point, my Lord. That is a but insofar as it relates to the other two, and that is valid point. 40 per cent of the stations in Newham, then the answer has to be no. 967. In your Petition in 2005, did it specifically say that not only did you want a Crossrail station at 958. No, even including those who live around that Newham, but that you wanted it fully compliant with station because they also have better access into town the disability regulations? now with Crossrail. Are they not better-quality trains (Mr West) I am sorry, my Lord, do you mean with crowding reduced, et cetera, so they benefit from Maryland? the whole Crossrail concept? (Mr West) Are we talking about able-bodied or are 968. I am sorry, yes, when you petitioned in 2005 for we talking about— a station. (Mr West) In our original Petition, we asked for all 959. I am talking about all. stations to be step-free. (Mr West) Well, all will benefit to a degree, but those with less mobility will obviously benefit less. 969. But specifically as far as Maryland was concerned, which was not in the original Crossrail 960. Well, depending on where they are in Newham. proposals, did you say, “Not only do we want (Mr West) Depending on where they are in Newham. Maryland Station, but we want Maryland Station to If they are in proximity to an accessible station, then be completely compliant with disability regulations? (Mr West) they will benefit fully. If they live or work in Well, we did insofar as we asked for all proximity to a non-accessible station, then they will stations that would be constructed within Newham not benefit in any material respect. to be step-free, so that would be the case, yes. 970. Perhaps I can put it then in the same way that I 961. I was just trying to look at it from the Borough put it to Ms Lieven this morning. Do you think that, of Newham’s point of view, Mr West. If one was to if you had proposed specifically for Maryland that accept the overall benefit, surely the glass is half-full not only was the station included in the Crossrail rather than half-empty at least? Three out of those proposals, but it would be made completely five stations have total step-free access. disability-compliant, then the Promoters would have (Mr West) And two out of five do not. been as eager to accept your original proposals? (Mr West) I do not see that they would have been 962. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: less eager. Yes, but still I put it to you that the glass is half-full rather than half-empty. 971. LORD SNAPE: Forgive me for interrupting you, but they are not enthusiastic, are they? 963. BARONESS FOOKES: If I may put it another (Mr West) Having seen the information submitted way, would you prefer it if there was no Crossrail only today, clearly the Promoters are showing to us provision going through Newham? how lift access can be provided at Maryland. They (Mr West) Not at all. That is, if I may say, my Lady, 67 not a rational argument. 53 05-004) Crossrail Ref: P8, Crossrail Proposals in Newham (NEWMLB- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:17 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
102 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham are not telling us, from the information I have 984. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed? gathered today, that it cannot be done for engineering reasons. They have actually shown the Re-Examined byMrReed provision of lifts on the drawings, so I take it that the 69 Promoters are content that that can be easily 985. MR REED: Just a couple of points, Mr West. provided. Can we look at 005 of Mr Berryman’s evidence, the local bus service route map for Manor Park. You 972. But you are not for the purpose of this exercise were asked some questions on the extent to which one this afternoon? could simply use the bus services along the Romford (Mr West) No, we are not because we have not been Road and then get straight to Stratford or Forest told that it will be provided. Gate. Do you remember that? (Mr West) Yes, I do. 973. CHAIRMAN: Would it be convenient for you, Lord Snape, if you wanted to go on with this to do it 986. Tell me, in terms of the residents who live to the after the Division? south of Manor Park, what bus route or routes would they have to take to then go to Forest Gate or 974. LORD SNAPE: Of course. Stratford? (Mr West) They would have to change at Romford 975. CHAIRMAN: I think I ought to adjourn the Road from a bus going towards Manor Park. Committee for ten minutes so that those who wish to vote can go and do so. That is to say 4.20 pm, and I 987. What do you say about the benefit or otherwise think it probably is worth starting again. of that need to change? (Mr West) It would be inconvenient, to say the least. The Committee adjourned from 4.11pm to 4.20pm for a Division in the House 988. You were asked about the extent to which there would be an additional cost if you did use a bus in 976. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, were those all the order to get to an accessible station, and you were questions you wanted to ask? taken through a number of diVerent possibilities: those who were in receipt of means-tested benefits; 977. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, if I was given the those who were registered disabled; those who were opportunity to ask one other question I would revert elderly. None of those would be required to pay more back to it, slightly naughtily. for their bus trip. Do you remember that? (Mr West) Yes, indeed. 978. CHAIRMAN: I cannot see any reason why you should not. 989. In addition, you were asked about the other sorts of mobility restricted people who could use a 979. MS LIEVEN: If we could put up the ward map68 Travel Card, and there would be no additional cost if again, the one, Mr West, you disavowed as being out- they had a Travel Card. Do you remember that? of-date, can I just put to you that this is the ward map (Mr West) That is so, yes. that we took oV Newham’s own website yesterday? 990. Tell me, do you have any knowledge of the 980. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, I am going to ask a extent to which the Travel Card is used generally over question about this anyway. This has got to be an Oyster Card in London? sorted out. (Mr West) Cash-free travel is used for the majority of journeys certainly on the buses. 981. MS LIEVEN: Mr West, do you know that there is a more recent ward map? 991. If you were using an Oyster Card do you know (Mr West) I would have to check back at base camp, whether or not there would be an additional cost to my Lords. use the bus service and go from there and use other underground or train services? 982. If there is, could you make sure you serve it on (Mr West) If you were using an Oyster pre-paid us tonight, please, so we can check it? Travel Card then you would be charged for every (Mr West) I will use my best endeavours, my Lords. journey that you make on public transport. For instance, if you were to start your journey in East 983. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much. That was Ham and got a 101 to Romford Road and then all, my Lords. continued to Stratford by bus you would be charged
68 69 20080226-014) 53 04-005) Crossrail Ref: P9, London Borough of Newham (SCN- Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park—Local bus services (NEWMLB- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:17 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 103
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham at the very least two times 90p, £1.80 for two bus train. Is there anything you can do to clarify that for journeys. There would be a penalty for an Oyster us? You may not be able to do it straightaway. payer in making two bus journeys to Stratford. 997. MR REED: It is something we will certainly 992. MR REED: Thank you very much, Mr West. endeavour to do overnight. Those are my questions, my Lord. 998. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we are going to be able to come to any conclusion on this on the basis of Examined by THE COMMITTEE what we have got at the moment. I think we will have to have more information. 993. CHAIRMAN: What we are going to do is see if we can finish with Mr West’s evidence subject, if 999. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, what we can do from necessary, to his being recalled, and subject to any our side without very much diYculty at all, because I other questions there are. We will adjourn today and know I have the book, is to tell your Lordships in the we will have Mr Berryman tomorrow. Everybody morning what the criterion is for higher component else for tomorrow has settled, so we have got the day mobility component for DLA, Disability Living to ourselves, but that does not mean to say you can Allowance. That will not tell you exactly what take it all up! proportion of people need step-free access, but it will give your Lordships a feel for what the level of 994. Mr West, what I would like to ask you to do, you disability is that falls within that particular category. have already been requested to look at the ward map that was put up to see whether that is the up-to-date 1000. CHAIRMAN: That would be very helpful. one. What we have got in this Petition is a problem about two specific railway stations and the 1001. MS LIEVEN: There is a statutory definition, accessibility to people who are PRM. I do not think I cannot remember it oV the top of my head so I will that the figures you have given us on the number of not try and paraphrase it but I can quite easily bring disabled people in relation to ward population helps in the relevant page to give you that material. at all, because we do not know where the wards are and we do not know whether those are the right 1002. CHAIRMAN: I think we will have to have this figures; and you have already been asked if you could information because we are not going to get either a possibly do that and I think it is important that you proportion of an absolute number of people who are should. It should not be diYcult, should it? going to be likely to suVer if there is not full access at (Mr West) It should not be diYcult. I just need to the two stations we are talking about. talk to— 1003. MS LIEVEN: The other thing we can do, my 995. Your electoral registration people ought to Lord, from this side is, the figure that is generally know where the wards are and how many people live used for the number of people who benefit from step- in them, should they not? free access is the 4.4 per cent that I referred to in (Mr West) The only problem I have, my Lord answer to a question earlier today; and I can seek to Chairman, is that I will not be in the oYce until get more information overnight on the provenance of probably tomorrow afternoon if I have to be back that figure so that your Lordships can have a better here tomorrow morning. idea of who that covers and how reliable the figure is.
996. CHAIRMAN: You had better get on the 1004. CHAIRMAN: I see that Dr Maynard has very telephone in a minute and see if you cannot do wisely departed, but you might be able to something about it. They will not have gone home communicate with her about that and get some of her yet. The other thing is that in relation to that we will views about it. I think we really do need to know this. then know where the people live and the numbers of them. We will then be able to relate the column, 1005. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: I was which is the numbers in receipt of higher mobility going to ask what criteria you have been applying in component Disability Living Allowance, with the all the other stations you looked at in this context? Is geography. I do not think that anybody has the 4.4 per cent an average of people who are in explained to us how many of the people in that receipt of the benefits? column are going to suVer from diYculties if there is not accessibility without steps at the two stations. I 1006. MS LIEVEN: No. I can answer that question do not believe there is any correlation necessarily now. I will be tugged by my jacket if I get it wrong! between the figures you have given us and their The 4.4 per cent figure is based on observed data from diYculty in getting onto the platform to catch the a survey in the north-east of England as to the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:17 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
104 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham number of people who would benefit from the step- perhaps in conjunction with these works which free provision. It has nothing to do with the benefits would reduce the overall cost of providing the lifts. position. If I can try and answer that. The benefits At the end of the day, I think we are all out there to position is no kind of guide to the people who will try and save money for the taxpayer. benefit from step-free. If, for example, you take the mobility component of DLA you will find a large 1011. LORD SNAPE: So far as Manor Park Station proportion of people who get the higher rate mobility is concerned, you made the point earlier that you felt component of DLA who would never get on a train. the platform should be wider, or at least wider than For example, there is a well-known line of cases the platforms under the amended proposals. Again, about children who cannot go out without being held from what I remember of the evidence that we heard constantly because they have various extreme a couple of days ago, wider platforms would reduce Attention Deficit Disorder-type problems. That has train capacity through that station, as I understand nothing to do with step-free access but they get higher it. Would your Council be happy with that? rate mobility component because they cannot go (Mr West) I am not aware of that argument, my outside their house without somebody looking after Lord. them. There is no correlation between benefits and step-free. 1012. Presumably the fact that the platforms are fairly narrow is because of the rail configuration of 1007. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: I was four tracks through Manor Park Station and trying to establish how you have decided to give widening the island platform, which I suspect is the access at all these other stations, particularly in the point you are seeking to make, would obviously west of London. What factors have you brought to reduce the clearance between the platform and bear in making an assessment about what the use those tracks. would be? You have been knocking their case down (Mr West) No my Lord, I think we are talking about on the basis that insuYcient people would be using it. widening the westbound platform, platform one. As I That is one point. Secondly, what is the cost to do it? understand it, the island platforms—and I will stand corrected on this—are not actually made any wider 1008. MS LIEVEN: If I could just remind the at all. Committee who have not heard our evidence yet, Mr Berryman is going to deal with both of those, but we 1013. I do not think any platforms are being made will get as much information the second we have the any wider at all. I thought that was the point that you information; but first we will get as much additional were seeking to make during your evidence. information as we can. (Mr West) No, my Lord. Platform one is being widened. Again, I have only seen these drawings 1009. LORD SNAPE: Before the Division, Mr today and they are not detailed drawings. I West, I was asking you about the new provision, if I understand Mr Berryman will be discussing this in his could put it that way, for access for people with presentation tomorrow but from my understanding restricted mobility at Maryland and Manor Park and my casual glance at these drawings and from the Stations. You said you had only seen these particular information submitted, it does seem to me that the proposals today. Am I right in thinking that? platforms are being widened, or Platform one is being (Mr West) That is correct, my Lord. widening.
1010. Had you seen them prior to today, let us say 1014. LORD SNAPE: Perhaps Counsel for the two or three weeks ago, would it have made any Promoters can help me on this. Which platforms are diVerence to your Council and its desire to petition being widened, if any, at Manor Park? this Committee? (Mr West) Insofar as Maryland is concerned, if 1015. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, under the current anything it furthers the cause of our Petition in that scheme no platforms are being widened. Manor Park it shows how relatively easy it is to adapt the station is a five-track station. The fifth track is the freight for access for people with disabilities. In relation to loop to the south. Originally, as I explained in Manor Park, we have to balance the loss of the opening, we were going to close the freight loop in improved environment with the loss of the platform order to extend the platforms. Once the principle of works and the potential that has for increasing the selective door opening was accepted by HMRI at cost of providing full accessibility at that station. As Maryland then it became clear it could also be it was currently proposed until these plans were accepted at Manor Park. We do not need to extend tabled this morning, I am clear in my mind that the the platforms and therefore we can retain the freight adaptation of that station to full accessibility would loop, so it is not so much a question of widening the be facilitated by these works, by doing the works platform as extending the platform. The diYculty Processed: 14-08-2008 19:09:17 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400402 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 105
26 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham that Mr Berryman will give evidence on tomorrow— diYculty about it. We will not ask you to deal with it and it is much better to hear it from him because I will first thing tomorrow morning. I will therefore let you only garble it—is that it is extremely diYcult to get go tonight. We will go on with Mr Berryman in the the lift and the stairs onto those platforms while morning and then if you have got any progress that retaining the platforms in their current configuration you can tell us about so much the better. Otherwise it and therefore retaining the freight loop. Mr can be left; we have got plenty of time. Ms Lieven, the Berryman was famous in the House of Commons for only other point is this: you mentioned the loop and always saying that there is nothing that is impossible I have it in mind that we have major petitions from in engineering, but there are some things that can be the freight rail companies and I think we will need to extremely expensive and extremely disruptive, and know more about the use of that loop or those loops this would be one of them. in that connection.
1016. CHAIRMAN: Mr West, I am afraid we have 1017. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, my Lord. given you a task overnight. I have to say at the moment that none of my colleagues is clear and nor 1018. CHAIRMAN: Maybe not now but we will am I about the figures or the area where people live. need to have it in mind if anybody is making any Let us make it abundantly plain: the people who suggestions about what should happen with that might use Manor Park or Maryland do not actually track. live in the railway station, they live somewhere adjacent, and we can see on the map where the bulk 1019. MS LIEVEN: That is something Mr of the population is likely to be as we can see the Berryman can deal with in the morning. layout of the housing on the streets. We need to know where these wards are, and the more information we 1020. CHAIRMAN: I am sure he can. I think we will can get about what sort of disability is being spoken stop. I am very grateful to the shorthand writer for to in your evidence, the better, because you have continuing a bit after the allotted time. Can I just tell already heard from Ms Lieven that not everybody you this: these microphones apparently pick up who has this sort of allowance is somebody who whispers between people sitting close to each other, cannot go up and down stairs. I do not think we are so be a bit careful—walls have ears, as they used to going to be able to do justice to the Newham Petition say, and if you do not want other people to hear what until we get some more information about all of that. you are saying perhaps talk somewhere else. We will We can come back to this. If you want time adjourn now until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning tomorrow or if you want to have an agreed statement when we will try and finish the Newham petition later or something like that, there should not be any witnesses and speeches. Thank you very much. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [SE] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
106 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
DAY FOUR WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) James of Blackheath, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Jones of Cheltenham, L Fookes, B Snape, L
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
1021. CHAIRMAN: Mr Berryman? time we gave the figures for the UK and another area, namely Forest Gate, which itself is going to have an 1022. MS LIEVEN: I think, my Lord, that Mr Reed upgraded station, so we were using it simply as a has one or two clearing-up points from yesterday to comparator, of course knowing or now appreciating deal with before we call Mr Berryman. that the Living Allowance element will cover a wider number of people than those who would benefit from 1023. CHAIRMAN: Certainly. step-free access.
1024. MR REED: Thank you, my Lord. We have 1028. CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful, thank you endeavoured overnight to answer two particular very much. questions that you raised yesterday concerning the Disability Living Allowance issue, the first as to who 1029. MR REED: My Lords,2 if we can then turn to can actually make an application and gain the benefit the next slide which deals with who it is that can of a mobility allowance and the second relating to the obtain a Disability Living Allowance, we have set out numbers of people who would benefit from the lower- a summary of the position. The relevant sections of rate mobility component in the relevant wards the Act and the statutory instruments are somewhat relating to Manor Park and Maryland. We have complicated and what we have done is use the produced a set of documents to talk the Committee information produced by the Department of Work and Pensions’ Information Directorate in order to through what1 we have found out, but I am afraid we only have an overhead projection for the moment, in explain in more simple terms those who can benefit which case I will talk through what will come up on from Disability Living Allowance. to the screen. 1030. If I run through each of the smaller bullet 1025. The first point is that there is no standard points: firstly, you are unable or virtually unable to definition of disability. We have endeavoured to give work, or you have no feet or legs; or you are assessed some context for why it is that we used the mobility to be both 100 per cent disabled because of loss of component and it is this: that, because of the eyesight and not less than 80 per cent disabled approach taken in respect of planning transport, because of deafness and you need someone with you what is generally done as a proxy for understanding when you are out of doors; or you are severely the number of disabled people is that one uses that mentally impaired with severe behavioural problems mobility component. That essentially was the and qualify for the highest rate of care component; or purpose behind using, in this case, the higher rate of the eVort of walking could threaten your life or mobility allowance. seriously aVect your health; or you need guidance and/or supervision from another person when 1026. CHAIRMAN: Presumably that is an walking out of doors in unfamiliar places. Those, in overestimate for people who would not be able to go short, are the criteria and of course, as you rightly up or down steps? point out, my Lord, it incorporates people who would not necessarily require step-free access. 1027. MR REED: That is right. I was going to deal 3 1031. We then give some information on the higher with it later on, but, if I can just be clear, the reason and lower rate of the mobility component of the that we ourselves put that information forward was allowance. The lower rate is referable to whether you in order that the Committee could understand the need guidance or supervision out of doors and the relative levels of disability within those various wards in comparison to London generally, although at the 2 Allowance (SCN-20080227-002) 1 3 Allowance (SCN-20080227-001) Committee:Component Ref:of DLA A4, (SCN-20080227-003) Mobility Component of Disability Living Committee: Ref: A4, Mobility Component of Disability Living Committee: Ref: A4, Higher and Lower Rate Mobility Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 107
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham higher rate is then if you have any of the other more Young, but, in any event, we have provided the severe walking diYculties and, when you receive the London figure as opposed to the UK figure. hard copies, you will note that the last of those bullet points is the one that leads to the lower-rate 1036. That deals with the information that we have Disability Allowance. been able to obtain to explain the nature of the figures that were included in Mr West’s presentation. We are 1032. CHAIRMAN: I think we would quite like also endeavouring to get the actual boundaries of the copies of those in due course. various wards that make up Maryland and Manor Park. When we have that plan, we will certainly 1033. MR REED: We will make sure that that is provide that to your Lordships straightaway. My done for your4 Lordships. The next is simply a list of Lords, that is all I have at the present time. the main disabling conditions that could lead to the conclusion that you should be entitled to the 1037. CHAIRMAN: Nevertheless, it is extremely allowance. Again this information comes from the helpful and thank you very much. Now, Ms Lieven? Department of Work and Pensions and I will not read them all out, but your Lordships will notice that there are a good many of them that lead to the need 1038. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, can I proceed to call for step-free access. Mr Berryman. While Mr Berryman is taking his seat, following on from the questions that were asked yesterday, we have sought to prepare a note on the 1034. If we can turn on then to the next slide, all that figures that we have used for people who are likely to is pointed out on this slide, and I deal with the second benefit from PRM accessible works and our of the bullet points, is that the way in which we used approach to the matter. Somebody has obviously it was as an indicator, that is to say, the mobility done a lot of work on that overnight and the note is allowance figures, of the comparability between being printed at the moment, so what I would suggest various areas and we of course5 acknowledge, as we doing is that I will come back to that at the end of Mr have done in the first bullet point, that one cannot use Berryman’s evidence and I hope that by that stage the that statistic to predict the absolute level of demand note will have arrived and Mr Berryman and I will be for step-free accessible stations. able to take your Lordships through it. 6 1035. Turning to the next slide, in response to the 1039. CHAIRMAN: You do it in whichever order is question, I think, from Lord Brooke in respect of the convenient. figures for the lower-rate mobility component. We have endeavoured to get that information and your Lordships can see that, firstly, the second column 1040. MS LIEVEN: If there is a little moving identifies the higher-rate mobility component and around at some stage, that is why and we will deal shows that as the total number and then as a with it comprehensively once we have got the note. percentage of the relevant population in the wards and in the borough as a comparison and then in MrKeithBerryman, sworn London as a whole. Your Lordships will remember Examined byMsLieven that Mr West yesterday gave information on the position in respect of the UK at 0.9 per cent, so, when your Lordships get the hard copy of this sheet, you 1041. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, although you can note that for your Lordships’ information. What have met some members of the Committee, this is the we do not have, however, are the actual figures on the first time you have given evidence, so I think it is UK, that is to say, the figures that make up the appropriate to introduce you to the Committee. Can percentage of the populations. The third column you start by explaining what your position with deals with the lower-rate mobility component and Crossrail is, please? again indicates what that is as a percentage of the (Mr Berryman) I am the Managing Director of population. My Lords, I do not have the UK figure, CLRL which is the joint-venture company which has but what we do have is the London figure and I think been set up between Transport for London and it was Lord Brooke who indicated that he wanted to initially the SRA, but subsequently the Department have a like-for-like comparison and that it should be for Transport, to bring forward the work on the narrower than the UK. In fact I think it was Lord Crossrail project. I have particular responsibility for dealing with matters relating to the Bill. 4 20080227-004) 5 1042. Now, in terms of your experience, I think you Committee:Statistic(SCN-20080227-005) Ref: A4, Main Disabling Conditions (SCN- 6 have been a civil engineer for something like 40 years. Committee:similar profile(SCN-20080227-006) Ref: A4, Use of the Mobility Component Is that right? Committee: Ref: A4, Mobility Component shows Wards have Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
108 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes. not have step-free access is Seven Kings which is in the next borough. The reason for that is because these 1043. And you have mainly worked in the planning, stations are particularly close together by design, construction and financing of transport comparison with the other stations on the Crossrail infrastructure? network and they are also very diYcult to actually (Mr Berryman) That is correct. modify. In fact all of the stations down here are in deep cuttings with brick walls at the side, diYcult to 1044. You are a Fellow of the Institution of Civil widen. This railway is due to Braithwaite, the Engineers and you are a member of their council. Is engineer, in the 1840s who was famous for being very that right? economical when he constructed the railway and the (Mr Berryman) That is also correct. railway is built to a very tight boundary. Interestingly, on the other side of London it was built 1045. You are also a Member of the Institution of by Brunel who was famous for being bad for the Structural Engineers? shareholders because he always made everything so (Mr Berryman) Correct. elaborate, and of course we have more room there. The main reason is the closeness together and the 1046. I think that you were previously a Director of diYculty of construction of the works that will be the Strategic Rail Authority. Is that right? required. (Mr Berryman) That is correct.
1047. In terms of specific experience on roughly 1051. Now, in general terms, before we come to the comparable projects in the UK, can you just explain specifics of the two stations, do you just want to take what your role was on the Beckton extension of the us through what factors are taken into account by the Docklands Light Railway? project in deciding whether to provide step-free (Mr Berryman) Well, it would be nice to think that access or not? the Beckton extension was comparable to this, but (Mr Berryman) I think the first thing that we look at certainly it is an important railway scheme. I was the is the number of passengers and, in assessing the Project Manager responsible for all aspects of the number of passengers, we take into account the design and construction of that. surrounding population in what appears to be the natural catchment of the station, the levels of car 1048. I think the final thing that is relevant for the ownership, the highway congestion in the area, job Committee to know: when did you first become location and crucially the public transport network involved in the Crossrail project? which feeds into the station and surrounds the (Mr Berryman) In 2000. station, and we have got very sophisticated models which actually identify what the traYc is likely to be 1049. What were you doing? as a result of those factors. (Mr Berryman) I initially did some work with the SRA on a thing called the ‘London East-West Study’ 1052. Just while we are looking at this and picking up to look at ways of dealing with some of the congestion on the existing Underground system in on something you have just said, one of the issues London. that Newham raised yesterday was that there are particularly high levels of depravation in Newham 7 1050. Can we move on then to your evidence on this and that has not been taken account of. You said that particular Petition and perhaps we can put up one of the things you did take account of was levels Exhibit 1 to start with. Can you just talk us through of car ownership. Can you just explain what, if which stations in Newham will, and will not, be step- anything, that tells us about depravation? free? The way Newham have put the case is that they (Mr Berryman) Well, car ownership tends to be are being particularly hard-done-by because they lower in areas where depravation is higher. That is have got two non-accessible stations. Do you just not a universal rule, but it is a very good want to explain the background to that? approximation in these parts of London. It is either (Mr Berryman) Yes, the stations which will be very low incomes or very high incomes in the areas accessible in Newham will be Stratford, Forest Gate where car ownership is lower. For example, when I and Custom House. I think this was explained am talking about high incomes, I am thinking of yesterday in evidence by the Petitioner. Maryland places like Mayfair where the level of car users is and Manor Park will not have step-free access. The lower than in some of the outer parts of London, so other station on the east side of London which will there is not a direct correlation, but it is a good
7 surrogate for the levels of depravation, particularly in access to Crossrail stopping platforms (NEWMLB-53 04-001) the outer parts of London. Crossrail Ref: P8, Crossrail Line 1—Diagram 2—step-free Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 109
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
1053. CHAIRMAN: On that slide, we would not be you reach a saturation point where you have too worried about interchange movements at rendered the other station unusable? Maryland or Manor Park, would we? (Mr Berryman) No, not at the figures that we are (Mr Berryman) No, there would not be any talking about. significant interchange movements there. I ought just to mention Chadwell Heath, by the way, which looks 1059. Can you give us some indication of what would a bit odd here, it is a bit of an outlier on the thing, but represent saturation for the number of handicapped actually Chadwell Heath is being provided with step- people using a station at any one time because this free access by others as part of the Access for All would surely be a factor in the rush hour? programme, so, although it is not included in our (Mr Berryman) Well, it would be a factor in the rush works, it is being done by others. hour, but it is more a problem of capacity on the trains than on the platforms because on each train 1054. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: On there would be two or three, probably two, the last point, could you just say a little bit more wheelchair spaces normally and that is likely to be about that, that there are other parties coming in much more of a limiting factor. there and providing assistance? (Mr Berryman) There is a programme being 1060. That would raise another issue which I had not operated by Network Rail called ‘Access for All’ thought of and that is that you would then have the which is working its way through the national issue that the station which came earliest would have network and it is using a similar set of criteria to those an unfair priority over the stations which came later which we use, the total number of passengers at a in the take-up of the available space. station compared with the diYculty of doing it. At (Mr Berryman) Yes, that would be true. However, some stations it is very, very diYcult indeed to get lifts the number of wheelchair-users that we anticipate is in, and we are really talking about lifts here, it is very, actually quite low. very diYcult to get lifts in, so what they try to do is to get the ratio between the number of passengers as a 1061. The whole point of my concern here is to work surrogate for the potential beneficiaries and the cost out whether we are talking about an issue which is of putting the lifts in and then they have ranked all impractical because of other issues and whether it has the stations, as far as I know, in the UK on that basis to find a solution within its own terms or whether it and they are working their way down the list putting has to look for a solution in a wider context. lifts in. (Mr Berryman) I think the matter you have raised would not be a limiting factor. 1055. So they thought this qualified, but you did not? (Mr Berryman) No, we always thought it qualified, 1062. Bear it in mind if we come to any other points but we knew that somebody else was going to do it. on it and try and guide us through, then, please. (Mr Berryman) I certainly will. 1056. MS LIEVEN: The Access for All programme, I think, was referred to yesterday. It is funded by the 1063. MS LIEVEN: Can we come back to that, my Department for Transport and it is the £365 million Lords, because when we have this note we will talk that Dr Maynard referred to yesterday, is it not? about the percentage of PRMs that we believe to be (Mr Berryman) I think one of these down here likely, and I will ask Mr Berryman to talk about lift (indicating) is going to be done by the Olympics capacity and how much spare capacity there is in the because it gives access to the Olympic rowing venue. lifts. It probably is more really an issue for the central stations where there are far larger numbers of people 1057. Yes, I think it is Taplow, is it not? but we will come back to that, if we may, my Lord. (Mr Berryman) I think it is Taplow, yes, which would (Mr Berryman) I was just getting on to costs. Of all not fit our criteria because the usage is so low, but these stations the most diYcult ones to fit lifts, the specifically for the Paralympic Games it will be done most expensive ones, are actually Manor Park and by the Olympic Authority. Forest Gate. Each of those would cost about £12 million in outturn prices to fit this kind of kit in, and 1058. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: We this is significantly higher than any of the other have not heard, I think, at any point so far, and I am stations where we are not doing significant works. a little surprised not to have heard, whether there is Stations like Abbey Wood we are completely any implication of a station having a finite capacity rebuilding anyway, so lifts will be put in there. We to handle any number of impaired people at any one need to rebuild the station to accommodate the trains time, so, if you start to try to achieve a concentration, that would use it but of the stations we are not but are using an adjacent station to compensate for rebuilding, Forest Gate and Manor Park, which are the lack of stairs with the excess of stairs in one, do adjacent, as it happens, would both be expensive at Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
110 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham about £12 million each, and you can see that Forest line behind is the freight loop. Now, the idea of Gate has quite significantly more passengers than putting in PRM is quite diYcult because the platform Manor Park and we would expect that that would is very narrow at the end. You can see at the back of also reflect through into the proportion of people the platform there is a wall so the loop line runs who needed PRM access. Four stations are very close behind a wall on the back face of the platform and the together, Forest Gate, Manor Park, Maryland and platform is so narrow, the staircase comes down and Stratford, and so when we looked at which of the occupies almost the whole width of the platform and more expensive stations should be chosen to go there is no room to get wheelchair access between the through the links with other stations were important, edge of the platform and that stair tower, so you as we will see later on. Manor Park has quite good would have to rebuild the whole area bringing a lift links with the Stratford station by means other than down somewhere, but it would be extremely diYcult railway. to do without demolishing the whole of the bridge and rebuilding it in total.
1064. Shall we move on, then, to look specifically at 10 Manor Park, exhibit 12, Mr Berryman,8 and can you 1066. Just to give a further impression of that, can we just take us through what we were originally put up the next photograph, photograph 9, looking proposing at Manor Park, what we are proposing the other way? now, and why we have changed? (Mr Berryman) This is the same view looking the (Mr Berryman) Yes. The original proposal was that other way. The walkway comes down, the station this loop line which runs around the back of the building you can see, and there is a long walkway at station would be closed, or, in fact, shortened, by high level across and down to platform 1. You would another connection being put in, and that the have a similar problem on this platform (platform 2) platforms would be extended through the position of as well although possibly not quite so intractable, the existing loop line and widened at the western end where you would have to find room to bring a lift of the platform. The reason for that was that earlier down behind that staircase and find a way of fitting we had been under the impression that because this is the lift and the staircase in what is still a relatively a new railway the selective door opening would not narrow platform. be allowed and we would have to extend all the platforms to be long enough for ten cars. As a result 1067. How much of that existing structure, walkway of the work we did with Newham Borough on from the ticket hall, would have to be demolished? Maryland we established with the Railway (Mr Berryman) This would have to be completely Inspectorate that they would not treat these stations demolished if we were to put that kind of facility in as new but as existing stations, and therefore selective and rebuilt in the new style. door opening, subject to the safety case of course, would be permitted. What that meant was we did not 1068. Just looking at the eVects of that demolition, need to close this loop, and you will be hearing later first, what impact would those construction works from railway petitioners who are very anxious we do have on existing users of the station? not take away any existing infrastructure, and we (Mr Berryman) Well, the station would need to be have had confirmation from Network Rail overnight closed while this was done, and I think this is part of that they would be extremely anxious not to lose this the cost equation. We obviously have a monetary loop, and therefore as we now have approval in cost but there is a cost in terms of disruption to principle to use selective door opening we do not need passengers using this station and also disruption to to extend the platforms here, so we will not be closing train services through the station, because we would this loop and not be extending these platforms. There need to do some of this work in possession, long were no other works planned for this station other weekend possessions probably, which would be, I than those platform extensions. would imagine, five or six long weekend possessions of these tracks and possibly one long weekend’s 1065. Can we then move on? If we were going to possession of all four tracks. propose step-free access at Manor Park, can you explain how it would have to be done and9 the 1069. How long would you expect the station would diYculties that would be involved, and I do not know be likely to be closed if this work was to be done? whether it is better to use this exhibit or exhibit 10. (Mr Berryman) Probably about three or four (Mr Berryman) Let’s put exhibit 8 up, please. This is months. a photograph of the station as it now is and these are the two lines which will be used by Crossrail and this 1070. What is your assessment of the likely costs of 8 providing PRM accessibility at Manor Park? (NEWMLB-53 04-012) 9 10 Crossrailwest (NEWMLB-53 Ref: P8, Manor 04-008) Park Station—Extent of demolition east (NEWMLB-53 04-009) Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—Platform level facing Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—Platform level facing Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 111
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) It might be worth saying a few words gold-plated ones, and very small lifts that would about cost now because I am sure cost will come up probably only take one or two people -- during these proceedings many times. Our actual cost (Mr Berryman) There are no gold-plated lifts -- I base on which our estimating is done obviously has to hope there is nothing gold-plated anywhere on the be kept at a common base, and that is at Q1 2002 railway but certainly no gold-plated lifts. The kind of prices, but obviously when we build it it is no good lifts used depends on the layout of the building you oVering the contractors some 2002 pounds because are serving. For example, do you have the door at one they will not be very much use to them. What we have side or the kind of lift where you go in on one side and worked out is what the total outturn cost will be and come out the other? I am sure you are familiar with the figure which is quoted by ministers in evidence for that kind of structure you get sometimes. There are the outturn cost, which is the figure we have also issues with lifts and the power supply to the lift, calculated, is £16 billion. On the same basis that that how easy it is to get power supply, and foundations £16 billion is calculated, in other words outturn costs, required for the lift tower, so there is not really a this modification will cost about £12 million. standard answer to the question. It depends very much on the circumstances.
1071. BARONESS FOOKES: That is on building 1074. What proportion of the £12 million would be costs only as opposed to the loss of revenue that spent on the lift itself? comes from disruption to passengers? The £12 (Mr Berryman)OV the top of my head it would million is purely the building without taking into probably be under half a million on each lift, so a account extra costs, as it were, incurred because the million on the two lifts, on the actual lift mechanism station cannot be used for three or four months? and car and so on. (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct, although we would expect that most passengers would divert to 1075. CHAIRMAN: Half a million per lift? adjacent stations. As we keep saying, these stations (Mr Berryman) Yes. are very close together. 1076. BARONESS FOOKES: Would it be two lifts? (Mr Berryman) Two, yes. Can I just say that these 1072. MS LIEVEN: So additional to the £12 million lifts are relatively low rise, so the figure for lifts in the do we have the cost of any compensatory payment to central stations which are high rise lifts would be the train operating company? Is compensation diVerent. payable for the possessions as well? (Mr Berryman) Compensation is payable for the 1077. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: Can I possessions. I think we are in discussion with take you back a step? You said that if you did have Network Rail at the present time as to how that will to produce step-free access here you could do it at the be calculated. There are things called Rules of the same time as you were upgrading, say, Stratford. Route which allow you a certain number of (Mr Berryman) That is not quite what I said, my possessions every year on each route, and we would Lord. What I said was that during the possession be obviously attempting to use as many possible rules work you may be able to overlap possessions and use of the route possessions as we could, but in reality the same possession for two bits of work and that there would be some long weekends needed which fall really related only to the actual interruption of the outside that. That is another issue which will come up line rather than rest of the works. a lot in the future, possessions, how they are used and planned, and when two pieces of work can be done 1078. You said it might take six weekends to do this with one possession obviously that is a very work. How many weekends have you planned to take important thing to do, but we are not at the point yet the line for upgrading the other stations? where we are in the suYcient detail of the planning to (Mr Berryman) We do not have detailed plans for know how that could be done. Clearly if we were that just now. doing work at, say, Stratford, the same weekend we could be doing work here and making use of the same 1079. But there will be some? possession. (Mr Berryman) It will be a significant number. The main works on the Great Eastern are at Stratford, making the connection between the existing lines and 1073. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: the new ones, where we will probably need one very Could I just ask a question, please, on £12 million? long weekend which will be Christmas or an Easter How much of that is the cost for the lift itself? Is it a break. On the Great Eastern side there are not too standard lift that you now apply to each station or are many possessions required because the works here, as there variations on the theme between expensive lifts, we will see later when we get on to the Great Western, Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
112 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
11 are much more modest than they are on the Great 1086. Moving on to the number of people who use Western, simply because we plan to take over the Manor Park, exhibit 19, roughly how many people railway more or less as is and just use it for a very use Manor Park in the peak three hours? similar train service to that which runs now. (Mr Berryman) Around 2800.
1080. MS LIEVEN: Can I be absolutely clear on the 1087. Is that exits and entries? construction, Mr Berryman? What you are saying is (Mr Berryman) Yes. that the construction works will take something in the region of three months, and that is the time when 12 the station would have to be closed completely? 1088. And then, looking at the bus routes and the (Mr Berryman) Yes. catchment for Manor Park, can we turn up exhibit 5, please? 1081. But that there would also be, within those three (Mr Berryman) Yes. This was the one shown months, times when the line would have to be closed yesterday and it shows the main bus routes running and that is the five or six long weekends, is that right? down Romford Road. These routes go into Stratford (Mr Berryman) That is right. They would not bus station which I think we have already established necessarily be within that period when the station was has a good interchange between buses and trains and, closed completely: it just depends on how you did the indeed, other modes of transport. work and organised it. 13 1089. Now, bearing the bus route in mind can we go 1082. And it might be just worth explaining why one to exhibit 14, which is the catchment plots for Manor would need possessions for this work, possessions of Park? First, can you explain what this is showing? the tracks? (Mr Berryman) This is based on a London Area (Mr Berryman) Basically for two reasons, first to Travel Survey which was done to establish where demolish what is there now which would take a long people start their journeys and how they make the weekend, and, secondly, to re-erect the new structure journey, and it shows where all the people who use which would span over the railway. We would also Manor Park on a certain day, a normal working day, need to put new piles in, so it would be a question of began their journey, and you can see, apart from a getting a piling rigger. The detailed planning of this few outliers out here, most of the catchment is south would be quite an exercise. of the railway. The areas which are shaded are open space of one sort or another, so there are no 1083. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: Would buildings there. the new structure be pre-fabricated so you would bring it in with a crane and just slot it in? 1090. There is a very large cemetery to the north east, (Mr Berryman) It would be more than likely a steel I think. structure which would be assembled on-site. You (Mr Berryman) Yes. I am not suYciently au fait with would not bring it all in as one piece; it would be too the geography to tell you what they are but they are big. It would have to come in in the form of beams, open space, and the main bus route runs down this but they would be erected from steel components. road (south of Manor Park), right through the middle of the catchment area where most of the 1084. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: How people originated their journeys who caught the much did you save on not having to extend the train, so we would say that that bus route is much platforms and all the attendant work that would go more accessible to those people than Manor Park with that? station would be, and that is really given some (Mr Berryman) About half a million, or maybe three credence by the relatively low numbers of passengers quarters of a million. who use Manor Park as compared with other stations on the Crossrail network. 1085. MS LIEVEN: Can we then move to the next part of the equation, which is how many people use 1091. We have got a statistical analysis of how many Manor Park and whether there are easy alternatives? people in the Manor Park catchment come from (Mr Berryman) May I just finish answering the south of the station. Is that right? question from Lord Brookes? I should have said 11 there are a number of places where we are doing (Excluding internal interchange movements (NEWMLB- platform extensions and they will be done with what 53 04-019) we call kitter parts, which is eVectively a pre- 12 Crossrail Ref: P8, 2016 AM Peak 3 Hour Passenger Forecast 53 04-005) fabricated modular system which comes in on the 13 back of a train and is just erected very quickly. CatchmentCrossrail Ref: Plot—2001 P8, Manor LATS Park—Local Data (NEWMLB-53 bus services (NEWMLB- 04-014) Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—AM Peak Access Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 113
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) It is over 70 per cent. (Mr Berryman) Are they?
1092. MR REED: I am sorry, could that question be 1100. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: The repeated, please? open spaces to the north of Manor Park, are any of those areas zoned for development? I see there are 1093. MS LIEVEN: Can you tell us what percentage parks and the cemetery, but there is the bit just of people who use Manor Park, based on the LATS slightly to the left and north of Manor Park. Is that survey—so it is only one day’s survey—come from zoned at all? south of the station as opposed to north of the (Mr Berryman) I would imagine, bearing in mind the station? historical nature of the open spaces here and so on, (Mr Berryman) Over 70 per cent. that it is extremely unlikely, but I do not know.
1094. There were lots of questions put yesterday, and 1101. MS LIEVEN: I think that is another the point was made that it is not particularly easy to cemetery, but I am going to have to revert to the tried get from Manor Park Station to Forest Gate Station and trusted A-Z. I will come back to that in a by bus; you would have to do at least one change and moment. possibly two. Is that a movement which you would anticipate rational people doing? 1102. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: My (Mr Berryman) No, because unless you actually live only concern there is that you should have been sure in Manor Park Station (which, obviously, nobody that whatever you do in there has been cleared with does) why would you want to go from Manor Park the appropriate authorities with a view to the Station to any other station? What you would want redeployment of the remains, and all those things. It to do is go from the point where you start your would have a serious impact, cost-wise, if you journey to another station, and that is a diVerent suddenly found yourself faced with that later in the matter to what was suggested. We are not suggesting process. that anyone who lives here would first go to Manor (Mr Berryman) Yes, my Lord. We have, I hope, Park and then try to make a movement to another learnt from the lessons from the Channel Tunnel Rail station; we are suggesting they would never go to Link on that point where they were faced with that Manor Park Station in the first instance; they would problem. simply get on the most convenient link into an accessible point. 1103. MS LIEVEN: Just to be absolutely clear here, because obviously the Committee is new to the 1095. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Just for project and new to diVerent parts, is it intended to do the record, can I be assured that none of the intended any excavation of this part of the route? deployment of Crossrail impacts at all on any of the (Mr Berryman) No, there is not. cemetery areas? (Mr Berryman) No, there is no impact at all, sir. 1104. You referred earlier to Mr Braithwaite and his 1096. Most of those cemeteries are, of course, 1840s’ railway. Is our railway going within the historical plague pits. embankments of his original railway? (Mr Berryman) Indeed they are. On that matter, my (Mr Berryman) As subsequently modified by his Lords, we have an extensive archaeological survey heirs and successors, yes. programme which will take place before the work begins. 1105. MS LIEVEN: I am not au fait with his heirs and successors. 1097. You are aware of the special situation at Stratford, which is the principal depository of 1106. CHAIRMAN: Mr Berryman, while we have radioactive waste from the hospitals of London for that slide up, there is a patch of mauve, or pink or the last 80 years? magenta, right up at the top left-hand corner. Why is (Mr Berryman) I think that is some way away from that part of the catchment? our route, my Lord. (Mr Berryman) Yes, sir. That one there?
1098. It is a very big pit. 1107. Yes. (Mr Berryman) Yes. I think it is being dealt with by (Mr Berryman) We do not know. It is very likely— other at the moment. there is a bus route that runs down here somewhere. Whether somebody got on the bus there and went to 1099. It is not, actually, because the workers are on Manor Park because it just happens to go past his strike about it! house— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
114 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
1108. It is not on the bus route planning we saw just they had some complex arrangements that worked now. for them. (Mr Berryman) No, that is probably right. We do not know. 1115. LORD SNAPE: Some understanding of buses as well, if they used the West Coast Mainline a few 1109. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH:I years ago! suggest it is probably a sponsored former development by Ford Motor Company for a cluster 1116. MS LIEVEN: Just before we move on, I think of workers who they were sponsoring. the A-Z has given me one answer. This area here, (Mr Berryman) It could be any number of reasons, which my Lord, Lord Jones, asked about, is another my Lord. It could even be a statistical anomaly, or cemetery. That is a cemetery and that is a much larger someone could have filled in his origin point, his cemetery. Is it right, Mr Berryman, we are not postcode, incorrectly. You just do not know. impacting on either? (Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes. 1110. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: You take your figures based on one day’s sample? 1117. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: The (Mr Berryman) Yes, my Lord. This is the London one on the right is the biggest plague cemetery in Area Travel Survey, which forms the basis of the England, I think. whole of the distribution between the railways, the Underground and the bus services. 1118. MS LIEVEN: Just pulling those strands together on Manor Park, and thinking about the 1111. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Do criteria that you referred to at the beginning, is it your they have projections, say, to 2010, 2017 and 2027? judgment that it would be sensible to provide step- (Mr Berryman) I referred earlier to the passenger free access at Manor Park? modelling that we do. Our passenger modelling is (Mr Berryman) No, it is not, my Lords, because the based on these kinds of analyses. Obviously, what matter of the cost, the matter of the ease of access to LATS do is actually take the record of what has other stations, it just does not seem to me to be happened on a certain day and they do it every two worthwhile in this case. I think if Manor Park was or three years. What we do is use that information, further away from other stations then it might make together with information such as planned a diVerence to the equation, but because it is so close developments in an area, other social trends, to to the others I do not really think it can be justified. estimate what the passenger numbers will be when the railway opens. 1119. Before we leave Manor Park, can we deal with 1112. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: one issue which will come up on many, many You take into account the ageing population? Petitions, which it is appropriate for you to give some (Mr Berryman) We do, my Lord. evidence on now. It might be said: “Well, £12 million. Crossrail is going to cost £16 billion, so £12 million is a drop in the ocean and if it helps people with 1113. CHAIRMAN: Mr Berryman, down at the accessibility issues around Manor Park then it is bottom, beside the North Circular Road, there is a worth doing”. Could you deal with that, please? fairly large pink patch. Do those people use Manor (Mr Berryman) I think the important thing with Park and, I suppose, have to go by bus in order to these large projects is to recognise that the whole get there? project is made up of a lot of individual elements, (Mr Berryman) I presume so, although, interestingly, each of which is relatively low in value. Most of the there is another railway that runs along here. Am I elements around this railway, individually, cost a right. This is the London Underground. small number of millions of pounds. The problem we always have with a large project is drawing a 1114. MS LIEVEN: That is the London boundary round the project, because people say: “It Underground District Line, I think. is going to cost £16 billion; another £12 million here (Mr Berryman) So why some people would want to won’t make a diVerence; another couple of million go from there to there, we do not know, and there are here to demolish another property—that won’t make always these kinds of things in railway analysis. I a diVerence—another improvement in parking at this remember doing some work on the West Coast station, that won’t make a diVerence”. Of course, Mainline several years ago and we found people individually, those numbers are very small, but you whose journeys started in Wiltshire who were using have to draw a boundary round the project. If you do the West Coast Mainline, and we could not not do that we inevitably find that the costs escalate understand where they were going to, but no doubt and that is how we lose control of the overall budget. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 115
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
1120. Moving on from that a little bit, it might also (Mr Berryman) If, as I said earlier, Access for All are be said: “Well, you are saving a bit of money at using the same criteria as we are, in general terms, it Manor Park over the original scheme, because you would be a very long time before they got round to are not doing your platform extensions, couldn’t that doing this. be used at Manor Park to provide PRM access?” (Mr Berryman) There is insuYcient—as I have just 1127. But they will have to do it, will they not? explained the diVerence is between 12 million and (Mr Berryman) Not necessarily. They do not have a about three-quarters of a million. complete commitment to do it for every station. I think the current budget is £375 million for the next 1121. Even if it was suYcient, is that, in your view, the five years, and we would imagine that expenditure right way to go about this—to save a bit of money continuing for cycles after that. and then think “spend it there”? (Mr Berryman) As Dr Maynard said yesterday, this 1128. BARONESS FOOKES: Dr Maynard made is public money that is involved here. Obviously, this point, did she not, yesterday? there is a finite amount that can be found for the (Mr Berryman) She did, yes. I think it would be a project. It is really a question of: is the argument of very long time before this station gets done. making Manor Park accessible to wheelchair users suYciently strong to justify that expenditure of 1129. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: But public money? I think it has to be looked at in those it may get done. terms. (Mr Berryman) It is possible. Of course, it will cost more but that will be in the money of the day. 1122. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Could we revert to the picture of the station and the 1130. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:A photograph of the platforms, please? I think it was 8. lot more. You have the freight line on the left and we have the (Mr Berryman) But then everything is in the money two platforms and the bridge we are talking about. Is of the day. So you can look at it in quite that way. there any practicality, to avoid the lengthy closures you have talked about, in being able to use the freight 14 1131. MS LIEVEN: Maryland, Mr Berryman. If we line only as a through-platform during that platform could put up exhibit 4, please, just to show us where in order to limit the period of closure, which sounds Maryland is. There was a bit of a debate yesterday horrendous? about whether it is 600 metres, 700 metres or 850 (Mr Berryman) No, sir. The freight line would need metres. Do you want to comment on that? to be closed at the same time as these two tracks, (Mr Berryman) Not really. It is not very far—I think simply because the demolition of this would require that is the point we were making. things to oversail that— 1132. How relevant is the absolute distance if you 1123. My memory told me that it provided rather focus on severely disabled people, for example? greater space than that. Okay. (Mr Berryman) It is not particularly relevant, (Mr Berryman) It is quite narrow, my Lord. because in the case of severely disabled people they would not get to the station under their own steam, as 1124. MS LIEVEN: Can we move on to Maryland? I think you put it yesterday; they would, inevitably, either use a bus or a dial-a-ride or, in cases where they 1125. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: Can I use Motability or something similar, they would use just ask a question on costs? You have raised costs. their car and park in the disabled parking here. So the Is my maths right that to add step-free access to this actual distance is not all that crucial. The point is, if station would cost 0.0075 per cent of the overall you are on a bus going down here, it is about an extra Crossrail budget? two-and-a-half minutes to get to Stratford Station. (Mr Berryman) I am sure your maths is correct, my Lord, but the point I am making is that the whole 1133. Can you give us a potted history of why we project is made up of things which cost 0.0075 per are stopping at Maryland? cent of the cost. (Mr Berryman) Well, the original plan was not to stop at Maryland, and this was because of the 1126. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: guidance which we originally had from HMRI, Talking about public money, will the Access for All which was that Crossrail would be treated as an programme, in due course, come round to examine entirely new railway and, therefore, full-length the non-existence of assistance here? If so, when do 14 you think that is likely to be? If so, what would the providingdirect links to Stratford Station (NEWMLB-53 04- likely cost then be? 004) Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station—Local bus services Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
116 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham platforms needed to be provided at all stations. the works here would cost in the order of £4.5 Subsequent discussion with them indicated that they million, at outturn prices. would be prepared to treat the existing railways— 16 that is this one and, also, the Great Western Railway—in the way that they would treat any 1135. It might be worth putting up exhibit 6, please. other existing railway, and not as a new railway; just It is not brilliant on the screen. as a modification of an existing railway. That (Mr Berryman) This is the area where we would have brought us the option of having selective door- to make the ramp from the platform up to the opening. We did not want to stop there originally concourse—it would be through these two premises for two reasons: firstly, because extending the here. The point here is that this is an impenetrable platforms would be very expensive, but, secondly, fence, so people being dropped oV at this station because the transport case for this is actually quite could not be dropped oV very conveniently. Can we negative. All the passengers who are passing go back to the previous slide, please? through Maryland (and that is the majority of them) will experience a two-minute or so longer journey 1136. Do you mean 11, the plan? because the train stops here. So stopping at (Mr Berryman) Yes. The bus stops for this station are Maryland never had a very good transport case— somewhat remote from the station itself. There are a and still does not. The reason that we decided to couple of stops down here and there are a couple of accede to Newham’s request was, first of all, we stops up here, but to get from any of those stops to found out we did not need to do these very extensive the station is a bit of a trek, compared to the very works for platform extensions and, secondly, we did satisfactory interchange which exists at Stratford. So not want to be seen to be subverting the procedure if someone was coming down this road on a bus, it for station closure, which I am sure members will makes no sense at all to get oV here, negotiate these be well-familiar with, which is a specific thing which very busy roads—this is the A11, by the way, the would probably be inappropriate to be dealt with Leytonstone Road—to get to the station. It would be through this Bill. So we did not really want to stop far more sensible for a person, whether mobility there; we subsequently acceded to Newham’s impaired or not, to stay on the bus and go to requests to introduce a stop there and we have Stratford. That is what we think most people will do, negotiated with HMRI to the point that, subject to and that is why the passenger numbers from this a satisfactory safety case being presented by the station now are very low. operator in due course (that is when the operator is appointed, of course), they have no objection to selective door opening. So that was why it was 1137. And in terms of getting to Maryland by means included at that point. 15 other than the bus for PRM, taxi or Dial-a-Ride, is it a good station for those kinds of drop-oVs? (Mr Berryman) It is absolutely hopeless because 1134. Can we then move on to exhibit 11? If we there is a fence all the way along here. I cannot see were going to do PRM accessibility at Maryland how that could ever be moved because, as I say, this (and, clearly, it is our case that we are not and we is the A11, it is a very busy road and the prospects of should not have to, but if we were going to), can vehicles stopping there are very remote. you explain how it would work at Maryland? (Mr Berryman) Yes. In terms of the actual access from the station concourse to the platform, it is a 1138. While we are on this topic, is there any disabled bit easier here because there are two staircases (in parking at Maryland? this location here and that location there) which are (Mr Berryman) There is none. disused and I think are bricked-up or blocked-oV in some way, and we would simply use the space where those staircases were to put two lifts in. The problem 1139. Moving on then, in terms of the number of17 here is actually getting from the street to the people predicted to use Maryland, if we go back concourse level. There are about five or six steps quickly to Exhibit 19, can you tell me how many from this point to the concourse, and the footway people are predicted to use it in the peak three hours? here is very narrow—and we will perhaps come back (Mr Berryman) About 2,000 in total. We would to that in a second. What we would have to do is expect there to be about 1,500 borders and 500 demolish the taxi oYce, which sits here (I think it alighters. is a taxi oYce, from memory), and build a ramp to 16 (NEWMLB-53 04-006) get people from footway level to the concourse. So 17 15 (ExcludingCrossrail Ref: internal P8, Maryland interchange Station—View movements of station (NEWMLB- entrance provision of PRM lifts (NEWMLB-53 04-011) 53 04-019) Crossrail Ref: P8, 2016 AM Peak 3 Hour Passenger Forecast Crossrail Ref: P8, Maryland Station—Proposed details for the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 117
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
1140. That is that one there (indicating)? stations, and we believe that will continue to be the (Mr Berryman) Yes. case when Crossrail is complete.
18 1141. Can we then look at the Maryland catchment 1147. Finally on this topic can we put up the photo of area, again based on the LATS survey, and if we start Stratford which we looked at yesterday with Mr with number 15, please? West—have you got that easily to hand—and the (Mr Berryman) 22 You can see the Maryland catchment photo at the bottom, can you just go through the area primarily will be a walk-on catchment from this facilities at Stratford that would be of use to people northern part (indicating). People down here with restricted mobility. (indicating) will be much more likely to use Stratford (Mr Berryman) Clearly Stratford has been a because it is a much more convenient and better laid- reconstructed station as a result of the Jubilee Line out station, so we would expect that most of these are Extension. It is going to have further reconstruction people who would walk on. People who are coming in preparation for the Olympics, but you have got from further afield, as I say, would probably just stay very good bus drop-oV points which are easily on the bus and go to Stratford. 19 accessible to the station itself. This is the main entrance to the station on a level route with no 1142. Then if we go to 18 that shows us, I hope, the obstructions. You have got a kiss-and-ride facility Stratford catchment? further back here (indicating) which also has got level (Mr Berryman) Yes it does indeed, and there you can access to the station. You have got a taxi drop-oV see where people have originated their journey when point down here and also some disabled parking in they are catching the train at Stratford. Some of these this area (indicating) as well, so it has got every areas are slightly misleading because this ward has possible facility that you could think of if you were a got virtually no population. That is the area which is mobility impaired person and you wanted to use it. being prepared for the Olympics. Can I just make a point about mobility impairment. The overwhelming majority of people who are 1143. That is the railway lands, is it not? described as mobility impaired are not actually in (Mr Berryman) That is the railway lands, but you can wheelchairs or disabled; they are people with luggage see quite a lot of people even from the Forest Gate and people with baby buggies and so on and so forth. area and Maryland come to Stratford already, and As Mr Lieven said in her introduction, I was the from up this area (indicating) where the bus routes go project manager of the DLR Extension through right past Maryland, quite a lot of people still catch Newham, which was built as the first fully accessible the train from Stratford. railway in London, and obviously I take a fatherly 20 interest in how that railway has developed. I often go 1144. If we then look at 13—apologies for the bizarre there and use it and I often see people using the lifts. order, there was a reason for it once—that ought to I have never seen a person in a wheelchair using the be the Forest Gate catchment. lifts but I often see people with luggage and people (Mr Berryman) That is right, it is pale blue. 21 with baby buggies and people of that sort using the lifts. That is very much the pattern which has been 1145. We can see that and then what we have done at seen on other railways. The majority of mobility 17 is put them together so if we can have that, please. impaired passengers are actually people in those So this is the Stratford and Forrest Gate catchments, categories that I have just described. I am not saying and what does that tell you about the need for they are any less worthwhile but it is just worth Maryland? pointing out that it is that group of people which is a (Mr Berryman) I should say it is the catchment for significant user. Forest Gate but not the Maryland catchment. 1148. MS LIEVEN: Can we then deal with a few 1146. Stratford and Forest Gate? additional points that came up yesterday before we (Mr Berryman) Yes, so what that is doing is showing come to our note. First of all— that already most of the people within the potential catchment for Maryland are already using other 18 1149. LORD SNAPE: Excuse me a second, just Catchment Plot—2001 LATS Data (NEWMLB-53 04-015) staying with Maryland for a moment, Mr Berryman, 19 CatchmentCrossrailPlot—2001 Ref: P8, Maryland LATS Data Station—AM (NEWMLB-53 Peak 04-018) Access is it the intention that all trains will stop at all stations 20 at all times? There are no restricted hours planned for CatchmentCrossrailPlot—2001 Ref: P8, StratfordLATS Data Station—AM (NEWMLB-53 Peak 04-013) Access 21 certain stations? AccessCrossrail Catchment Ref: P8, Plot—2001 Forest Gate LATS Station—AM Data (NEWMLB-53 Peak Access 04- 22 017) Window NE1: Stratford Station (LINEWD-ES13-007) Crossrail Ref: P8, Stratford & Forest Gate Stations—AM Peak Crossrail Ref: P8, Crossrail Environmental Statement, Route Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
118 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) No. with, whether you are in the station or whether you are just going along Romford Road. 1150. LORD SNAPE: So on Crossrail all trains stop at all stations? 1155. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: My (Mr Berryman) They do in the east; the arrangements Lord Chairman, I probably have been remiss in not in the west are slightly diVerent. having declared a particular interest to this Committee. 1151. LORD SNAPE: Just so far as the area we are talking about now? 1156. CHAIRMAN: It is beginning to become (Mr Berryman) In this area they do, yes. apparent! 23 1152. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, Lord James asked a 1157. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: It is question yesterday about whether issues arose in that I have been invited and am on the Bishop of relation to local stadia. If we first locate where the Chelmsford’s Religious Co-ordination Committee stadia are and then you can talk through the security for the Olympics which therefore has an interest in all implications. We have got Maryland Station and these areas on these particular issues. Manor Park Station marked on here. West Ham, (Mr Berryman) I think that is very relevant to which I think is Upton Park, is somewhat to the Stratford Station. I do not think the crowds from the south and I think very close to an underground Olympics— station; is that right? (Mr Berryman) There is Upton Park underground 1158. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: It will station which is very close to West Ham and we know be if they do not cure the radioactivity; they are all is used by the majority of visitors to the West Ham going to shine in the dark for ever more. Stadium. We are not that far away but not (Mr Berryman) I doubt if the crowds coming from particularly close. A crowd leaving West Ham by the the Olympics will be quite as partisan as West Ham time it got to any of our stations would be reasonably United supporters. dispersed. I think cynical people would say there is never a crowd at Leyton Orient, but let us assume they do rather better than they have been doing and 1159. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: But there is a crowd, again it is a good way to our railway there is a huge problem on the Upton Park Station so crowds would be dispersed, and the Arsenal which I thought might find a natural solution by Stadium is fairly remote. gravitating to Maryland as a way of getting away from the problem, and that is what was worrying me. 1153. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Mr (Mr Berryman) I think it is more likely that some Berryman, it may be helpful to emphasise why I people will use Manor Park and Forest Gate Stations asked the question because it seemed to me that West and conceivably Maryland as well. May I make a Ham particularly does get 40,000 crowds and the general point as well, my Lord. We have a number of Upton Park Tube Station is like the Black Hole of security issues on the railway of which management Calcutta on a particularly bad night, and you simply of crowds after events is one. There are elements of would not use it as a matter of choice on a happy day the design which need to take that into account. We out, and if you were on the losing side particularly have appointed Arup’s, a well-known firm of advisers you would not want to be there. It seems to me that in these matters, as our security consultants and they if you oVer an alternative station nearby they are are working through these and other similar issues, likely to flood over to it as a better way of getting out particularly issues about terrorism, as we speak. of the crush and that would be hugely antagonistic to any handicapped people trying to use it at that time, 1160. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH:A and what provisions could be made? football crowd can easily become terrorists in their (Mr Berryman) I see what you mean. I think that is a own way. good general point in dealing with crowds generally. (Mr Berryman) They can be more frightening than terrorists in some ways. 1154. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH:I would be very worried about a wheelchair in the 1161. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH:I midst of an aggressive losing crowd. would be very cautious on this. I think there might be (Mr Berryman) I think that is something that a need for further thought on the safety implications happens as part of life if you are in a wheelchair; you for those who are naturally and innocently using it in have to learn those situations are diYcult to deal a wheelchair during those hours. I think you might 23 need to think of some special protection to be Stations in LB of Newham (SCN-20080227-007) provided. Crossrail Ref: P11, Location of Football Stadia relative to Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 119
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) I think the other thing to just 1168. MS LIEVEN: He did and so long as the mention is I get oV the train at Luton, and Luton Committee are happy that it is abandoned and they Town were playing last night and the visiting side do not need to know any more about it, we can leave supporters were arriving by train and there was a very it there. large police presence there, and that is the way it is usually dealt with. 1169. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are happy that it has been abandoned. 1162. MS LIEVEN: Very briefly the next point that came up yesterday—Romford— 1170. MS LIEVEN: Those are all my questions to Mr Berryman. I do have a copy of the note although 1163. CHAIRMAN: Before we go to that, how do one statistic in it is being checked outside. I do not people get to the Leyton Orient ground? know whether the Committee would be prepared to (Mr Berryman) Probably some of them would use break slightly early for the coVee break and then Stratford I would imagine. Many of them would use when we come back I could have five minutes to go the Central Line which goes up here roughly in this through the note with Mr Berryman before handing orientation here (indicating) and there are two him over for cross-examination. stations, one at Leyton and one at Leytonstone which are relatively close to the ground. 1171. CHAIRMAN: We have got a serious logistical problem about that. CoVee is not going to be there until 11.40 today whereas normally it would be there 1164. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Leyton at 11.30, and so I think we are going to have to fill in is the main concentration? a bit more time. (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. 1172. MS LIEVEN: In that case, Mr Mould has 1165. MS LIEVEN: Romford, Mr Berryman, was gone out to retrieve the note and I hope your raised briefly yesterday in respect to the Select Lordships will bear in mind that various members of Committee in the House of Commons report. Very the team have worked very hard on this overnight quickly can you explain what the diVerences are and if there is one figure we have to do a bit of between the situation at Romford and what is being running around on, that may be necessary, but I am proposed at Manor Park and Maryland. reliant on Mr Mould coming back with the note. (Mr Berryman) The situation at Romford is that there is a bus station immediately to the south of the 1173. CHAIRMAN: We have got to wait for the existing station and our new station will be coVee anyway so we will wait for Mr Mould. positioned underneath the existing station. Unfortunately, on the south side of that railway, the 1174. MS LIEVEN: Perhaps, my Lords, what we Romford Station, is the original Braithwaite could do is put up the front page of the note which structure which was built in 1846, I think. That is 24 really deals with the critical point for present virtually solid brickwork and we could not actually purposes, and the figure in debate is on the second get in there. The local authority initially wanted us to page. Probably the best thing is for me to take the make an entrance through there and they came to the Committee through it and then Mr Berryman may Commons with that in view as their Petition. By want to comment. The critical point that we are looking at it again and looking with their advisers, we trying to get across in this note is that the question of were able to come up with an arrangement which how many passengers with restricted mobility will satisfied their concerns without actually doing what use the station is very, very far from being a they had originally asked for in their Petition. There straightforward one. was never any question of not having PRM access at Romford, which is a very busy station in a town centre. 1175. The point at 1.2 is one that Mr Berryman has already made to you, which is that you can really split people with restricted mobility, which is a term 1166. MS LIEVEN: The final point which just arose without definition, into two broad categories— yesterday, and I do not know, my Lords, whether you physically impaired passengers, whether they be in want me to deal with this now is in Newham’s wheelchairs or they just find it very diYcult physically Petition there was an issue about putting a cut-and- to get round steps, and then what is called in the trade cover tunnel at North Woolwich, and my Lady, “incumbent” passengers, and that can cover your Baroness Fookes referred to it. person with a suitcase, your parent or carer with a buggy, or anybody else who has got temporary 1167. CHAIRMAN: I thought Mr Reed said that he 24 had abandoned that. February 2008 (SCN-20080227-008 to -012) Crossrail Ref P12, Passengers with Restricted Mobility, 26 Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
120 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham physical encumbrances which make it very useful for restricted mobility but lifts—and I will just check them to have step-free access. with Mr Berryman in a moment but I think this is universal, lifts—have been planned as 16-person lifts 1176. We go on to say in 1.3 that neither group has a wherever they are provided and in terms of any clear definition so the proportion of disabled people, forecast capacity that is a very generous figure, that say, in the catchment area of Maryland gives no is a big lift. The intent is to err on the safe side. indication of how many of them will actually travel. If one relates back to the figures Mr Reed put up 1181. 2.2—a lift with what is called a “plate” capacity earlier about Disability Living Allowance (DLA), of 16 persons could theoretically carry 320 there will be a high proportion of those people who passengers an hour. With a typical Crossrail lift cycle will not travel in any event whatever provision you of three minutes—in practice I think we all know make for them. from London Underground the capacity is likely to be smaller than that, the real capacity, you are not 1177. Then we say in 1.2 that the total usage will normally going to squeeze 16 people in—even if the depend on a series of factors such as number of lift carried only eight people, then the capacity would population obviously, car ownership, highway still be 160 passengers an hour, which is considerably congestion, job location and, crucially, public above any estimate of the likely level of passengers transport, so models have been developed to help with restricted mobility. So for the main traYc predict the number of people who will use a new comprising the three-hour AM peak, the six-hour provision, equally to predict the number of PRMs inter-peak and the three-hour PM peak and a three- who will use it. hour evening period, you have a capacity of 160 an hour, giving a total 15 hour capacity of 2,400 people. 1178. So what we say in 1.4, which is particularly One can see that, on any anticipated level of demand important in the light of Lord Brooke’s questions for PRMs, with a 16-person lift, we have got capacity yesterday, is that the only way to address the issue of for 2,400 people during the 15 hours. the number of passengers with restricted mobility is by considering the proportion of total demand 1182. Then the point at paragraph 3 is simply to say forecast by the model. It does not help to consider that London Underground station planning how many people in a particular ward receive a guidance does not give a figure for predicted levels of particular kind of disability benefit because you do PRMs, so the fact that we have not done it is entirely not know how many of them will travel and you do in accordance with the precedent from London not know which stations they will use, so the station Underground, and of course London Underground catchment plot to demonstrate this point because the or Transport for London, their parent, are putting station you use depends on where in the ward you live huge eVorts into improving step-free access and it has and what bus route you are on. You might live in a major programme going on at the moment, trying Maryland ward but never use Maryland Station to get step-free access into existing stations. because you are closer to Stratford. It is just not a useful way of doing it. 1183. Then we come to the Crossrail business case. The business case uses the results of a survey that I 1179. What we come to at 1.6 is no universally agreed referred to yesterday on the Tyne and Wear Metro. figure for the proportion of passengers with restricted That is a fully accessible system and that survey mobility and data is extremely hard to come by. Then showed passenger usage by PRMs of 8.4 per cent, at 1.7 we make the point that some passengers with and note that that was based on observation rather restricted mobility use the system anyway, however than surveys, so, like anything, there is room for inaccessible it is, so people with prams do battle onto doubt in it, but it was based on observation. An LUL London Underground regularly, but for those people survey from the mid-1990s showed that 4 per cent of there will be a great benefit in being able to battle all passengers have restricted mobility, subject to all more easily, in this case, onto Crossrail. Thus there the problems about definitions above, so making the are two categories: the people who benefit because system fully accessible could add something in the their journeys are made much easier and the people region of 4.4 per cent, so you have got the 4 per cent who benefit because they are not travelling at all at who are already using the system, and Tyne and the moment, and it is important to keep both of those Wear suggests you might add on to that something in mind. like 4.4 per cent, which is what I would describe as ‘suppressed demand’, and then that has to be reduced 1180. We then turn to the question “What have to reflect the proportion of total step-free journeys, Crossrail’s designs assumed?” and again critical to taking account of interchange and non-step-free Lord Brooke’s question yesterday, we have not Crossrail stations. What we have done in the business assumed a particular proportion of passengers with case is then to turn that into revenue through all the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 121
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham complicated things that one does in a business case by Crossrail assumes 8.4 per cent, LUL assumes 7.5 per applying the average trip length and fare and the cent and that probably reflects the fact that LUL is social benefit, assuming a standard benefit:revenue slotting into a system that is only going to end up with relationship which gives a good, high-level under 20 per cent accessible, whereas Crossrail, as we assessment of the benefits of step-free access and, know in terms of the Crossrail network itself, ends up importantly again, it follows the general approach with a 93 per cent accessible network, so the adopted by LUL. Note, again an important point, diVerence between the figures there makes perfectly particularly in the light of the concerns the good sense. Now, Mr Berryman, I went through all Committee has addressed about peak-time travel, of that, but I do not know whether you have got any that the 4.4 per cent is an increase in traYc for all day, comments on that or are you happy to leave it there? and the proportion of that demand in the a.m. peak (Mr Berryman) The only thing I would say is that is much lower, so 75 per cent of the Tyne and Wear experience from the DLR is consistent with the fact PRM is in the inter-peak period. I would suggest that that the mobility-impaired passenger levels during that is for the very obvious reason that, if you have the oV-peak are much higher than they are during the got a pram or luggage or whatever or indeed you are peak. There are a couple of reasons for that, as Ms disabled, you are going to be likely to try to travel Lieven said. People do not try to get on a crowded outside the peak, as anybody like myself who has train so much and, secondly, people who are going to tried to struggle on to a London Underground train work in the rush hour tend to be less encumbered with a pram in the peak would know; it is not an easy than people who are doing other things. thing to try and do. 1186. MS LIEVEN: Can I then have that note 1184. I have now been given a note that tells me that handed round so that the Committee can peruse the the maths on the final page is right, so I can put up the figures at their leisure. Those are all the questions I final page, so we come to the question of what figure have for Mr Berryman. should be used, and we freely acknowledge in 5.1 that the Tyne and Wear survey is a bit old now, so the 1187. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: rigour could be challenged. In LUL’s business case Recognising that there may be diYculties with lifts, for step-free access, which is a programme that they do you close your mind to doing other adjustments or are undertaking at the moment and which was done simply say, “It is the lift and everything that goes with in September 2007, it assumes a current demand for it or, alternatively, we might have a look at doing passengers with restricted mobility of 3.9 per cent and something short of a lift”? that splits into 2.3 per cent with physical impairments (Mr Berryman) The answer to that question is yes, plus adults with young children and then 1.6 per cent we do, and in a number of stations out in the west, in encumbered, which is those figures there (indicating), particular, and in some of the more rural locations we and then it also assumes a split for generated are not using lifts, we are using ramps and that is demand, which is what I have called ‘suppressed primarily for the point I made earlier, that there is demand’, of 2.5 per cent physically impaired and more space around those stations to do that. A ramp people with young children and 1.4 per cent is actually quite space-consuming. They are quite encumbered. long. The gradient is relatively shallow and landings are required, but we are using them, yes. 1185. Then, in 5.4, that comes to the maths where the total mobility restricted proportion of all demand is 1188. I noticed that you observed that at Maryland assumed by LUL for its business case to be 7.5 per where the station went on to the main road, there is cent. There is an eVort not to double-count, that is a taxi rank there, you said. what those figures there mean, and the LUL step-free (Mr Berryman) A taxi oYce. access programme, because it does not achieve, unsurprisingly, a fully accessible network, the results 1189. The one thing that I think we all noticed when are then factored down because in fact it is only we were at Whitechapel last week were the number of getting up to, and I think we saw the statistic women struggling with their buggies and their yesterday, I cannot remember if it was 13 per cent or children and other people with luggage, how diYcult 18 per cent of the total network. Therefore, where it is for people. They will experience the same that gets you is that LUL’s approach and Crossrail’s diYculties at Maryland with the steps there, I approach are very similar and we have put that into presume, and at Manor Park. a table at the bottom where we have got the (Mr Berryman) They will, as they do now, but I think proportion of current demand, assumed to be 4 per the diVerence is that at Whitechapel people do not cent in the Crossrail business case, 3.9 per cent in the have too much option because the stations on either LUL step-free access business case and then the side, which are Aldgate East and the other one, also proportion of demand with a fully accessible system, do not have step-free access, so they do not have a Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
122 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham realistic alternative to using Whitechapel Station if 1197. So you are proposing it? they want to use the District Line. (Mr Berryman) We would propose a ramp. If we were making this PRM-accessible, we would be proposing a ramp from the footpath to the concourse 1190. But you are doing something about level. Currently, there are five or six steps there. Whitechapel anyway, are you not? (Mr Berryman) We are indeed, yes. 1198. But is that contingent on your doing the lifts as well? 1191. Have you given any thought to doing (Mr Berryman) Well, yes, because, if you think about something half-way at these locations? You have a person making a journey, they have got to handle talked all about the lifts. the steps from the concourse down to the platform, (Mr Berryman) I am thinking oV the top of my head so they should be able to handle the very small flight now because I am sure we have looked at it, but I of steps from the footway to the concourse. cannot recall it. At Manor Park, it certainly would be very, very diYcult because the platforms are narrow and finding space to bring down a ramp would be 1199. So there is no real half-way house on these quite diYcult because, as the ramp approaches the issues; it is either all or nothing? ground level, it takes part of the space up. It is not like (Mr Berryman) I think so, yes. What we have done, a lift which is just a vertical thing which takes its own and it is really in response to a question which was footprint, whereas a ramp takes a big footprint and, raised yesterday by one of your Lordships, I cannot as it gets lower down, it is eVectively a solid thing, so remember who now, I think it was Lord James, about I think at Manor Park it would not be practical to do whether someone could change from one side to the anything diVerent. Maryland, I will be honest with other at a station where there was only accessibility in you, I have never really thought about it at one direction, and the answer is yes. When a station Maryland. is made accessible, it means it is fully accessible and that all conceivable movements can be made without steps. 1192. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Well, I did when I looked at the picture. 1200. Can I suggest that you go and get a piece of luggage and a buggy and you go to Maryland and see 1193. BARONESS FOOKES: I think, Mr whether you can get from the road into the station Berryman, you did indicate that this part of the and then down to the platform and do the reverse and railway line had been built by an engineer who made see whether in fact it is not easier, if in fact you only everything as tight as possible for economic reasons have to do half of it. and, therefore, there is much less space in general (Mr Berryman) I was actually at Maryland on terms to play with. Sunday, so I have it fresh in my mind. Of course it is (Mr Berryman) That is absolutely right, yes. more inconvenient to carry a piece of luggage up the four, five or six steps onto the concourse, but that is very small compared to the diYculty of getting up 1194. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: But and down the stairs from the station. I am afraid, one not at the station level. That is down at platform of the points I was going to make earlier was that we level. are becoming a nation of luggage-carriers. I do not (Mr Berryman) No, no. The problem is that the know if you have noticed, but on the Underground I ramp, if you are going to make it useful, it has to go notice all the time now that nearly everybody seems from the concourse to the platform. That is where the to have a substantial piece of luggage with them, and big rise is, that is where the big number of steps are. the Underground is not step-free.
1195. Yes, but there are also problems going from the 1201. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: road into stations. Yet! (Mr Berryman) There are also problems going from the road into the stations. At Manor Park, now this is not a problem because there is level access from 1202. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, is this a good the road. moment for us to adjourn for a short time?
1196. But not Maryland? 1203. MS LIEVEN: Yes, absolutely, my Lord. (Mr Berryman) At Maryland, we would propose a ramp from the footpath up to the concourse, which I 1204. CHAIRMAN: We will come back at 12 thought I had explained in evidence. o’clock. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 123
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
After a short break (Mr Berryman) That is right.
1205. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, do you have 1214. Just to be clear as to what has actually been anything further for Mr Berryman? done in respect of the decision to upgrade or not upgrade a particular station, there has been no cost- benefit analysis, correct? 1206. MS LIEVEN: No, my Lord. (Mr Berryman) There has not been a conventional cost-benefit analysis. What there has been is a 1207. CHAIRMAN: Very well, Mr Reed. All the comparison of the ratio of costs to the number of other Petitioners today have settled and that gives people that we think would benefit from a particular you more time than might otherwise have been the facility. If you did, as I think Dr Maynard explained case, but it does not give you unlimited time. yesterday, a conventional cost-benefit analysis on any of these PRM accessibility numbers, it would unfortunately prove to be quite negative and would 1208. MR REED: I will certainly be guided by your indicate that nothing should be done at all. For that Lordship as to whether or not any of my questions do reason, conventional cost-benefit analysis is not not assist your Lordships, in which case I will move normally done on this kind of facility; it is more of a on, so that will hopefully shorten matters. valued judgment of what is the appropriate way of dealing with it. Cross-examined byMrReed 25 1215. I understand, because we26 had a note a little while ago that told us, that there was a business case 1209. MR REED: Mr Berryman, can I ask you undertaken by Crossrail, and we have seen the please to take up Information Paper E5, if you will. reference, 5.5 on the third page? There we see the criteria, which we looked at (Mr Berryman) That is right. yesterday with Dr Maynard, in relation to whether a decision or how a decision should be reached to 1216. Now did I understand you correctly, when you upgrade an existing station, do we not? answered me firstly, that there was a specific (Mr Berryman) Yes. assessment done as to whether to upgrade any particular existing station? Did I understand that 1210. The criteria, just looking in a little more detail correctly? from yesterday: the first is predicted passenger (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right, yes. numbers at the station; the second is the capital cost to upgrade to step-free and the distance to the nearest 1217. Do I understand it correctly, then, that there accessible station, two separate issues; and then the was an analysis based on what has been phrased a Promoters have also taken into account the incidence “business case” to reach a decision as to whether to of disability in the population surrounding the upgrade? station. (Mr Berryman) No, not on an individual station (Mr Berryman) Yes. basis. As I say, there is no business case in the conventional sense for upgrading stations to provide PRM accessibility. A conventional business case 1211. I have assumed, Mr Berryman, that you have relies on the income supporting the investment, and had a hand in the production of this document as clearly the investment that is required in some cases is well. very much larger than the income could support from (Mr Berryman) It has been prepared under my those passengers. As I said earlier on, it is based on supervision, although I did not personally write it. more of a valued judgment as to how important it is to deal with all sectors of the community and be 1212. The last of those criteria is a criterion that you inclusive for everyone, and then making the best use agreed with, namely the incidence of disability in the of funds that we can within those parameters. population surround the station. (Mr Berryman) In general terms, yes. 1218. Could you turn to the second page of the document that we had earlier on, 4.3, “What does the 1213. Because what I want to be clear with you about Crossrail business case assume?” 4.3 says, after is that, when looking at those four criteria, each one dealing with the proportion of total step free has importance. journeys, “This is turned into revenue by applying the
25 average trip length and fare and the social benefits are Reduced Mobility, p1,billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk 26 (LINEWD-IPE5-002) February 2008 (SCN-20080227-012) Crossrail Information Paper E5—Provisions for People with Crossrail Ref P12, Passengers with Restricted Mobility, 26 Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
124 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham 27 derived from assuming a standard benefit:revenue passengers on the grounds that, generally speaking, relationship.” Is that what was undertaken to reach there would be a fairly strong relationship between a conclusion as to whether to upgrade a particular those two numbers. There were one or two special station or not? cases, Whitechapel is a particular one opposite the (Mr Berryman) No, it was not. What that is related Royal London Hospital, where we felt there would be to is the overall business case for the Crossrail significantly more people with restricted mobility project. Obviously we want to make sure we have than would be the average, where we took that into mobilised all the business benefits so, even though account but, generally speaking, we took the total those benefits might not be suYcient to justify number of passengers and applied a fixed percentage investment in a particular piece of kit, we do need to to that in our assumption as to how many people know what they are so they can be put into the would be persons of restricted mobility. equation of the overall project. If I take you away, perhaps, from the specific examples of Manor Park 1224. Could you answer my question, please? and Maryland, in some of the Underground stations (Mr Berryman) Could you repeat the question? the additional costs of providing step-free access can be very substantial, they are an integral and intrinsic 1225. Of course. When undertaking the analysis, part of the scheme, so when we are analysing the aside from the table you described to us, was there whole scheme we need to look at the whole benefits any other document that you produced which set out they bring, even though we know they are insuYcient the benefits and the costs in respect of any particular to justify the works on an individual basis that we are station, thus justifying the conclusion as to whether providing. to upgrade it or not? (Mr Berryman) I cannot recall another document. 1219. We looked earlier on at Information Paper E5; There would probably have been a Board paper on it you took into account certain criteria when reaching but I cannot remember a specific report being the conclusion as to whether to upgrade an existing produced. station, that is right, is it not? (Mr Berryman) Yes. 1226. As we heard yesterday, there has not been a cost-benefit analysis that has objectively looked at 1220. When you did that I assume you must have each of the stations to reach an ultimate conclusion produced some written document showing how you as to whether to upgrade, has there? took into account the various points and reached the (Mr Berryman) There has not been a conventional valued judgment you did. Am I right to reach that cost-benefit analysis, for the reason I explained a few assumption? moments ago and Dr Maynard explained yesterday, (Mr Berryman) Yes. We produced some tables of that in the provision of this kind of facility a ranking in each way. conventional cost-benefit analysis invariably comes out strongly negative; in other words, you would not 1221. They have not found their way into any of the do it. What we have done is compared the cost of the evidence before this Select Committee, though, provision with the number of passengers who may have they? use it, using the total number of passengers in the (Mr Berryman) That is true, they have not. station as a surrogate for the number of people who would benefit from this. 1222. Tell me, was the document that you produced simply a table? 1227. The outcome of the cost-benefit analysis is (Mr Berryman) Yes. dependent on the weighting you give to any particular criterion you assess, is it not? 1223. Was there any other document that identified (Mr Berryman) We do not have freedom of choice in each of the issues in respect of a particular station, the that matter. There are guidelines set down for cost- pluses and the minuses, the costs and the benefits, and benefit analysis, and, indeed, the general move is reached a conclusion, on the valued judgment you away from cost-benefit analysis. You are probably did, yes, you should upgrade it? familiar with the New Approach to Appraisal which (Mr Berryman) There was a design exercise done for takes into account subjective matters, and this would every station to establish what the costs would be of be one of those that would be taken into account putting in PRM access at all the stations, and that rather than a conventional cost-benefit analysis. was done for every station on the route. That was then compared with the passenger numbers which we 1228. Yes, but the New Approach to Appraisal, the took as a surrogate for the total number of PRM NATA process, takes a number weighting approach 27 to any particular criterion that you take into account, February 2008 (SCN-20080227-011) and then you get an ultimate decision, an ultimate Crossrail Ref P12, Passengers with Restricted Mobility, 26 Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 125
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham conclusion, as to whether the costs justify the (Mr Berryman) She is, yes. benefits, correct? (Mr Berryman) That is not exactly right, but you are 1234. And you did not involve her in the decision- on the right lines. In fact, the method of appraisal making process on this issue either, did you? that we have used is a variation of NATA called (Mr Berryman) Not specifically on this detailed GOMMS which stands for Guidance on the appraisal decision, no, but in general terms the approach we of Multi Modal Studies. It is very similar to NATA took was agreed with her, as I think she told you and it works in a similar way. You apply very broad yesterday. subjective values, and then at the end of the day you make an assessment which is not numerically 1235. Yes, on a generic basis, but not in respect of any evaluated but evaluated more on the strength of particular station. whether something is appropriate or not. This (Mr Berryman) That is correct. method of appraisal came in after the famous case involving the M3 at Twyford Down, where the cost- 1236. But when you knew about the approach that benefit analysis showed it was worth doing but any Newham was taking, there was even then the rational person looking at the damage which was opportunity to include her in that decision-making going to be done to the landscape may have put more process, was there not? weight on that than the cost-benefit analysis did. The (Mr Berryman) Well, there would be, but at the time project might still have gone ahead but it was the fact when Maryland was discussed I do not recall the that that kind of factor is not taken into account in question of PRM access ever being raised. Perhaps it conventional cost benefit analysis, and that is the was, but I cannot recall it. situation here. These kinds of provisions would not be justified by conventional cost-benefit analysis; they are justified by a more subjective view of life that 1237. You do not recall it from Newham’s petition? I the aim of the railway is to be inclusive and to provide do not necessarily criticise you for that, but you do facilities for all sections of the community to use, and not know about it, or you were not told about it? that is the way we approach it. (Mr Berryman) I have no recollection of it. It does not mean it was not there but it certainly was not prominently flagged up as a big issue that needed to 1229. The GOMMS study you have undertaken is for be dealt with. Crossrail as a whole, is that right? (Mr Berryman) That is right. 1238. No doubt you have legal advisers who will tell you about important points arising from petitions. 1230. Not for the particular upgrading we are talking (Mr Berryman) Indeed we do! about, correct? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. 1239. Very good. Could the Select Committee take up the transcript of the Special Report before28 the 1231. So you did think it was appropriate for the House of Commons Volume IV, which was produced purposes of Crossrail as a whole, but not for whether as part of the bundle by the Council yesterday, and to upgrade particular stations to step-free? turn, please, to paragraph 13108, Ev 1240. Just to (Mr Berryman) We have used GOMMS for analysis understand what you have said in answer in respect of a number of places where there were alternatives of a question by Mr Binley, Ms Skelton at 13106 says, available, but not in particular for this subject, no. “I have met people who find it very diYcult to come down them”—that is to say the steps—“and also 1232. But certainly it was possible, given the people with pushchairs. I think it would increase the approach you have just described? use of the station if it was available to people. I feel (Mr Berryman) It would be possible and one of the fairly strongly because I am going to have my garden things in life, and engineering in particular, is that destroyed by the train, yet I am not going to be able you sometimes have a process of saying, “By to use it. That is a personal issue”. Mr Mould then inspection such-and-such would not happen”, and I says, “We will be hearing from that particular think this would be a case in point. By inspection Petitioner later”. And Mr Binley asks, “Do you have GOMMS analysis would not come up with a very a response?” and you answer this: “Yes, the point is diVerent answer to that which was arrived at simply a general point and that is that step-free access is a by dividing the number of passengers by the cost of community point, there is no getting away from that. the works. As with so many other things on this project, we have to draw the line somewhere.” What I want to know,
28 1233. And Dr Maynard is an expert on inclusivity, as Special Report Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235-IV, paras she explained yesterday, correct? 13106—13108 (SCN-20080227-013) House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
126 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham please, Mr Berryman, is what that line is. Did you Maynard said yesterday, I think, that it was an accept a particular criterion or benchmark for each of important criterion. those criteria that had been set out in Information (Mr Berryman) Yes, it is important but it is very Paper E5, or not? diYcult to assess. (Mr Berryman) We did not set a particular benchmark. I think this is one of those things which is 1242. But, of course, you did assess it because you not amenable to mathematics because it depends on told us, in Information Paper E5, that you did. three or four factors. It does not just depend on the (Mr Berryman) That is right. I think it is fair to say cost of the number of passengers, but also on the that the assessment there was found to be quite accessibility to other modes of transport or other diYcult and we, eventually, just focused on special stations which the potential user may have, so it is not circumstances where we knew there were particular really susceptible to a mathematical sum to say: “This issues about PRM access or particular reasons—for is the cut-oV line and we will not go beyond or below example, the hospital at Paddington, the hospital at that”. It is worth just mentioning the background to Whitechapel, and things of that sort. It did prove to the New Approach to Appraisal, or as I described it, be almost impossible to get a realistic measure of how GOMMS, which arose because cost-benefit analysis many people in an area would be able to use the based on arbitrary cut-oV lines is often left to railway if it was made accessible in this way. inconsistent or diYcult decisions and that is what we wanted to avoid in this case. So there is a certain 1243. You provided no figures to explain the amount of subjectiveness involved in playing oV the incidence of disability within and about the stations costs against the diYculties of access of other concerned, did you? locations. I think I have explained to you already that (Mr Berryman) No, that is right. Forest Gate costs as much as Manor Park to do and, in fact, probably, if we had had just had a list based 1244. Until today. purely on cost, it would have dropped out, but on (Mr Berryman) You provided those, in fact, I think. Forest Gate the catchment is wide around the area and the catchment on the buses is not so good as it is 1245. No, no, in terms of the position with respect to at Manor Park, and that is why that particular one both disabled and mobility restricted— was included. (Mr Berryman) I am sorry. You mean the numbers who would use the MIP facilities. 1240. So there was no particular benchmark, and 1246. If I could finish my question. when you say you have to draw the line somewhere (Mr Berryman) I am sorry. that was a decision reached by you, is that right? (Mr Berryman) By myself and my team, yes, that is right, it was, but of course, as I said earlier on, we did 1247. You gave that paper today and you produced a figure for mobility restricted and disabled. rank the stations in terms of the number of (Mr Berryman) That is right. passengers compared to the costs. Could I just go back to the transcript you are talking about here? This was an issue about Hanwell station which is in 1248. That is the one that you applied, we have west London, which is another station where we are assumed, when reaching your conclusions. Is that not providing step-free access, and unfortunately for right? Ms Skelton we are taking her garden, or we were (Mr Berryman) We applied that to the overall going to take her garden, and she was not going to get business case for the project, yes—4.4 per cent, I accessibility because she is in a wheelchair. think, is the figure, from memory. Fortunately, because of selective door opening, which we investigated as a result of Newham’s 1249. What figure did you use, then, in the original Petition, we have been able to reduce the application of the criterion that we have just looked works required at Hanwell so she will not lose her at in Information Paper E5? garden now. She still will not be able to use the (Mr Berryman) We did not use a figure in that way at railway from her immediate station because she is in all; what we took was the total number of passengers a wheelchair, but at least she will not lose her garden. and assumed a fixed percentage in each location would be PRMs.
1241. Can we go on to the application of the criteria 1250. Right. So there was a fixed percentage applied. you have set out and look at it in the context of This fixed percentage—what was it? Manor Park? We have agreed that in terms of the (Mr Berryman) It was not applied in that way. We incidence of disabled in the population that was one made the assumption that the total number of PRM of the criteria taken into account. Indeed, Dr passengers in a station, unless there are special Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 127
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham circumstances, would be a fixed proportion of the 1258. Busier stations would show more benefit? total number of passengers using the station. We then (Mr Berryman) Yes. made a ratio between that total number of passengers and the costs of providing PRM access. Then we used 1259. What you have assumed is that 4.4 per cent is that ratio to rank the stations as to which would be always going to be the case, irrespective of the the sensible ones to do, in terms of getting most value particular location. for the money that was being spent on them. So the (Mr Berryman) In general, yes. actual number of people who would use the PRM facilities was not calculated, except for the whole 1260. Tell me: did you do any tests to assess whether railway. We are dealing with relatively small numbers or not these two stations that we are looking at today at some of these stations, and it is very diYcult to accorded with that assumption or not? produce any meaningful figures because the whole (Mr Berryman) No. It would be diYcult—or, in my basis of statistical analysis is it is done with big view, impossible—to do such a test because you numbers and it is spread over a lot of people. cannot get a direct correlation between people who would use the network and any other measure which 1251. Can I read to you, again, what you say, in fact, is available to us from public record. in Information Paper E5? “The Promoter has also taken into account the incidence of disability in the 1261. Is your position that in terms of the details population surrounding the station”. provided by the Council, the mobility allowance (Mr Berryman) Yes. figure, and the extent to which that shows Newham higher than London or, indeed, the UK, that that does not have any merit at all as indicating the 1252. I have asked you what was the level that you diVerence in the Newham wards that we are looking used. at and other Crossrail stations? (Mr Berryman) As I have just explained, we assumed (Mr Berryman) No, I would not say it does not have that there would be a fixed percentage of mobility any merit, but I would say that the task of translating impaired passengers. those numbers into people who would use the railway, if these facilities were provided, is almost 1253. That is throughout the Crossrail line? impossible. I have members of my own family who (Mr Berryman) Except for three or four special receive Disability Living Allowance, and one of them locations where we knew, for one reason or another, is quite ambulant, another one could not possibly there would be more. make a journey anywhere. You would have to go around and look at each individual case; it is just completely beyond the bounds of possibility. 1254. That fixed proportion: is that the 4.4 per cent that you produced today? 1262. What it is doing is simply showing the (Mr Berryman) Yes. comparison between the UK, or London, and the Newham Borough. So, just as you have taken a 1255. This is a criterion used to judge whether or not proportionate approach, surely the same is equally you upgrade a station. Correct? permissible in the way that the Council has done it? (Mr Berryman) Whether or not we put PRM access (Mr Berryman) You probably could argue that in, because in most cases that is the only thing we are way, yes. doing to the station. 1263. That is probably because I am right, is it not? 1256. That is why I referred to it in the way that I did. (Mr Berryman) I still would say to you there may not That is what it is used to reach a decision on. Correct? be, and probably is not, a direct correlation between (Mr Berryman) That is correct. those figures, but it would certainly be an approach that could be used, yes.
1257. Of course, if you apply a fixed proportion for 1264. You gave some evidence earlier on about how every station that you deal with, then you are not ever it was that you reached the conclusion as to the going to have any diVerent result in relation to any projected numbers that would29 be using the particular particular station, are you, because you are always stations. If their Lordships could turn to 019, this is, applying the same percentage, whether or not it of course, the second of the criteria that was used to accords with reality? assess those existing stations.
(Mr Berryman) You would have diVerent results 29 insofar as busier stations will show more benefit (Excluding internal interchange movements (NEWMLB- from that. 53 04-019) Crossrail Ref: P8, 2016 AM Peak 3 Hour Passenger Forecast Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
128 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) Yes. (Mr Berryman) I am sorry, I thought I was answering the question. 1265. You said that this was the result of a sophisticated model. 1272. I will ask it again. Costs aside, that is an (Mr Berryman) Yes. indicator that you should be upgrading Manor Park. (Mr Berryman) If cost is ignored then you would be 1266. Tell me, in terms of the way this sophisticated upgrading Manor Park, but as I said a moment ago, model was produced, did you have a hand in that? if costs were ignored you would be upgrading (Mr Berryman) No. This model is (I have forgotten everything. the name of it; someone might be able to remind me) actually held by Transport for London. It is a very 1273. That is on the basis not of the passenger comprehensive model of the London Transport numbers that are shown there but the proportion of network, which includes the Tube, the mainline passenger numbers, made of the 4.4 per cent of the railway, the buses, walking distances—it is a very total. Yes? fine-grain model. It takes into account proposed (Mr Berryman) No, that is— developments in the future and proposed levels of population at various locations. It has been used 1274. Those are people who are going to be using successfully for planning all the major infrastructure step-free access. projects in London over the last 15 or 20 years (it is (Mr Berryman) That is the total number of regularly updated, of course), and it has proved to be passengers using a station. So if you take the 4.4 per remarkably accurate. On two projects which I have cent of 2,000—I think you calculated it this morning. been involved in, the Docklands Light Railway and the Jubilee Line, it has proved to give a very good 1275. Yes, I think we were at cross purposes. My appreciation of what the end use would be. That is question to you was this: the importance of passenger the model that we have used again on this project. numbers is not those figures there but 4.4 per cent of those figures, because those are the people who are 1267. Is it Railplan? Is that this particular modelling going to be benefiting from step-free access. system? Do you know? (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. (Mr Berryman) No, it is not Railplan. Railplan is one which is used to model the Underground, I think. I 1276. So in terms of understanding numbers, we need am getting a nod. Railplan is the Underground to look at what you have done, the 4.4 per cent, of model. There is another one which is used for those figures. Yes? mainline railways—we will not go there because I (Mr Berryman) Yes. have forgotten the name of the model. 1277. Let us just understand Manor Park. Manor 1268. MS LIEVEN: I can give the name, if it is Park, I think you said earlier on, had 2,700 helpful, my Lord. passengers indicated on that graph. (Mr Berryman) However, these are very complex, (Mr Berryman) In total, yes. sophisticated things which take several days of computer time to run each time they are run. 1278. So 4.4 per cent of 2,700 is 118. Is that right? (Mr Berryman) Yes, sounds right. 1269. MR REED: Let us look at some of those figures, please, in the context of Manor Park. We can 1279. There we have the number that is predicted. see that Manor Park is higher placed in terms of Forest Gate is shown on this graph as having, I numbers for the AM peak 3-hour passenger thought it was about 5,000, but it may be short of forecast—higher than a number of those that are 5,000. going to be upgraded. Yes. (Mr Berryman) It is about 5,000. (Mr Berryman) That is right, yes. 1280. So 4.4 per cent of 5,000 is 220. 1270. Some five others. Costs aside, that would be an (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. indicator that one should be upgrading Manor Park. (Mr Berryman) If you completely ignore cost you 1281. The diVerence between having an upgraded should be upgrading all the stations, not just some station at the cost of £12 million, or not, is something of them. in the region of about 110 people. Is that right? In the 3-hour forecast. Is that right? 1271. Would you answer my question, please, Mr (Mr Berryman) If you calculate it in that way, it is, Berryman? yes. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 129
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
1282. That is the calculation that you did. You said 1288. Tell me this, Mr Berryman: this analysis, in so earlier on; you did a general analysis of what the terms of the forecast, is presumably the forecast with cost was and what the benefit was. upgraded stations at each of those locations. Is that (Mr Berryman) I think you are missing a right? It is the works you intended to do, in short. fundamental point here. (Mr Berryman) No, it would just assume that the trains that stopped there would have a certain capacity. 1283. Am I? (Mr Berryman) I really did not want to get into the 1289. It does what, I am sorry? way these models work, but I will do if you wish. (Mr Berryman) It would just assume that, as I say, it What this model assumes is that people making a is based on rational decisions of an able-bodied decision on how to travel make the most rational person, so it does not necessarily take into account decision for them, and the rationality of that decision the works which are done at the station; it just takes is based on the idea that everybody is equally able into account the fact that trains stop there and that and can get around in the same way. The kind of buses and whatever else will deliver people to those people who will use PRM access, whether they are stations. people who are handicapped or people who are encumbered with heavy luggage, may make a 1290. What I wanted to know was, is there a factor in diVerent decision to that decision which assumes a this model that takes into account the relative rational decision based on absolute ability to use any attractiveness given its upgraded nature, or not? route. So a lot of the people who may have used (Mr Berryman) No, there is not. Manor Park on this analysis, in real life, more than likely, would not use Manor Park, they would instead 1291. So it is equally the same for all. Is that right? use, as we have described, the bus routes which go (Mr Berryman) That is correct. and take them directly to Stratford Station. So modelling always has limits because it is based on rational choices that equally able people would 1292. Can we go on then to the question of the capital make. Although it is good enough to get a very good cost at Manor Park? The cost that you have given it idea of how things work, it does not necessarily give is some £12 million. you the answer to plus-100 people or minus-100 (Mr Berryman) That is right, yes. people. 1293. That is £12 million for the upgraded works. You are now proposing certain works for Manor 1284. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, I am sorry. You have Park which are diVerent from that which were to realise that slide 019 relates to the peak 3-hour previously proposed. Yes? period. (Mr Berryman) We are not now proposing to extend the platform, yes, that is correct.
1285. MR REED: Indeed. 1294. Can you tell me, please, when those changes were formulated? I do not mind a rough date. 1286. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, you must take (Mr Berryman) It was a couple of years ago. It would account of what you are being told by way of an be two years ago, I should think. It would be about answer as to the decisions of people travelling in the time when we were discussing selective door that period. opening with your client.
1295. Two years ago. Are you sure about that? 1287. MR REED: Indeed, my Lord. Whilst that (Mr Berryman) No, I am not sure. I am just trying to may be right for Manor Park, it would equally be think. It was about the time we were discussing right for, say, Forest Gate in an un-upgraded selective door opening with your client and we had situation subsequent discussions with the Railway Inspector, (Mr Berryman) Yes, it would. Again, if you missed and we took on— out both Forest Gate and Manor Park you are getting quite a long gap where there is no station with 1296. That was last year, was it not, Mr Berryman? PRM access. The next station on the line is Ilford, (Mr Berryman) Yes, it would be just over a year ago, which is quite a good way away. I think it might be actually, not two years ago. At that time, once we had worth mentioning that Custom House, which is in realised that selective door opening would be your client’s borough, also gets PRM access, and that permitted, we looked again at other alternatives and will be quite an expensive job as well. we have now got several stations with selective door Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
130 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham opening, where we will not be extending the Act. The issue has been who should be the platforms. infrastructure manager for this section of railway. It has always been accepted that Network Rail are the 1297. When did the change actually happen in terms likely infrastructure manager, but it has only recently of the— been agreed by the Department and others that it (Mr Berryman) I cannot give you the exact date, I am should be Network Rail who take that role. The train afraid, but it would be, as you say, probably just over operating company will not be appointed for a year ago. probably seven or eight years. Network Rail and the train operating company will have to produce the 1298. It was as a result of the position you took on safety case. HM Railway Inspectorate gives an Maryland on selective door opening and that being indication that things will be approved or that they approved by the Inspectorate. Is that right? do not object to things, subject to a safety case, and (Mr Berryman) That is right. It is not actually that is the position we are in now. We will still have approved by the Inspectorate, it is approved subject to make a safety case but we already have an to the safety case, which we fully expect to get. assurance from HMRI that, subject to a satisfactory safety case, there will be no objection. I ought to 1299. I am sorry “it is approved subject to the explain that the HMRI never actually approve safety case”? anything; they always issue a letter of no objection. I (Mr Berryman) Yes. I do not know how familiar you can see Lord Snape nodding, he must have some are with railway legislation but on each piece of experience of that. railway you have what is called an Infrastructure Manager—I think this is the Railway Act 2002? 1305. BARNONESS FOOKES: Is it analogous to outline planning permission subject to details being 1300. MS LIEVEN: I am sorry, Mr Berryman, you supplied subsequently? are on your own! (Mr Berryman) That is an absolutely accurate (Mr Berryman) It is an Infrastructure Manager and analysis, yes. you have a train operator, and they have to produce safety cases for every activity that they do. A safety case is a document which explains how safe running 1306. CHAIRMAN: Except that the timetable here of the railway is achieved, and that safety case can is going to be a great deal longer because you have got only be produced by the infrastructure manager and to have the conjunction of the train operating the operator. The infrastructure manager has only company and the infrastructure manager, and we will just been appointed in the last few weeks—Network not have that for many years. Rail—and it will be a long time before the operator is (Mr Berryman) That is correct. appointed, and that will be a train operating company. 1307. MR REED: You said a little while ago that you think it was about a year ago that you made these 1301. CHAIRMAN: Crossrail is the infrastructure changes. Tell me, when did you first deliver those manager? changes as expressed on drawings to Newham (Mr Berryman) Crossrail will not be the Council? infrastructure manager, my Lord, in the long term. (Mr Berryman) I am not sure that we ever did. Certainly it would be as a result of this Petition I 1302. Who has just been appointed? would imagine. (Mr Berryman) Network Rail. Perhaps I should explain that. 1308. So the first time that these drawings were seen by Newham is when you sent through the slide, was 1303. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: It it, on Monday morning? has been transferred across from the Health and (Mr Berryman) Quite likely, yes. Safety Commission, has it not? (Mr Berryman) Not exactly. 1309. I see. Just to understand then what the original 1304. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:I proposals were, I think I understood what it was but am trying to help! just to be clear about it, the original proposals (Mr Berryman) The infrastructure manager takes involved—and I will just make reference to the responsibility for safe operation of the railway, Environmental Statement, although I do not think planning of the train services, in other words how we need to particularly turn to it unless we get bogged many trains run and what the timetable is, and down, although I think it would be worthwhile various other matters which are set out in the 2002 having the Manor Park plan turned up, which is Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 131
27 February 2008 30 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham number 10 in the bundle. Do you have that, Mr (Mr Berryman) A replacement goods lift? Berryman? (Mr Berryman) That one there, yes. 1320. Yes. 31 (Mr Berryman) There is not a goods lift. 1310. Thank you very much. The proposals originally were for --- in fact I think we can probably 1321. There was going to be a replacement goods start the process at 012 where we see demolitions. loop provided. (Mr Berryman) I am sorry, this is not the plans that (Mr Berryman) Goods loop? were part of the original scheme. This is what we would have to do if we were to put MRP access in. 1322. What did you think I said, just out of interest, Mr Berryman? 1311. Absolutely, but if we can start the process (Mr Berryman) Sorry, I thought you said “lift”. please at 12, which if I understood you correctly was There is another goods loop to be provided at describing the position as was understood to be the Chadwell Heath from memory, Goodmayes to case in the original ES? Chadwell Heath. (Mr Berryman) No, that is not the case. Let me see if I can find the right one. 1323. That is the replacement goods loop and that 1312. I do not think you will find it there actually. does not need to be done now. (Mr Berryman) Let me explain what the position was (Mr Berryman) That will still be done. originally. 1324. That is still being done, is it? I see. Why is that 1313. MR REED: Perhaps if I can— now still being done when before it was as a result of the closure of the previous loop? (Mr Berryman) Well, certainly if this loop was closed 1314. CHAIRMAN: Why do you not let him that would be absolutely essential. The railway could explain what it was originally? not operate without that loop. But we now have the (Mr Berryman) The idea was that this freight loop opportunity of keeping this loop open because of the which runs along here (indicating) would be closed selective door opening and we will take that and the platform would be widened here (indicating) opportunity because, as the Committee will hear in and extended out that way. In addition, we would due course, freight operators in particular are have had to have a short platform extension here extremely anxious about the removal of any (indicating). infrastructure from the proposed scheme and they have lobbied us quite hard to keep the loop in. In fact 1315. MR REED: Yes and the result was, in terms just this morning because I wanted to make sure of the staircases? Network Rail had not changed their mind— (Mr Berryman) There would be minor alterations to occasionally they do do that—I checked with them this staircase here (indicating). and the position still is they are quite adamant they want this loop if it can possibly be kept in, 1316. Did you say minor alterations; is that right? (Mr Berryman) Yes. 1325. BARNONESS FOOKES: And the other loop. 1317. What is described in the ES is “existing (Mr Berryman) And the other loop as well. footbridge and walkway between platforms one and two/three will be modified with stairs to platform 1326. MR REED: Let us be clear. First, the other one.” loop was there as an essential replacement of the loop (Mr Berryman) That is here (indicating). at Manor Park and now it is going to be provided in addition to what is being kept at Manor Park; is that 1318. I see, it is just that little bit. right, Mr Berryman? (Mr Berryman) Just that little bit there. (Mr Berryman) It is absolutely right, yes. You are getting into some very complex areas about train 1319. There was also going to be a replacement goods planning and operational flexibility and resilience loop, was there not? which perhaps this is not the right --- I can go into it
30 if your Lordships wish. provision of PRM lifts without platform extensions (NEWMLB-53 04-010) 31 Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—Proposed details for the 1327. CHAIRMAN: We have got a week of hearings (NEWMLB-53 04-012) on this subject later. Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—Extent of demolition Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
132 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
1328. MR REED: It is not a question I want to 1336. MR REED: My Lord, what I want to achieve investigate with Mr Berryman. I do not much mind is lift upgrades at Manor Park and Maryland, but the about the reasoning behind it. What I do want to reason I investigate the question of the loop is firstly know however is what the additional loop is going to understand the extent to which Crossrail was to cost? willing to alter its plans and spend more money in a (Mr Berryman) It is about 12 million quid, I think. particular regard elsewhere. That is to meet the point, if you recall, that was being made that in the context of the total costs of Crossrail, whilst it might be a very 1329. How much? small proportion to upgrade, nevertheless Crossrail’s (Mr Berryman) Give me a minute to think. budget is made up of those little small proportions.
1330. Did you say 12 million? 1337. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, I do not think we are (Mr Berryman) More than that. Probably about £20 ever as a Select Committee going to come to a million. I am not prepared for that question. conclusion on this until we have heard from the freight rail people and probably Railtrack and so on later on, because how important this is in relation to 1331. CHAIRMAN: This is the Chadwell Heath your wider platform is going to be part of a much one? bigger picture. (Mr Berryman) Yes. 1338. MR REED: My Lord, yes. The second point 1332. MS LIEVEN: On detailed points like that, I is this—and I was going to make it by way of think it might be better if we provided a note and submission but I will deal with it now because your checked the figures. Obviously it is a massive project Lordship asks—is that first the additional loop was a and there are huge numbers of bits of it and what it requirement brought about by the proposed works in costs, so we will find out that figure and inform the this location but the question then arises should Committee. credit be given for the costs that are capable of being saved by no longer having that particular requirement in place. 1333. MR REED: Let us assume it is 20 million— and we will see if it does come up like that—what is that as a proportion of the total cost of the Crossrail 1339. CHAIRMAN: I think you are going to have to project? Maybe you can do that oV the top of your take this fairly briefly because I do not think we are head. going to come to any sort of judgment on it until we (Mr Berryman) It is a very small proportion. I am have heard more about the freight rail situation. sure Lord Jones would be able to tell you the proportion. 1340. MR REED: Perhaps if I pass on from the loop, because I do not have any other questions on that particular issue, to some matters relating to the 1334. But nevertheless one you were willing to make general costs surrounding Manor Park. given the circumstances—and I do not want to delve into it—and I think you talk about longevity and 1341. CHAIRMAN: You can start but you have operational matters; is that right. only got a few minutes before we adjourn. (Mr Berryman) Yes, “willing to make” is perhaps stating it the wrong way round. It is something that 1342. MR REED: Mr Berryman, can I just we would be reluctant not to do because of the understand then, aside from the loop, the cost of important impact on operational resilience and the putting in a loop at Goodmayes what would have ability to actually run the train service. If we cannot been the costs of delivering the changes at Manor run the train service that we plan to run, there is Park as was previously described in the ES? absolutely no point in making the investment in the (Mr Berryman) Very low. railway at all and it becomes nugatory, so it is very important that we get consent from the Rail 1343. That is the extension works and the stairwells? Regulator and other competent authorities to run the (Mr Berryman) I would imagine the extension works train services that we want to run. In this case, this would be probably about half a million and the very much strengthens that case. stairways about £250,000. It was only proposed to shave a little bit oV the staircase, that was all. 1335. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, I am so sorry but what is it that you are driving at because at the 1344. And the decision reached not to upgrade that present moment I do not think any of us is clear. station for lift accessibility was reached when? Was it What is it that you want to achieve? on the basis of the old plans or the new plans? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 133
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) It was on the basis of the old plans. they come from. You have given us some disability figures per ward, but the correlation between the 1345. With the partial demolition which was going to catchment areas and the wards and the figures is occur anyway, would that make more cost-eVective something that we will need to be able to do, and the works of upgrading? what we have not got at the moment is the wards. So (Mr Berryman) Sorry, can you repeat the question? before the end of the day I hope we may have those.
1346. With the works that were then proposed, would 1353. MR REED: Indeed, my Lord. As I there have been a saving, a cost benefit, if one was understood it, it was going to be ready by lunchtime putting in lifts? but I will certainly check to see what the position is. (Mr Berryman) I do not think that that is a question I can answer because the problem is that even with 1354. CHAIRMAN: We did raise this yesterday and the very limited demolition that would be required you said that you would deal with it. It is not a very here, there is nowhere to get a lift down oV this diYcult matter, it is a matter of drawing ward structure, so I think it is academic because you still boundaries on a plan. could not get a lift in, even if that bit of demolition on the corner was done. Is that making sense? 1355. MR REED: I think it was the logistics simply of getting a plan copied and to the House. 1347. Has that work actually been done, Mr Berryman? From the way in which you are answering 1356. CHAIRMAN: I will leave the logistics to you it sounds like there has not been any detailed analysis but we do want those, please. I think we will break of that; is that right? now until half past two. (Mr Berryman) Only in the sense that the problem here is not that; the problem is finding a location to After a short adjournment get a lift down. I think I showed a photograph that showed how narrow this space is with the structure 1357. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed? above it and at the moment with that structure in 32 existence there is nowhere for a lift to go which does 1358. MR REED: My Lord, before I begin to carry not come down on a track. on my cross-examination, I hope your Lordships have a copy of the ward map. 1348. That is not the question I asked, Mr Berryman. Has there been detailed work done on it or not? 1359. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is very helpful, thank (Mr Berryman) I think not. That would be something you very much. that by inspection you could see could not be done. 1360. MR REED: My Lord, I think an attempt is 1349. Did you say “I think not”? being made to marry up the plan that was produced (Mr Berryman) Yes I did. by the Promoters yesterday and that plan that we have provided in order to see whether there has been 1350. And so the decision was reached to not upgrade a change to the boundaries. Mr Berryman, can we this station without detailed work being done to see look at the next criterion as was identified in your whether it was feasible? Information Paper E5, the distance to other (Mr Berryman) No, not at all. As I explained to you accessible stations. Can we just be clear please that, some time ago, a design was done for every station to in terms of the criterion, such as it was, which was establish what the cost would be of putting MIP taken into account in reaching the conclusion to access in. That included this one. It is on that basis upgrade, that was a criterion based on distance to the that the cost was assessed and the comparison was nearest accessible station? made with the number of passengers. I thought I had (Mr Berryman) Not really, no. It says “distance” explained this some time ago. there, but I think, as we have explained in evidence so far, we took into account not just the distance, but 1351. BARONESS FOOKES: Yes, you did. the ease of travel. For example, if you take some other examples on the route, the Custom House one 1352. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, I think you may have would be a good one which is also in the borough, the come to a point where you are going on to something distance to the nearest station from Custom House is else. Can I just remind you that you said that you irrelevant because, to get to the nearest station, you would produce the up-to-date ward maps for have to go by some very circuitous route because Newham. We have now got some sort of figures for there is no existing route at present, so, although we the catchment area for each of these stations and a 32 plan which shows in pink or blue or whatever where Boundary Plan (SCN-20080227-014) Committee Ref: A5, London Borough of Newham Ward Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
134 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham have said “distance” in this paper, I think perhaps we 1369. Yes, but what we do have as evidence before the should have rather more fully said “distance and Select Committee is an identification that the two accessibility” rather than just “distance”. catchments that you did identify do not fully overlap with the Manor Park catchment. That is correct, is 1361. Yes, you may well have thought that was a it not? good idea, but of course in your oYcial response as (Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes. well to our Petition, you have also reiterated that the decision was made on the basis of distance. You 1370. So, to that extent, Manor Park is dealing with know that. separate catchments, separate needs, if you like, from (Mr Berryman) I am sure that is true, yes. That was those provided at both Forest Gate and Stratford? almost certainly copied from this Information Paper. (Mr Berryman) Yes, I would not dispute that.
1362. Both of which indicate that the sole criterion or 1371. Just looking, in any event, at the survey that at least the main criterion that you took into account this information is derived from, can I be clear with was distance, not accessibility, do they not? you that it was a 2001 assessment? (Mr Berryman) They do say that and that is perhaps (Mr Berryman) Yes. a little bit misleading.
1363. Can we carry on then to some particular 1372. In terms of the types of surveyed people, it was matters relating to the question of accessibility, and dealing with people who were using the transport system in the a.m. peak? the evidence that you have provided33 today indicates certain catchment areas. Can we turn to your slides (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct, yes. please and look at number 14 where we will see a Manor Park catchment plan. In terms of that plan, 1373. That peak, is that a three-hour peak or a one- such as it shows the situation, we can note that the hour peak? pink areas are those that were identified in the travel (Mr Berryman) I believe it is a three-hour peak. survey as places that people would come from to access Manor Park Station, yes? 1374. So, to that extent, it does not deal with the (Mr Berryman) That is right, yes. position in the oV-peak? (Mr Berryman) No, that is true. 1364. The point was made yesterday in opening, was it not, by Ms Lieven that the catchments for Stratford 1375. It also does not deal with other trips that might and Forest Gate overlap with the catchments of be taken outside what is usually undertaken in a Manor Park and Maryland? Do you remember that? peak, namely work trips? (Mr Berryman) The catchments for— (Mr Berryman) It does deal with work trips, that is specifically what it is designed to address. 1365. Do you remember that being said? (Mr Berryman) No, I do not remember those exact words. Can I tell you what I do remember which was 1376. Just look please to the north of Manor Park very similar, but not quite the same? again. We had some evidence earlier on about the cemeteries. Of course there will be people accessing those areas, will there not? 1366. All right. (Mr Berryman) There will be, but there will be fewer (Mr Berryman) It was said that the catchments for people than if that area was full of houses. Stratford and Forest Gate overlap with the catchment for Maryland. 1377. You do not dispute the fact that it is not, as it 1367. I see, so do you restrict it to that point, namely were, empty of occupation by people who are coming overlapping with Maryland? from Manor Park Station? (Mr Berryman) Yes, I do, and I think, if you were to (Mr Berryman) I am almost tempted to make a joke, look at the Forest Gate catchment and Ilford but I will not! There will be people who visit that catchment and Stratford, you would find that all of cemetery from time to time, yes. these catchments tend to overlap. 1378. The people who may be visiting those 1368. Do you have that evidence, Mr Berryman? cemeteries, can you express any likelihood of those (Mr Berryman) We do not have it with us now. We people visiting who may be infirm because of their do have it back at the oYce. partners dying and being in the cemetery? 33 (Mr Berryman) Yes, there may be some people who Catchment Plot—2001 LATS Data (NEWMLB-53 04-014) are infirm. Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park Station—AM Peak Access Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 135
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
1379. In any event, as we can see in the catchment would you want to go from there to Forest Gate plan, there are a number of estates to the north lying Station, unless you were visiting someone who lived north of the cemetery— in the immediate environs of Forest Gate Station? (Mr Berryman) Do you mean here (indicating)? 1387. I understood that your point was that you take 1380. That is right, there, which are accessing the bus in order to get to an accessible station. Manor Park? (Mr Berryman) That is right. (Mr Berryman)34 That is right, yes, there are. 1388. We are not talking about people who might be 1381. Can we just understand the bus accessibility accessing the bus system in order to go and see people position. I have not heard that you have disputed in and around Forest Gate, we are talking about anything that Mr West had to say about the location accessing the Crossrail system. of the bus stops at both Forest Gate and Manor Park. (Mr Berryman) But the buses that run down this Am I right? road, Romford Road, actually go to Stratford, and (Mr Berryman) You are perfectly correct there. We Stratford, as I think you are aware, is an extremely would not suggest that anybody would actually try to accessible station. use the bus to get from Manor Park Station to Forest Gate Station. 1389. But looking at the catchment area for Manor Park, and you have just pointed to some of those in 1382. So just to be clear, you are saying that nobody the southern areas, you would still be changing buses, would use the bus to get from Manor Park Station to would you not, because you would take a bus from Forest Gate? In the residential areas surrounding the south. Manor Park, you are, however, relying on bus (Mr Berryman) From there (indicating)? accessibility, are you not? (Mr Berryman) We are. I would envisage that, if 1390. Go left, if you will. Do you see there is a road anyone lived in the Manor Park area and wanted to going north? get to the Forest Gate area, they would actually use (Mr Berryman) I do. the bus rather than use the train, in any event. All I am saying is that we would not imagine any sane 1391. There is a bus that goes up there, is there not? person would make a journey from Manor Park (Mr Berryman) There is a bus that runs on that route. Station to Forest Gate Station by bus, and why should they want to, unless they happen to live 1392. You would take that bus, would you not, and immediately adjacent to Manor Park Station and then you would have to change in order to get on to visit somebody immediately adjacent to Forest the Romford Road to go to Stratford? Gate Station? (Mr Berryman) If you wanted to go to Stratford, you would. If you wanted to go to Central London, you 1383. Yes, of course. Of course, one is looking at the would be unlikely to go up there and catch a bus question of accessibility in a logical way and, in doing down there, but you would be tempted to go here so, can we just test some of your theories please. First, (indicating) and catch the Underground at this point do you accept that, if you are accessing from some of on the District Line. those catchments that are identified on that plan to the south, you will have to undertake a change of bus 1393. Yes, but we can see that people are using the in order to get to Forest Gate? Manor Park area, so they want to access that (Mr Berryman) From this area (indicating)? particular line, do they not? (Mr Berryman) Yes, as I say, there are a number of 1384. Further south. outliers and you always get this in this kind of survey. (Mr Berryman) To get to Forest Gate Station? 1394. You say a number of outliers, but I can see 1385. Yes, go further south. three identified in a one-day survey undertaken in a (Mr Berryman) These down here (indicating)? three-hour a.m. peak. (Mr Berryman) Yes, but we do not know why those 1386. Yes, there and then north and then slightly outliers exist. There is always a small number of further north there (indicating). people who appear to make what, at first sight, look (Mr Berryman) If you wanted to go to Forest Gate to be illogical journeys, and there are all kinds of Station and you wanted to go all the way by bus, you reasons why that may happen. Perhaps someone who would have to change, yes, you would, but why lives here (indicating) needs to go into Central 34 London and has a partner who works up here 53 04-005) somewhere (indicating), so the partner gives them a Crossrail Ref: P8, Manor Park—Local bus services (NEWMLB- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
136 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham lift there. There are all kinds of reasons why people (Mr Berryman) No, I am not saying that. What I am make journeys which, at first sight, do not seem saying is that there is no particular advantage for logical. someone who lives here (indicating) who needs step- free access from going to Manor Park as opposed to 1395. But, if you go to the main area around Manor going here (indicating) and catching the bus. Park and you go to the south-east edge of that and then go to, if you will, the centre of the biggest pink 1404. Well, it does seem to be that you are saying that area where the Romford Road goes, that distance, is the extent of diVerence between the Romford Road it fair to say that that is equivalent to the distance and Manor Park distance is something that would from Maryland to Stratford? inevitably lead somebody to reach a conclusion to (Mr Berryman) About that, yes. catch the bus and go right the way down to Stratford. (Mr Berryman) I am not saying that at all. All I am 1396. So what you are saying is that, firstly, the saying is that somebody who was disabled getting mobility-restricted are going to have to find a bus from there (indicating) to there (indicating) or getting route to get to the Romford Road, change buses and from there (indicating) to there (indicating), in then how long is that route from Romford Road to practice, there is no diVerence between them. They Stratford please? will be able to get to the bus stops on this just as easily (Mr Berryman) It depends on the traYc. It takes as they could get to Manor Park Station. between five and ten minutes. 1405. But of course we are in agreement that you did 1397. How long in terms of distance? not disagree with what Mr West said about the (Mr Berryman) It will be about three kilometres. accessibility of those various bus stops, are we not? (Mr Berryman) I do not recall him saying anything about the accessibility of bus stops on this road and 1398. Have you done that bus trip? I can tell you from personal experience of personally (Mr Berryman) I have. having been there that the bus stops down here are accessible. 1399. Have you done it in the a.m. peak? (Mr Berryman) No, I have done it in the inter-peak, 1406. Let’s carry on to Maryland then please. In about four o’clock in the afternoon. terms of Maryland and its significance, you explained this morning about why it was that there was not a 1400. And the final ten minutes—is that an inter-peak very good rail case for Maryland to be connected into figure that you have given on the basis of the the Crossrail system. Is it right, Mr Berryman, that information you have had? Maryland was identified as one of the stations in the (Mr Berryman) The day I caught it, it took five early 1990s Crossrail Bill? minutes, I timed it. There is the bus stop just here (Mr Berryman) I am afraid I was not involved with (indicating), I caught it there and I went down to the project at that time. Stratford. 1407. Do you know the answer to that question, Mr 1401. On the inter-peak? Berryman? (Mr Berryman) That was about four o’clock in the (Mr Berryman) No, I do not. afternoon. If I may just make a point relating to what you have just said, if you were a person living here 1408. MR REED: If it was included in that, that (indicating), it would not be very convenient, but it would be an indicator of it being an appropriate would be no more convenient for you to get to Manor stopping place. Park than to get up to the bus route that runs down here (indicating). It is further away in fact. 1409. CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is any use asking “if”. If he does not know, he does not know. 1402. Did you say “no more convenient”? (Mr Berryman) Yes, it would be just as convenient to 1410. MR REED: Very good, my Lord. Can I ask get to the bus route which is here (indicating) as it this then: if the case for stopping at Maryland was so would to get to Manor Park Station. negative, Crossrail would not have reached the conclusion that it was appropriate to stop there, 1403. So you say that that extra distance that you would it? have just identified from the Romford Road to (Mr Berryman) That was the conclusion we reached. Manor Park means that, on balance, it is better to take the bus and go all the way down to Stratford. Is 1411. That it was so negative that they should not that right? stop there? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:04 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 137
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. It was as a result of 1422. Indeed, and you have obviously given the lobbying by your clients that we agreed to put it evidence of £4 million. Tell me, the £1 million, if I back in. have understood it correctly, would be needed for the lifts themselves? Have I understood that correctly? 1412. As a result of what, did you say? (Mr Berryman) For the actual fabric of the lift, yes, (Mr Berryman) Lobbying by your clients. that is £1 million in round figures, but to install lifts obviously involves a lot of things other than the 1413. So you say that there was no real case for fabric of the lift. You have to build a lift tower, you putting forward Maryland. Is that right? have to provide power, you have to provide various (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. other bits and pieces that they need, you have to have the foundations for the lift tower and you have to have a landing at the top. The overall cost of just over 1414. You decided of course that Forest Gate was an £4 million includes those elements as well as for the appropriate place to have full accessibility—is that actual lift car and mechanism itself. correct—on the basis of the analysis that you told us about this morning? (Mr Berryman) Yes. 1423. What is the total amount then that is referable to the lifts please? 1415. On the basis that £12 million would have to be (Mr Berryman) Well, it is about a million out of the spent to do so? 4.5 billion. (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. 1424. I thought it was a million. It is about a million? 1416. That was on the basis, as we saw this morning, (Mr Berryman) Yes. of some 5,000 people expected to access during the a.m. peak. Correct? 1425. So 3.5 million, then, is referable to the ramp, is (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. that right? (Mr Berryman) No. I thought I had just explained a 1417. What you told us this morning was that you did moment ago that the cost of putting lifts in is not just a rough assessment, if I can put it like that, or a a function of the cost of the car and the lift “qualitative assessment”, I think, is the way you put mechanism; there is also the tower which is needed to it, Mr Berryman, of comparing the cost situation support the rails on which the lift runs, there are the with the numbers situation. Yes? foundations for that tower, there is the landing at the (Mr Berryman) That is right. top, the provision of power for the lift and various ancillary services required for lifts to deal with things 1418. Can I just look at that in the context please of like alarms and so on, which all add to the cost. What Maryland. Maryland of course has 2,000 people in I am saying to you is the total cost of doing the a.m. peak, does it not? everything at Maryland to put lifts in would be about (Mr Berryman) Yes. £4.5 million, and I do not have a breakdown of that figure as to how much would be the ramp but I would 1419. The cost of upgrading Maryland is supposed to be surprised if the ramp was more than half a million, be £4 million. very surprised. (Mr Berryman) About that. 1426. CHAIRMAN: It is £4.5 million per lift? 1420. So, if one was looking at it on that qualitative (Mr Berryman) No, my Lord. £4.5 in total for two basis that you gave evidence on this morning, it lifts plus the ramp. would be comparative with the Forest Gate situation, would it not? (Mr Berryman) A similar ratio, yes. 1427. BARONESS FOOKES: And all the stuV you need to go with it. (Mr Berryman) I do not have the figures to hand but 1421. Looking at the question of the feasibility of if the ramp is more than a few hundred thousand undertaking those works that would have to be pounds I would be very surprised. undertaken, and you gave evidence on that this morning, you are not saying, are you, that it is unfeasible to undertake those works in engineering 1428. MR REED: Let’s be clear, that is a cost that is terms? I think, from what Ms Lieven said yesterday, necessarily going to be incurred at any station that you never do say that it is unfeasible. has a lift system put in, is that right? (Mr Berryman) I never do say that it is unfeasible; it (Mr Berryman) If it has to have two lifts and a is always a question of how much it costs. footbridge, yes, that would be the case. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:05 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
138 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
1429. Because what one is dealing with at Maryland 1438. Correct. is the simplest situation for dropping a lift down on (Mr Berryman) I see. That is taken into account in to the platform? those figures. As I say, when we do our modelling we (Mr Berryman) No. The simplest situation is where take into account proposed developments in the area you have an island perform. A good example is at of the station as far as we practically can, and in this Brentwood where you have one platform with two case it certainly takes into account the new shopping tracks, one on either side. In those cases you only centre that is going to be constructed at Stratford, need to put one lift down. Where you have platforms which is very large, and also what is currently on either side of the tracks you have to put two lifts proposed to be the Olympic Village, which will down. become a residential area, so that is already taken into account. 1430. I see. It is the simplest of the two lift situations, can I put it like that? 1439. Can you tell me, please, whether the fact that (Mr Berryman) Yes, it is. Stratford is a busy station, as we agreed, is a relevant matter to take into account when understanding the degree to which it would be an attractive location or 1431. Thank you very much. Can we turn now to the mode for the disabled or mobility-restricted? question of distance to other stations in the context of (Mr Berryman) It is a relevant consideration but I Maryland? You, of course, have pointed to the think it is important to say that the station has been relationship of Stratford to Maryland. First, have sized to take account of the anticipated passenger you done the walk from Maryland to Stratford? flows, and I cannot remember whether I used the bus (Mr Berryman) No, I have never walked that. from Maryland in the peak or the oV-peak but I can tell you I have used Stratford station in the peak 1432. Have you taken a bus trip from Maryland to many times and Stratford bus station in the peak Stratford? many times, and it copes very well with the already (Mr Berryman) Yes, I have done that. high flows of passengers.
1433. Did you do that in the peak hour? 1440. You do not obviously express that view as (Mr Berryman) I do not think so. I cannot quite somebody who has either expertise in or a particular remember what time of day it was. Probably not in a experience of mobility restriction, though, do you? peak hour. (Mr Berryman) My brother is a permanent wheelchair user, sir. 1434. Stratford, can we be in agreement please, is an extremely busy station? 1441. Tell me, have you accessed Stratford station (Mr Berryman) Yes, we can. with your brother? (Mr Berryman) No, I have not, he lives near 35 1435. And if we look at slide 019 again, please, we can Edinburgh, but I have taken him many places in his see the scale of diVerence between the stations that wheelchair and I have a good appreciation of the are there identified and Stratford. It is way oV the problems involved. scale at some 50,800 in the three hour am peak. (Mr Berryman) That is right. 1442. Do you come here as an expert on that basis? (Mr Berryman) No, I do not. I come here as a person who has some knowledge of it just by coincidence. 1436. Can we also be clear that there are going to be a good many people coming to this station because of the Olympics? 1443. Can we look, next, at the ability of Maryland (Mr Berryman) Well, assuming that the Olympics and Manor Park stations to be upgraded by other takes place in 2012 it will be a long time over by the means? You do not take any diVerent position from time anyone comes to use Crossrail or this station, Dr Maynard in terms of it being unlikely that there because we do not expect to open until 2017. would be other ways in which these stations would be upgraded, at least in the long term? (Mr Berryman) I think in the foreseeable future it is 1437. I mean the Olympic Village. I should have extremely unlikely they will be upgraded. been clearer. (Mr Berryman) You mean the legacy from the Olympics? 1444. You, of course, have referred to the fact that
35 Crossrail is likely, or is planned to be, 93 per cent (Excluding internal interchange movements (NEWMLB- step-free. Can we be clear that the DLR is 100 per 53 04-019) cent step-free? Crossrail Ref: P8, 2016 AM Peak 3 Hour Passenger Forecast Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:05 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 139
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(Mr Berryman) The DLR is 100 per cent step-free. I 1456. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord. What I did in the wonder if I could explain a bit what the 93 per cent House of Commons at this stage was to make a means? relatively short closing. I cannot reduce it into writing because of the time period involved but I am 1445. Yes. conscious that the Committee has now spent two (Mr Berryman) The 93 per cent means that any days hearing this Petition and is very familiar with the person who is using the closest station geographically issues, so I do not intend to make the kind of to their origin and going to the closest station comprehensive closing one might make in a court of geographically to their destination, using Crossrail law because I expect the Committee would not wish services only, would have a step-free journey. That me to take up that amount of time. does not mean that only 93 per cent of passengers have a step-free journey; it relates to people going to 1457. CHAIRMAN: I think we might be grateful their closest station. What it means is that 7 per cent for that! of the people, if they needed a step-free access, would need to go not to the closest station but to an 1458. MS LIEVEN: Yes. Equally I put down that adjacent station. marker because if the Committee wants something more comprehensive from the Promoter pulling 1446. But in terms of whether or not it is possible to together strands then we can do that with a little bit achieve a 100 per cent step-free access on a new rail more time. system, it is not, as Dr Maynard put it yesterday, an unprecedented situation, is it? 1459. I start by emphasising that the Crossrail (Mr Berryman) On a new railway system? approach to what I am going to call “PRM”s for short is very much a good news story, as Dr Maynard 1447. Yes. emphasised yesterday, and her words were: “It is an (Mr Berryman) In all new railway systems which are unbelievable improvement in the existing public built the new elements are built step-free. transport network in London”, and I do ask the Committee to bear that in mind. We are moving from a position where on the LUL network the aspiration 1448. Let’s go to new railways. On new railways, for 2013 is only 18 per cent, very understandably only should they all be step-free? 18 per cent but it is that low, whereas on Crossrail it (Mr Berryman) A newly built railway should be is 93 per cent, and that is an unbelievable step-free. improvement for the people in London who can access the Crossrail system. I do add at this point, just 1449. MR REED: Thank you very much. And, if to pick up a point that has just been made, that the Crossrail is to be regarded as a new railway, then on suggestion that on the Great Western and North that basis it should be step-free? Eastern limbs we are dealing with what should be classified as a new railway in my submission is 1450. CHAIRMAN: Mr Reed, this is just argument. ridiculous. You only have to go to any of these (Mr Berryman) I do not think you could argue that stations to see they are palpably not a new railway this part of the railway is a new railway. It has been and are not designed as such. In the new part of there since 1847. Crossrail, which is the central section through the tunnels, it is 100 per cent step-free to the Crossrail 1451. MR REED: I am grateful to you, my Lord platforms. Chairman. Those are my questions, thank you. 1460. Turning, then, to the three criteria that you 1452. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven? have heard so much about over the last couple of days—number of passengers, capital costs and ease 1453. MS LIEVEN: I have no re-examination, my of access to alternative stations—I would suggest to Lord. the Committee that those have to be read with common sense and not as some legal statutory basis. Obviously in applying those criteria we have to take 1454. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr into account the expense of the works and whether Berryman. We none of us have any questions for you. they make good use of public funds.
(The witness withdrew.) 1461. In terms of to what degree we have considered the level of usage by PRMs, the first point is that our 1455. It might be convenient to hear your closing passenger number figures reflect the level of car submissions now, Ms Lieven? ownership, so to that degree they give some Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:05 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
140 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham indication—not a perfect indication but some—of would almost always come out with a negative figure social deprivation, but the issue specifically of how in any event because of the cost involved for a many people in a catchment area will benefit from relatively small number of people. step-free access is, as is explained in our note, an extremely complicated one, and the approach the 1466. Can I then, before I turn to a couple of specifics Promoter has taken is to consider whatever industry on each station, deal with one other point of information there is. But trying to work out, as Mr generality and put down a very strong word of Reed has urged upon you, how many disabled people caution, which I am sure Mr Mould and I will be there are in a station’s catchment area is extremely doing on a number of occasions, about how you unlikely to give any particularly useful figures; it does approach incremental costs on Crossrail. not give you the answer. 1467. It is very easy to take the attitude on Crossrail 1462. So the kind of station-specific analysis which is that it is a very expensive project and adding a few done by looking at people who get DLA mobility more million does not make much diVerence, or that component, whether at a higher or lower level, first of it is only a tiny percentage of the total so do not worry all means it is extremely diYcult to work out what the about it too much. In the Promoter’s very strong disabled figures would be, but anyway is just not a submission that is completely the wrong approach. useful exercise, in brief because many people who are categorised as disabled do not benefit from step-free, 1468. First, the sums of money we are talking about either because they cannot because they are too are large in absolute terms; £12 million for Manor disabled and too unable to walk or because their Park is a lot of money. Remember Dr Maynard’s disability has nothing to do with their ability to use evidence yesterday that upgrading Clapham Junction steps, but also it fails to catch that proportion of cost only a bit more or something more than £10 people which is the larger proportion of people who million, so for the £12 million at Manor Park you benefit from step-free who are encumbered rather could upgrade a much busier station somewhere else than disabled. So it is perfectly understandable why that would be far better value to the national purse. It people when they first come to this issue say, “Look may not be for the people of Newham but in national at how many disabled people there are”, but it does terms, and this is national money from the not actually help. So what Crossrail has done is use Department for Transport, it would be far better to industry information to look at the kind of figures spend it elsewhere. which seem likely and to apply those across the route. 1469. Also, looking again at the big picture, if we go 1463. The other way of looking at it is that, even if down the line of adding the odd £4 million here, £10 one were to fiddle around with the tiny percentage million there, for items each one of which may seem diVerences in Newham, Stratford and New Town perfectly sensible on its own terms, we get a project ward, the numbers of people concerned are that spirals out of control. Your Lordships may have miniscule. I went through it yesterday with Mr West noticed that on many of our slides we have something and on his 2.3 per cent from the DLA figures you only at the bottom that says something like, “Building an come out with 46 people anyway, so it is simply a aVordable railway”, and all the eVort over the last pointless exercise. couple of years has been to make sure that Crossrail is aVordable. That was the great achievement in 1464. We have looked, as Mr Berryman explained, bringing the project forward, and all these when deciding which stations to upgrade, at whether incremental costs could very easily have the eVect of or not there are any particular circumstances that ceasing to have an aVordable railway. would mean that there are likely to be more disabled people. For example, at Whitechapel, which as the 1470. Turning to Manor Park I am sure the Committee saw last week is right opposite the Royal Committee has completely got our points already. London Hospital and at Paddington, where You are talking about a major engineering operation, obviously it is going to be upgraded anyway but very expensive at £12 million but also extremely again it is right next to St Mary’s, so we have taken disruptive to existing users, closing the station for the issue of how many disabled people there are into upwards of three months and with a number of account but only in that way. weekend closures of the line, so a major operation which is very disruptive. 1465. In terms of saying that we have not done a detailed cost-benefit analysis on each station as to 1471. In terms of the freight loop, Mr Reed is whether to upgrade, you will remember it was Dr doubtless going to say, “Well, they were closing the Maynard’s and Mr Berryman’s evidence that if you freight loop before so they can close it now”. Your did do a cost-benefit analysis for step-free access you Lordships will hear in a few weeks’ time as to just how Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:05 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 141
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham much weight the freight lobby put on keeping these So it is never going to be a good station on those freight loops, but also Mr Berryman’s evidence about criteria, in any event. the importance of keeping this loop to avoid perturbations on the railway. It helps the railway 1476. Finally, your Lordships should remember on operation if you have a little bit more scope through Maryland that Stratford is an excellent station for having a loop such as this. PRMs. I hesitate to give evidence but Mr Berryman has already told you that even at peak hour Stratford 1472. The other side of the coin at Manor Park is that is such a big station that there is plenty of space for there will be a few people (there is no getting away people to move around. It would take a massive uplift from it) on the north/south bus route who will be in numbers for Stratford to have the kind of inconvenienced by not having PRM access at Manor congestion one sees in Central London. You can see Park—we do not pretend otherwise—but for the vast that from the photographs, even if the Committee is majority of the catchment they can very easily get on not familiar with Stratford Station. an accessible bus on Romford Road and be taken, depending on whether they want to go west or east, 1477. Just finally, and I do not know whether this will either to Stratford or to Ilford. It is very important to feature in Mr Reed’s closing, there was a very strong remember, again, and Mr Berryman made the point, suggestion yesterday that Newham was being very that we are not talking about people who live on top hard-done-by because it had two stations that were of the station; we are talking about people who have not being upgraded. The reason why there were two got to get to the station in the first place. So the stations in Newham is because the stations are so question is, are they going to be significantly close together, and the figure put by Mr West inconvenienced by, rather than getting to Manor yesterday that 40 per cent of Newham were not Park, getting themselves to Stratford or Ilford? We getting step-free access is completely misleading. As would suggest the answer to that is no. your Lordships can see from the various plans, very few people in Newham who live close to the Crossrail 1473. Remember that the assumption is that people route will not be within easy reach of a Crossrail fully will make rational transport choices. A great deal has accessible station. So, in fact, the people of Newham been made that the buses will be very busy. Well, who need PRM are getting a huge improvement over most Londoners who use the bus know that you get what they have now, and in not upgrading those two on a bus at 3.30 pm at your peril, because of the stations all we have done is apply a sensible use of number of schoolchildren. If you are not keen on public money. schoolchildren or you have got small children and you do not want to push a buggy on to a very 1478. My Lords, those are my submissions, unless crowded train, you slightly change your journey to there are any questions the Committee has for me deal with that. That is a rational transport choice for now. I am conscious that there is one issue all of us in London, and PRMs would make rational outstanding, which is that Lord Brooke asked transport choices as well about, possibly, getting on questions yesterday about to what degree have we a bus at a quarter-to-four or a quarter-past-three in taken into account future increases, demographic order to avoid that very busy spot. changes, in disability. We are still working on that and we will put a note in on it later, if we may, and we 1474. Maryland. We quite accept it is a slightly will obviously copy it to the Petitioners. diVerent argument because although there are engineering problems at Maryland, and it is not 1479. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Lieven. Mr cheap, at £4.5 million, and the money could be better Reed? spent somewhere else, the real issue at Maryland is that the passenger numbers are low and it is very easy 1480. MR REED: I am grateful to your Lordships. for PRMs to get to Stratford. We are not talking, My Lords, this is a case of competing demands and primarily, about them upping sticks and walking to where the balance of significance is judged by your Stratford, but if they are on the bus already then, to Lordships to lie; eVectively, it is cost against disabled be honest, it is easier for them to stay on and go to access. My Lords, in short, the question is: is there to Stratford than it is for them to get oV and battle be full access at two of the stations on the Crossrail across the A13 at Maryland. route, and is that worth the cost involved?
1475. Even if Maryland was made step-free, it is 1481. My Lord, the decision, Newham says, is a never going to be a good station for PRMs because decision that cannot be reached in a vacuum. One the buses do not stop outside, you have got to have cannot understand, I should say, the importance of that fence because of the A13, it does not have having full accessibility in the rail system and at two disabled parking and it does not have good drop-oVs. particular stations until you properly understand the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:05 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
142 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham policy context for reaching that decision. My Lord, it may think, that more significantly benefit from close is for that reason that I went through with Dr and accessible stations. They are not people that are Maynard the various policy documents relating to going to be able to benefit to the same degree from, accessibility, and, in particular, the Railways for All for example, accessibility to cars and accessibility to document produced by the Government. What I say the taxi system. Looking at the question of mothers is that that is clear and straightforward; quite simply, and children, they are not going to benefit from free it emphasises the importance of having an accessible bus accessibility either. rail system to the disabled. 1486. My Lord, although Ms Lieven says that we are 1482. They should be able, in short, to access dealing with very small percentage diVerences in adequately the rail system. The ultimate approach I terms of the incidence of disability in Newham, the suggest, my Lord, is this: that if one is dealing with a evidence has been provided that Newham does have new railway system it should be upgraded to fully a higher level of disability incidence than in London accessible status. My Lord, that is something that Mr generally and in England. My Lord, that is relevant Berryman himself acknowledged in cross- in this case because it indicates the extent to which examination. The question, ultimately, and it is the there is, again, to be a benefit in having the only answer that Ms Lieven has on this point, is upgrading; it reiterates the importance of having the whether or not this is to be regarded as a new railway. upgrading. The answer, you have heard from Ms Lieven, was “Well, that is ludicrous”. 1487. My Lord, what I say is that when looking at it overall, of course, Newham—I was going to say “are 1483. What I want to do, in those circumstances, is grateful”—welcome the position in terms of the read something to you. It is from the Equality Impact existence of stations that are going through its Assessment, paragraph 1.1, and you have a copy of it borough. My Lord, whilst they of course welcome in your papers. Crossrail say this: “Crossrail is a that, it needs to be a benefit that is a full benefit and major new railway that will run under Central that acknowledges the interests of all those who want London through new tunnels linking Maidenhead to use the system. It should not be a gift, as it were, and Heathrow in the West with Shenfield and Abbey that is only oVering itself to part of the population; it Wood in the East.” That is the way Crossrail itself should be something that the whole population puts itself forward. That is how it justified what it within Newham benefits from. was: a major new railway, and to be regarded as such. If it is irrational, it is irrational from the words put 1488. My Lord, if I can turn, then, to the approach forward by Crossrail themselves. So I suggest, my that Crossrail has taken in respect of its approach Lord, it is no answer to the point that we make, towards the two stations we are dealing with today, namely that policy should lead to a presumption that what I say is this: Crossrail has been inconsistent in there will be upgraded stations along the Crossrail its approach towards whether it is going to upgrade line. stations. It said, originally, that it would upgrade a station if it were reasonably practicable. Subsequent 1484. So what I suggest, my Lord, is that there has to to that, it laid down a set of criteria far more stringent be some convincing reason as to why full than the criterion of reasonable practicability, which accessibility—the upgrading of existing stations— was quite obviously an engineering practicability should not be undertaken. That, then, comes down to issue, as we went through with Dr Maynard whether or not the criteria that Crossrail themselves yesterday. They stepped back from that and imposed have put forward to justify why they are not a number of criteria in order to reach the conclusion upgrading are satisfied. that they have.
1485. My Lord, before I go on to deal with those 1489. My Lord, in terms of those criteria, the way in particular criteria, can I raise several positive reasons which Crossrail have applied them needs to be as to why it is important in this case that Newham, carefully considered. Crossrail did not undertake any particularly, should benefit from upgraded stations. cost-benefit analysis. Could they have undertaken an The first is something that you have heard on a good adequate cost-benefit analysis? What Ms Lieven many occasions over the last two days, which is submitted to you was: “Well, Dr Maynard said Newham’s significant deprivation—deprivation yesterday that it is always going to end up with a experienced by those who are going to be (the negative decision”. That is not, actually, reflecting relevant people we are dealing with) the mobility what Mr Berryman said today, which was that yes, restricted. They are people who face a double one could have been undertaken; a GOMMS Study problem: namely, low income and mobility could have been undertaken—a multi-modal study— restricted. It is those types of people, my Lord, you or a New Approach to Transport Appraisal Study Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:05 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 143
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham
(the NATA approach). Both of those could have Berryman acknowledged that it was something that been undertaken and they could have been adjusted was useful—you heard that in evidence today. The to reach adequate conclusions which reflected the reason it was useful is because it was showing the importance of disability upgrading generally. So it incidence of disability in the two wards in could have been done and it was not done. comparison to the situation at Forest Gate. Again, I will return to Forest Gate, but it shows that there was 1490. What you heard was a wholly inadequate a comparable position in respect of Forest Gate and explanation as to why it was that these two decisions comparable to London there was a higher incidence had been reached and the basis upon which they had of disability. Even if you say: “It does not take into been reached. There were no particular benchmarks; account all those who are disabled or mobility it was all just a matter (from what Mr Berryman was restricted”, what it did do was, at least, give an saying) of subjective judgment; there was no way to indication of people who were within that group and understand the relative importance given to any how many were there within those wards or particular station, save for two criteria (which I will boroughs. That is a useful indicator, I suggest to your come back to): one, generally, how many people were Lordships. going to be accessing it over a three-hour period, and, two, how much was it going to cost? That substance 1494. The way in which we discovered from Mr was the way in which it was done. Then just a simple Berryman that 4.4 per cent was used as an incidence judgment: should it or should it not? of disability was just to apply it blanket to every station when reaching their judgment as to whether 1491. What I suggest to your Lordships is that that is to upgrade. In that case it was, despite being a specific a wholly inadequate basis on which to approach it criterion, completely neutral because it was an when you were dealing with it in the policy context equivalent figure used at every single location, that I referred to earlier on. Nor, in reaching that irrespective of actually what the reality of it was. subjective judgment, did they ask for any advice or Despite that not actually reflecting the nature of the information on those specific issues from an criterion that they said that they used, nevertheless, inclusivity adviser. You would have thought that Dr the way in which they did use it was, I suggest, of no Maynard would have been one of the first people that real use at all. should have been approached in advising as to whether or not there should be upgrading in this 1495. If I can then turn to the numbers of people who case—as to where the balance truly lay of importance were predicted by Crossrail as accessing the against cost. particular stations, Crossrail, of course, produced their predicted numbers, which are in fact on the 1492. My Lord, if I can go on to the application of overhead projectors now. My Lord, what that shows, those various criteria, there were (at least on the if one was looking at it in the context, say, of Manor Information Paper) four criteria identified. The Park, is that there should be an upgrading, subject to incidence of disability was, in fact, a criterion, as was cost—again, a matter agreed by Mr Berryman. It acknowledged by Mr Berryman, in addition to should be because, of course, those with fewer people accessibility to the station, costs, etc, which we will accessing those stations are to be upgraded. come on to. Looking at the incidence of disability in the locality, was there actually any detail given in this Committee, despite that being a particular and 1496. In terms of Maryland, we see there that it is at specific criteria? Was anything given by Crossrail? some 2,000. Your Lordships will no doubt pay close Answer: no. What we got was how diYcult it was to attention to the fact that West Ealing and Acton actually produce any information on that issue. (I say mainline, with only a few more accessing those there was not anything but what we did get was the particular stations, are nevertheless to be upgraded. information today.) I will come on to the way in My Lord, on the basis of the incidence of the people which that was used in a moment. I suggest, in those who are likely to be accessing those stations, I suggest circumstances, that not a great deal of weight can be that it indicates plainly a conclusion that there should placed on the detail of the analysis, the rigorousness be upgrading, subject, as I say, to the question of of the analysis, that was undertaken by Crossrail. costs.
1493. My Lord, if I can just look at the question of 1497. I should point out, though, that if we are right, what we put forward, we indicated evidence of the and aside from simply taking 4.4 per cent of these incidence of disability based upon the mobility total figures (which is the way in which Crossrail have allowance. Ms Lieven says that, frankly, was going to done it), actually what you apply is a recognition of assist absolutely no one because it just did not take the greater number of disabled within those wards into account the mobility restricted generally. Mr surrounding the two stations, and that would be a Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:05 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
144 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham still greater indicator that one should be undertaking conclusion that, “Well, the upgrading should not the upgrading. occur”. The evidence, I suggest, indicates plainly that in respect both of Manor Park and Maryland there is 1498. If I can just deal with a point as an aside on that not going to be a seamless journey, as Dr Maynard issue which concerns what these figures are showing, put it, by going to accessible stations. At Manor they are peak-hour figures, not oV-peak figures. As Park, you heard the evidence from Mr West, and it Viscount Colville pointed out, these are peak figures, was not disputed, the degree to which the various bus they are not oV-peak, but your Lordships will recall stops are not easily connected to the stations in that no figures at all were put forward by Crossrail as question, and your Lordships will bear in mind no to what the position would be in the oV-peak. One doubt that, despite the fact that Ms Lieven suggests, can only, therefore, assume that it was not a factor “Well, one is dealing with buses in London and the that played any particular role in the decision- people who take buses are used to the way buses making process, so it should not be counted in favour work; they get busy”, whether or not people are used of one particular station than another, whatever the to it, the point is that one needs to understand the figure might be, and, in any event, we have no detail degree to which the mobility-restricted are going to as to what that is, so it does come down to what these face diYculties when using buses to get to accessible figures say. stations, and I suggest that, given the way the buses operate, given the way Mr West himself explained the position, there are going to be disadvantages in doing 1499. My Lords, I would just touch on another point so and significant ones. which is something that Ms Lieven raised, namely that you cannot just keep throwing money at things all the time, that cumulatively the cost goes up and 1501. Looking at the destination of Stratford to that renders eventually this project unaVordable. My Maryland, it is an extremely busy station, and you Lords, that is a point that you may hear time and have heard the evidence from Mr Berryman this again, but of course it is a point being raised as a morning, and it is not going to be an attractive place defence on the part of Crossrail again and again, and for the mobility-restricted, particularly in accessing they should not be entitled to do it. What they should the system during the a.m. peak. If one is to look at be held to is the decision-making process that they the question, whether those who are mobility- said they undertook, namely a decision-making restricted should be entitled to go to work in the a.m. process on the basis of the criteria that were set out in peak is something that should be taken into account. Information Paper E5. If those are not met, then To say, “Well, they can go into the non-peak hours these stations should be upgraded. My Lord, I will and face a much less busy station” is a point that has come on to the question of costs shortly. When no relevance if one is looking at it in the employment looking at it overall, I will be suggesting to your context. Again, looking at the question of taxis and Lordships that it is quite plain that the criteria car accessibility, given Newham’s levels of indicate that there should be upgrading. deprivation, that is not something that sits well for the population within the wards surrounding Manor 1500. I go on to the issue of accessing other stations Park and Maryland. both at Maryland and at Manor Park. Maryland is some 840 metres, which is the final figure, I think, 1502. I go on then to the question of costs or which was arrived at, in terms of its distance to feasibility. First, the works of both of the stations are Stratford. It is not on that basis walkable and one is feasible, and that is Mr Berryman’s evidence. looking at bus access. Manor Park is 970 metres, Looking at the position in respect of Manor Park, which was the evidence given by Mr West, again it is Manor Park is meant to cost £12 million. The not walkable, so it is something which has to be done decision was reached that Forest Gate should be by bus or by some other means. One is looking at that upgraded and it was going to cost £12 million. It was particular issue as a result. My Lords, it is always going to cost £12 million and it was concluded that, possible, when looking throughout the Crossrail given that there were some 5,000 people, 4.4 per cent system, to say, “Well, we’re in London. There is bus of 5,000 people, if you recall the figure, it was about accessibility. People should be then capable of using 220 people, given that number of people accessing in other stations and, since they should be capable of the three-hour peak, there should be £12 million using other stations, of accessing them by bus spent at that station. When one is looking at Manor because basically you can always access a bus in Park with some 3,000 people, 4.4 per cent of 3,000 London”. That is the argument that could have led to people is about 120, one is looking at a diVerence of no upgrading to many of the stations, but that is not about 100 people in that three-hour peak, leading to the approach Crossrail took. It decided that many of the conclusion that the £12 million should not be those stations should be upgraded, so the question of spent. It is that degree of diVerence that is leading to a bus accessibility should not automatically lead to a station not being accessible when otherwise it would Processed: 14-08-2008 19:12:05 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 400405 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 145
27 February 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Newham have been concluded that it should be. Your upgraded, you heard Mr Berryman’s evidence today Lordships will no doubt consider the extent to which that he did not believe that, in the foreseeable future, there is any logic in that. Indeed, it was part of Ms that really was a possibility, so this is the way in Lieven’s contentions that, when one was looking at which these stations are to be upgraded. As I have that sort of level of numbers, 46 I think she quoted, said, just in order to summarise the position, what I that was a very low number, and I think “it was submit is that the policy approach is clear and there minuscule” were the words that she used. ought to be upgrading of these stations to incorporate a new railway system. The criteria that 1503. Your Lordships will also bear in mind in terms have been used to exclude them by Crossrail do not of Manor Park no doubt the fact that, given the stand up to any degree of scrutiny and, if one does changes that are occurring in the works at Manor apply what Mr Berryman himself said was the Park, there is no need to get rid of the loop. The loop approach that should be taken towards these various was going to be closed and, as a necessity, there was stations, the conclusion ultimately has to be reached going to be the Goodmayes loop put in which is going that they should be upgraded, so the criteria are not to cost £20 million. Now, on the basis that the loop is ones that justifiably can be used as a means of now staying, it is no longer a necessity, that is clear. excluding the accessibility of those stations. Given that fact, and I do not go into the detail of it, but given that fact, that £20 million, it has been 1507. If I can finish in this way: one needs to look at concluded, should be spent for some other reason. it not simply on that basis, but on the more personal Now, if the £20 million should be spent for some level. One needs to put oneself into the position of other reason, when one is looking at the £12 million those who are mobility-restricted and disabled and at Manor Park, it is put into some sort of context. ask oneself the question: has enough been done in Crossrail itself is willing to allocate funding when these areas? Ultimately, the answer to that, given the previously it had decided not to and on the basis of accessibility by bus, is that it has not and it has not something that, it seems, is not necessary, or not accorded with the way the Government itself has said simply seems, but is not necessary. it should in its own policy documentation.
1504. In terms of the possessions and disruption that 1508. My Lords, that is what I say by way of closing, would be caused by the works at Manor Park, if they unless there are any other matters that your came forward, your Lordships heard Mr Berryman Lordships wish to ask questions on. say that they could be factored into the works that 1509. CHAIRMAN: No, I think we have no other were already being undertaken at Stratford, so, in points, Mr Reed. Thank you very much indeed. I those circumstances, it does not operate as any sort of think we will not start anything else this afternoon. a barrier, I suggest, my Lords. We will, however, have a Petition tomorrow morning at ten which may not last all day, but in the meantime 1505. Looking at the question of Maryland, that is a I will ask for the room to be cleared so that my lower amount of money and, taking the same basic colleagues and I can discuss the Petition we have assessment that Mr Berryman undertook, the cost just heard. involved, some £4 million, one is looking at 4.4 per cent of 2,000 and that is then to be compared with, as 1510. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, my Lord. Just in I have said, Forest Gate and 5,000 people and 4.4 per terms of tomorrow, the only Petition which is cent of that for £12 million. They are eVectively the outstanding is the Cyclists’ Touring Club. same in proportionate terms. Again, that is an indicator that the conclusion would ultimately be 1511. CHAIRMAN: I gather they may not take all reached, if one was applying what Mr Berryman day. applied in the analysis, that Maryland should be upgraded, and there is no reason not to do so. 1512. MS LIEVEN: I would be surprised. They certainly did not take anything like all day in the 1506. Moving on from the question of costs and other place, my Lord. feasibility to whether or not there are any other ways that these stations, despite their set of facts, could be 1513. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [SE] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
146 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
DAY FIVE THURSDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Jones of Cheltenham, L Fookes, B Snape, L James of Blackheath, L Young of Norwood Green, L
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club.
MrChrisPeck appeared as Agent.
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
1514. CHAIRMAN: I wish I had had a bicycle this of bicycles at peak times, I think, for very obvious morning rather than wait for the bus! Ms Lieven, you reasons, and anybody who has travelled on the rail are going to make a short introduction? network can see the problem with that. I think the contentious issue is the carriage of bicycles oV-peak 1515. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord. This is the within the central tunnels because the strong Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and they are likelihood is that, outside the central tunnels on what represented by Mr Peck. My Lord, the Promoters’ I call ‘the limbs’, cycles will be able to be carried oV- position on cycles is set out in our Information Paper peak. We are not guaranteeing that at this stage E2 for the Committee’s reference. I think there are because it is a matter for the franchising authority four issues to touch on very quickly. First of all, in and the TOC, the train operating company, but the terms of the trains, all of the Crossrail trains will be likelihood is that that will not be a problem. Probably designed with space for bicycles, so that is entirely the critical issue is the carriage of bicycles through dealt with. those central tunnels oV-peak, and Mr Berryman will explain to you the London Underground policy on 1516. CHAIRMAN: Some bicycles. that which is not to allow bicycles on the deep Tube at any time. Now, we are not saying that will not be the Crossrail policy, but it is obviously going to be 1517. MS LIEVEN: Some bicycles, yes, not an relevant to those who ultimately settle the Crossrail infinite number obviously, but a fair balance and policy. your Lordships can ask Mr Berryman about how the fair balance is struck between the space for the bicyclists, the space for disabled people and the space 1519. The next issue, just to give your Lordships for everybody else, but each train will have provision, some comfort, is folding cycles which will be able to physical provision, so that bicycles can be brought be carried on the network at all times; there is no onto them. issue there.
1518. Then the second issue and what is probably the 1520. The final issue that I am going to touch on in main issue in the Petition is the question of carriage opening is cycle parking in which we have been under of bicycles on trains. Now, as is set out in the IP, that discussion with the local authorities and we gave a is actually an issue for the franchising authority and commitment to the CTC to discuss with them the the train operating company at the time when it is provision. Mr Berryman will put up a table which appropriate to settle those matters, so it is not a shows you the exact position, but, to cut to the chase, matter which is settled at this stage or, in our view, we believe that, with the co-operation of the local one which should be settled at this stage. It is likely authorities, we will be able to provide bicycle that the policy of carriage of bicycles on trains will parking, or bicycle parking will be provided, at all the follow, for obvious reasons, the policy of other rail stations, except Bond Street and Tottenham Court operators, train operators in the UK, so it is Road where again for very obvious reasons to do appropriate to look at what that policy is and in with the urban grain, there just is not the space, and general terms there is very strong policy support both we have been discussing it with Westminster and we nationally and in London for the carriage of bicycles, do not think it will be possible to provide cycle and the general approach is not to allow the carriage parking there. Just to take one good-news story, Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 147
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
Farringdon, where at the moment, as the Committee 1528. CTC is a national cyclists’ organisation, may be aware, I do not think there is any bicycle formally known as the Cyclists’ Touring Club, which parking at all, the street outside Farringdon Station, was founded in 1878, and we have about 60,000 Cowcross Street, is proposed to be pedestrianised by members. We represent the interests not only of our the London Borough of Islington and we have been members, but of those who cycle either for transport in close discussion with Islington about providing or recreation. We believe the encouragement of cycle parking at Farringdon. Mr Berryman can go cycling has benefits for tackling health, congestion through the table in much more detail, but we do feel and the environment, both globally and locally, and on that issue that we have absolutely gone as far as we believe that it provides the only alternative to we can. private car travel when taken in conjunction as a cycle-rail combination. Cycle-rail combinations also 1521. Then the final issue is the interaction between bring in additional passengers to rail operators whilst bicycles and construction traYc, and I think the best at the same time reducing congestion pressures on thing is that I will not say any more about that, but I station car parks and on interchanging public will hear what the CTC have to say and then Mr transport services. As an organisation, we have no Berryman can give evidence on what comfort we can particular stance for or against Crossrail’s chosen give on that specific issue. route or the location of stations. Our position, as Ms Lieven has put forward, results from the proposed 1522. That is a quick whizz through what I provision for cyclists on trains at stations and in the understand to be the issues and, unless the approach to dealing with freight traYc during the Committee have any questions for me at this stage, I period of construction. I will set out each of those will hand over to Mr Peck. points from our perspective very quickly and then get on to calling my witness. 1523. CHAIRMAN: Can you give the CTC any idea of roughly when they ought to start requesting both 1529. On cycle carriage, we acknowledge that during the train operating company and local authorities to our discussions with the Promoter some slight deal with these issues? It will not be yet. alterations have been made to E2, the cycle carriage and cycle parking information sheet, but we do not 1524. MS LIEVEN: As far as the local authorities unfortunately feel that the changes are significant are concerned on the cycle parking, in some instances enough to warrant modifying our position at the it is now, because, for example, at Farringdon lots of moment. In particular, we are not satisfied with the things are being done now in anticipation of decision of the Promoter to continue with the Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail and there are works working assumption that cycles will be banned going on to Cowcross Street and there have already throughout the tunnelled sections and we feel that the been some works, so it depends a bit station to working assumption will become a reality. station, but we are in discussion with the CTC on that. 1530. On cycle parking, we feel very strongly that the plans as they are at present for the central stations are 1525. As far as the carriage on trains issue is limited in scope, although we understand some of the concerned, my recollection is that that will not be reasons given for that, but we believe that they will decided for four or five years, but let me just check have to be changed in the future, looking ahead the with Mr Berryman. At least, he says, so we will, as it ten or more years that we are looking at until were, alert the CTC when the issue starts to be under Crossrail’s eventual use. Our plea is that the discussion because there is no train operating expensive retrofitting which will happen in the future company appointed yet. As there is not a physical can be avoided by designing high-quality railway, there cannot be a train operating company infrastructure from the beginning, and we will be yet, so once that process is undertaken, we will giving examples of problems which have occurred inform the CTC and involve them in discussions. very recently in this regard later on.
1526. CHAIRMAN: Very well. Then I think it is for 1531. Finally, on lorry movements and cyclists, the CTC to start their presentation. which makes up the third part of our Petition, we believe that the current Construction Code issued by 1527. MR PECK: Thank you, my Lord. May I first Crossrail only meets the existing guidance from the introduce myself. I work as the Policy Co-ordinator Health & Safety Executive and does not go far at CTC and I am, therefore, not a qualified barrister, enough to deal with the issues arising from increased so I warn you that this may be a slightly unorthodox lorry traYc, particularly in the central London and performance compared to what you may be inner London areas, so what we want to point out is accustomed to. a few of the statistics and examples which back up Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
148 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club some of the problems which other Petitioners, such as (Mr Holladay) My name is Dave Holladay and I Tower Hamlets and other local authorities, have with work with CTC as their specialist in bikes and public lorry movements. Given the numbers of cyclists transport. I have previously worked for British Rail killed and seriously injured in collisions with lorries and various people in this line of transport. in London every year and the likelihood that Crossrail will result in a very large number of lorry movements around London, we believe that steps 1535. We are in the interesting position today where must be taken to reduce lorry movements wherever both the Promoters and ourselves are producing the possible and ensure that a zero collision target is set current policy of the London Underground1 as for Crossrail construction traYc. evidence to support both our cases. Mr Holladay, could you explain, and this is Exhibit D, how the current policy of London Underground stands? 1532. On the wider issue of cycle-rail integration and (Mr Holladay) From the slide, you can see that the its benefits, we estimate that currently there are lines coloured in dark are the lines on which cycles are around 25,000 round trips every day into London carried and the lines which are white or hollow are the which are made by a combination of cycling and rail. lines on which cycle carriage is permanently banned. The greater part of those trips are made by people Generally, London Underground carry bicycles on who are carrying their bikes with them on the train, all routes operated by what they call ‘surface stock’. not parking at the station at either end. We know, for This is stock built to mainline loading gauges, the instance, that 60 per cent of all UK households are District Line, the Metropolitan Line and so forth, within a 15-minute cycle ride of a station and in and they are carried on those routes, all routes, with London it is considerably higher than that. This is a the exception of at peak hours obviously, as Ms very easy solution to reducing, say, congested car Lieven noted, when passenger numbers are such that parking at stations. A few weeks ago the Mayor of it is an inconvenience to try and load a bicycle. London announced that cycling would hence forth London Underground chooses to regulate by be seen as a key part of the public transport system, dedicated time and other operators choose to do it by and he announced funding of £500 million over the sheer passenger volume when you just cannot get a next ten years which he expects to result in a 400 per bike on. The other stock that London Underground cent increase in cycling by 2025 which is seven years operate are what is known as ‘Tube stock’. This is after Crossrail comes in. This equates to a 5 per cent designed to operate in a tunnel of in the region of four modal share of all transport in London and it is over metres in diameter. Most of you, I hope, will be aware one million extra journeys a day travelled by bike. of the shape and size internally of Tube stock. As a For £500 million, we feel that this is extremely good person almost two metres tall, I can only stand up in value for money, especially compared to Crossrail, the centre gangway, so within the confines of that but that is not the discussion we are having today. stock there is not much space, whereas on the District Achieving this target of a 5 per cent modal share for and Metropolitan Line trains, obviously they are a cycling may sound strange, but it is not just possible; much more spacious vehicle. The other constraint on we feel it is very likely. The Mayor had a previous deep-level tubes of the original Tube network is the target of an 80 per cent increase from 2000 to 2010 four-metre-diameter tunnel. It means that you and he achieved that, or TfL achieved that, five years cannot evacuate passengers through the doors and early and growth has continued since then, so we you have to evacuate them along the length of the think it is very likely that they will meet this target of train and, within the confined space of a Tube train, one million extra cycle trips a day. Cycling, therefore, that is going to be very diYcult if someone has we feel, has a major part to play in London’s brought a bike on, whereas the District and transport future, but we believe that growth can only Metropolitan Line trains do actually operate in deep- happen if it is properly integrated with other forms of level tubes and there is a deep-level tube on that map public transport, and Crossrail is an obvious example currently closed between Wapping and Rotherhithe of this. and there is also a deep-level tunnel up through Kilburn on the Metropolitan Line. The rest of the 1533. My Lords, I would now like to call my witness, surface-stock lines are generally cut-and-cover David Holladay. tunnels and all of them have double-track access from the side to the train. This also applies to Tube trains when they are operating on the surface, so you MrDavidHolladay, sworn will note on that map, for example, Hounslow West Examined byMrPeck through to Barons Court, taking it from the left-hand side of the page, that the Piccadilly Line will carry 1534. MR PECK: Please can you introduce bicycles between those points because evacuation of yourself. You are an employee at the CTC and have 1 been for some years? www.tfl.gov.uk (LINEWD-93 05-011) Committee Ref: A9, Transport for London, Bicycle Tube Map, Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 149
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club the train can be established through the doors and protocol which is clearly understood by the riders. It they do not have to evacuate passengers through the has been established over a number of years much in train, and that is the main reason I have established the same way as the Washington DC Metro, which is with London Underground that they have set their also another deep level tube line. Bikes are allowed on rules. Where you have the problem of evacuation of all trains. The front car of every train does not carry passengers through a confined space on a train, they bikes for the obvious reason that if the driver needs consider it not appropriate to put bicycles on. Where to get out through the car and carry out functions the rolling stock is of suitable dimensions or they want the front car to be accessible. Basically it is evacuation can be eVected through the side doors of setting out how to behave with a bicycle when you are the train, they allow cycles. using the system. People do behave. There is a big demand for taking bicycles. A number of people use 2 1536. Mr Holladay, can you explain the current cycle the BART to get to various destinations around the policy of Mersey Rail which does have a deep-level town. We know of one example where a person tube? avoids this problem of bicycles by renting five bicycle (Mr Holladay) I alluded to that in my answer to the lockers but not everyone can run to having five London Underground question. Until 1996 bicycles distributed around the London Tube Merseyrail operated very much as London did, with network or London rail network to do that. Most a peak hour ban on carrying bicycles. In May 1996, people would take a bicycle on the BART so they for an experiment they dropped the peak hour ban could get to their destination, which is generally and relied on the common sense of the cyclists and beyond the station, in a convenient and rapid way. clearly approbation of fellow passengers to To say more, we know the evacuation works. The discourage people taking their bikes on the train. availability of parking is good. BART have just They have never reinstated that ban. It operates fairly announced improved parking facilities to encourage well. A similar regime operates in Strathclyde which people to park and, again, management is the key to has a comparable system. Ironically, they also have a this rather than policing. Policing tends to be Crossrail project in Glasgow which gets me very confrontational and any form of ban presents a confused because I sometimes have to discuss the two confrontation, this is why we always prefer to look at Crossrail projects. In Glasgow, Strathclyde the managed systems. Passenger Transport have never had any peak hour restrictions on carrying bicycles, they rely on 1538. Thank you. The growth in cycling experienced commonsense, staV and other passengers to in London in the last few years has led to more bans discourage it. Anybody who commutes regularly being imposed on the commuter rail network. Can finds this out and people who do commute regularly you explain some of the consequences this has had for who wish to avoid the hassle go for parking a bike at some of our members and other cyclists? either end or making alternative arrangements for (Mr Holladay) The most significant and rather blunt that facility. It does not cause a problem on instrument of a ban was in 2004/05 when Southern Merseyrail. They do have a deep level tube that runs opted to ban entirely cycle carriage on trains for on the loop underneath the Mersey from Birkenhead blocks of three hours in the morning and afternoon. and, in fact, you can see the bore tunnel in places. 3 One person was eVectively denied employment because he could not leave a bike at his remote or 1537. Thank you. Can I point you to page two as well, vandal-ridden station on the South Coast. He had to please? Similarly, I would say that it is likely that the get to an early train which he could only catch by Bay Area Rapid Transit System—which is not a UK cycling to the station because there was no bus service system, it operates in San Francisco in the Bay Area, and then would continue his journey at the other end as the name suggests—also consists of a deep level conveniently by bicycle because to connect would rail tunnel, deeper than Crossrail, running under a have meant a series of short journeys on Tube lines. large expanse of water in a highly seismic area and, A lot of people coming into London are using the indeed, was operating during the earthquake in 1989. bicycle, for example, to alight at Clapham Junction Can you explain why BART allows, as Section C rather than change trains at Clapham adding to the makes clear, cycles on all trains except at peak times? churn and filling trains up for the short journey to (Mr Holladay) This goes very much in line with the Waterloo or Victoria. We found that people in policy developed with CTC on cycle carriage on all London were choosing to do this because it avoided trains which is that BART have established a the uncertainty of using the Tube, it assisted the Tube
2 lines by relieving the Tube line of short journey traYc similar light and heavy rail underground railways—Merseyrail which drains its capacity for very little benefit for the Cycle Policy (LINEWD-93 05-001) whole line and they have got a very reliable journey 3 Committee Ref: A6, CTC Exhibit A: Cycle carriage policies on similar light and heavy rail underground railways—Bay Area time. An instance of where this happened Rapid Transit (BART) Cycle Policy (LINEWD-93 05-002) demonstrably was at St Pancras, which I think we are Committee Ref: A6, CTC Exhibit A: Cycle carriage policies on Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
150 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club going to a bit later, where the closure of Thameslink that the New York Metro is a case where they do not resulted in a massive transfer of people to bicycles have any sort of ban and yet this is a heavily simply because it was much faster and more congested, narrow and diYcult to move around in convenient not to try and walk to the Tube, walk to system. Pentonville Road Station, it was quicker to transfer (Mr Holladay) I think it almost speaks for itself. to bicycles at St Pancras. Likewise, the closure of the There has never been any major protest, and there are Waterloo & City saw a substantial increase in the some strong transport lobby groups operating in number of bicycles parked at Waterloo because the New York, about the facilities available on the New alternative arrangements oVered were considerably York subway. It is a pragmatic system. The slower and less convenient, so people were using passengers are pragmatic; if they cannot get onto a bicycles to make that journey. Around London train they wait for the next one. The advice is termini over the last five or six years I have taken designed on a pragmatic basis: choose express trains photographs which have shown dramatic increases in because they have fewer stops, less boarding and the number of parked bikes but, regrettably, alighting. Indeed, if you have a bicycle it is quite Network Rail do not positively monitor it. The only likely you will want to go on a train with fewer stops time it has been seriously monitored was when CTC because you can cycle to the station over a longer was working with the SRA in 2003 and we actually distance so you would not necessarily go for the took numbers of it. intermediate stations which tend to be the lower grade stations with the six foot high turnstile gates 1539. Thank you. I think we will be addressing some and you cannot get the bikes through in any case, you of those issues later on. In terms of people with would tend to go for the main stations because you disabilities, we have been given assurances that all have got the pass gates. Crossrail stations and rolling stock will obviously be accessible to wheelchair users. Is it not the case that 1541. BARONESS FOOKES: Under the New York any facility that is accessible to wheelchair users and, Metro, number two, it says: “For easier trips, use indeed, people with buggies and other people with lettered trains”. Could you just describe what that impairment issues would also satisfy cyclists? Is it not means? also the case that a lot of cyclists themselves are (Mr Holladay) You will be familiar with taking the A needing cycles as stability aids? train to Hull, about which there was a musical piece. (Mr Holladay) I am considerably aware from people The trains with letters tend to be the express services who write to me in my role as dealing with bikes on and the trains with numbers tend to be the stopping public transport at the CTC of people with services. disabilities who actually use bicycles as mobility aids and this has posed a number of issues. The other aspect which you have alluded to is the provision of 1542. I see. So it really means it is an express train? step-free access at stations and space to move around (Mr Holladay) Yes. The express network uses letters. with a wheeled appliance, whether it be a wheelchair, a buggy, a piece of luggage or a bicycle. We do find 1543. BARONESS FOOKES: Thank you. that you must design in for the bicycle. Even at peak times, if somebody is taking a folded bicycle the 1544. MR PECK: Moving on to the issue of cycle possibility is that they will unfold it and wheel it parking, we have seen the Promoters’ Exhibit 3— where they can. Carrying a folded bicycle up a flight of stairs or around a building is a considerable weight and the natural instinct is to unfold it and wheel it. 1545. CHAIRMAN: Just before you go on to that, Even if you have no bikes travelling on the trains you Mr Holladay, are these various restrictions enforced would still have bikes circulating getting to the trains by byelaws, or how are they enforced, or not at all? before they are folded, so there will be a need to make (Mr Holladay) In which one? sure that bicycles are designed in at all times. The other issue is when the design for a wheelchair is often 1546. Take the New York Metro, for instance. marginally shorter than for a bicycle. If the bicycle is (Mr Holladay) The byelaw that they would enforce considered to be using the same space it must be would be, “You are causing an obstruction and designed in. 4 causing a nuisance to other passengers”. That is the way they would deal with an issue on a bicycle as far 1540. Can I quickly run through the final two sections as I understand the wording of that. of this exhibit, which is page three, please. I think this simply makes your point once again, does it not,
4 1547. But there is not a detailed byelaw? similar light and heavy rail underground railways—New York (Mr Holladay) No, there tends to be a problem with Metro (LINEWD-93 05-003) detailed byelaws. Committee Ref: A6, CTC Exhibit A: Cycle carriage policies on Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 151
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
1548. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: handle on it. Possibly the statement that no provision This works on what you are describing as the consent is needed in certain places or there is adequate approach? provision with a little bit of work with the local (Mr Holladay) Yes. authority suggests there needs to be more detailed work done. At St Pancras Station, for example, the 1549. If the Metro happens to be jam-packed with Thameslink blockade saw a 1,000 per cent increase in other passengers you are unlikely to try and get your parked bicycles in two months. It went from five bike on. I must admit, I have travelled a lot of times bicycles to 50 in two months simply because people on the New York Metro and I have not seen a bike saw that as a way to overcome the problem. When but I take your word for it. Maybe it is because they you have Tottenham Court Road Station and tend to take the express routes. It works on the basis Farringdon Station principally as the means to get of turn up and commonsense prevails? from Crossrail to Eurostar, Euston and King’s Cross (Mr Holladay) I think the very fact that Merseyrail Stations, you have got a choice of changing trains for dropped their cycle ban regime and just operated on one or two stops or cycling. In terms of journey time consent shows that it seems to work. With a folding and convenience, cycling is going to be the way to bike I have had problems. My brother-in-law and make that journey because you do not have to wait sister live --- I have struggled from Finsbury Park the six or seven minutes for a Tube train to turn up, Station trying to board a Moorgate train that has you can immediately get up on to your bike and do been reduced to three coaches with a folding bike and the journey in under five minutes. People with had to wait for three trains until there was even room common sense or those who are keen to make to get on the train and had to stand on top of the bike progress will be looking to bike to make those in order to fit on the train. There is this sort of self- connections. Typically, from my own experience I do regulation and in Glasgow we say, “You will get a journey from Euston to Waterloo and it takes me more than your ticket punched if you try and get on 12 minutes on a bike almost consistently whereas the with a bike on that train”. recommended time by changing trains and using public transport is nearer 50. It is going to be 1550. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: something that is driven very much by demand A Glasgow kiss! wanting to do that. To say that no parking provision is needed at Tottenham Court Road is very weak. 5 There will be a big demand for people to get up to 1551. MR PECK: Exhibit 3 of the Promoters’ Euston, St Pancras, Tottenham Court Road and exhibits establishes the current stance on cycle parking at the central area stations. Would you say Farringdon. There is the possibility, I think, of that the decision not to have any provision looking externally. For example, I am aware of car whatsoever at Tottenham Court Road and Bond parks in those areas which are under-utilised now the Street is a sensible provision? Congestion Charge has come in, so there may be a (Mr Holladay) I would say that it is potentially possibility of looking towards cycle parking adjacent flawed because the eVect of demand being there when to stations in the interim. The most important thing no provision is made is quite amazing to watch. The is actually a convenient direct link. This is why, for existing stations have a problem in that, as I noted example, at some stations, like Liverpool Street, earlier, the survey done by CTC for the SRA was fewer people use the cycle park than use the railings probably the first time that some stations realised and lampposts on Liverpool Street and on how many bikes were parking there. We observe it all Bishopsgate because that is the direct route they want the time at Waterloo particularly because of the to go. The way to deal with that is to actually plan for distances involved and because of the poor it and manage it rather than, “Oh, suddenly we have connections from Waterloo to some London got a problem with parked bikes all over our railings, destinations. Obviously it is very diYcult to get what do we do? Do we have to police it?” and then across London when you have only got a limited you get confrontation. Is that suYcient for that? I number of Tube lines. People are turning to the bike. have described that we have a number of stations If you care to sit in exit three of Waterloo Station at where statements are made but actually as to times you can count up to four folding bikes and a knowing the existing position, very few people know number of conventional non-folding bikes exiting what the existing position is. I think the only station through that arch because that is the most direct that can definitely say they know about the people route out onto the road and I would estimate there who park the bikes at the station is Marylebone, would probably be ten to 20 per cent of the people because everybody has to register their bike there; all going out through that arch using bikes. We do not the other London stations have no clue as to who is have a handle on it. We are attempting to have a parking and when it comes to moving bikes they have 5 a big row because bikes are moved and they cannot 93 04-006) trace the owners. Crossrail Ref: P13, Cycle parking at stations (LINEWD- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
152 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
1552. MR PECK: Can I ask what discussions you straight out and jump on a bike—for example, at have been having and your organisation has been Farringdon you may want to do a two-stop to having with Network Rail authorities and First Moorgate or you may be going down into the City— Great Western at Paddington Station with regards to and make that journey in five, six minutes rather than the cycle parking there, which is claimed by the wait for the tube—the Circle Line frequency is every Promoters as already being provided by Network seven to ten minutes so you would be waiting at least Rail? five or six minutes for a train to turn up to get there, (Mr Holladay) The cycle parking at Paddington and then I think it is six minutes to Moorgate—then Station is heavily over-subscribed but, again, because the diVerence between waiting for a train, catching a they do not know who the users are there are a train and jumping straight out on to a bike when you number of factors that could be developed. It is also know it is going to take you pretty much the same open cycle parking and vulnerable to vandalism. time every time is going to be very attractive. Plus, of Studies by the University of the West of England course, you have a major traYc of people who are have revealed that it is quite likely that a lot of those regularly going up towards St Pancras and King’s bikes are only used once or twice a week—people Cross, so do they go through corridors up on to keep them there for the convenience of having a bike, Farringdon, getting a train to what is now St Pancras and no doubt there are other places in this city where Midland low level, or do they just leap up on to the people keep a bike for convenience and it sits there surface and head for their train? There will be a most of the week and nobody knows anything about strong demand on that, as we experienced obviously it. We have been working both with First Great with the Thameslink blockade. Western and also with the Network Rail Management at Waterloo to persuade the people 6 who are using the station to identify themselves, 1554. In the third section of our exhibit B, I enclose much in the same way as Marylebone registers the the Mayor of London’s press release a few weeks ago people who are using Marylebone Station with bikes. about the £5 million funding for cycling. One of the First Great Western have come on board with this sections in that, which is halfway down, talks about a and with the London Cycling Campaign and with new implementation of an on-street cycle hire scheme CTC and they are going to be running an event at similar to that currently in Paris, and it provides 6000 Paddington Station to try to identify who is using bicycles with docking stations every 300 metres Paddington Station with a bike. We suspect that at through central London, and emphasised key least twice as many people as the parked bikes are destinations such as railway stations. Transport for using Paddington Station because of the steady flow London and the Mayor’s OYce is also clear that of folding bikes that come oV the trains; and in where they will provide these docking stations they addition during the daytime when bikes are will also be providing additional on-street cycle permitted bikes also flow oV the trains in large parking for non-cycle hire users. Given that this is numbers. You will find that, for example, going to occur in 2010 do you not feel that TfL should Westminster is probably a 15 or 20 minute bike ride be ensuring, through Crossrail, that this is dovetailed from Paddington, so it becomes a much quicker way with the Crossrail proposals? of getting across town. We hope, with working with (Mr Holladay) I believe that the combination of people like First Great Western, that we can get more bicycle and rail has major benefits both in the of a handle on the demand now and get a picture of flexibility and also the ability to provide the capacity. what the demand in future is likely to be; but at the We have talked of Farringdon where you have to moment to say that we already have parking make connections and capacity in the interchanges, provision, it is heavily over-subscribed, the use is which is costing a lot of money, whereas the ability to unknown and it is diYcult to say whether it will be provide capacity and interchange with bicycles, and overloaded completely with people hopping oV on foot where appropriate—but the bicycles Crossrail. particularly because of the distance you can cover— the connection is quickly implemented at relatively low cost without delays. Hence when the Waterloo 1553. At Farringdon Station—this will be the and City Line closure was on, people were able to crossover between Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail quickly instigate their own alternative transport and that will be a very important station as you will system because of the closure of the tube line; likewise be able to reach most of the London airports from at the Thameslink blockade they were able to it—is the provision of a little bit of on-street parking implement it quickly. With the hire stations we move by Islington Council going to be enough? to actually make more eYcient use of the space. As I (Mr Holladay) I do not think that is going to quite noted with Paddington, it is quite likely that between cope with it. I can visualise people making regular 6 journeys wanting to park bikes securely at cycling and walking in London” Mayor of London press release, Farringdon. Again, the benefit of being able to walk 11 February 2008 (LINEWD-93 05-007) Committee Ref: A6, “Mayor unveils programme to transform Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 153
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club ten and 20 per cent of the bikes at Paddington are 1556. So if one could imagine that a potential journey only used once or twice a week and those are the very on Crossrail would be someone coming into users that we would target to say that they should be Tottenham Court Road, for instance, and wishing to hiring bikes. Additionally—and TfL may not get to King’s Cross or St Pancras, it would be quicker appreciate it so much—a London commuter who and cheaper for them to use a TfL provided free bike does use a hire bike is quite likely to find a and cycle the five minute journey to King’s Cross comparable pricing point, that it is more convenient than to interchange on to the Tube? than the Tube and they would be prepared to pay the (Mr Holladay) Almost certainly it would be because same amount as the Tube for that convenience, it would cut out that connection time. I think this has which, for a London commuter, is around £500 a to be recognised in the provisions for this project, year. So eVectively you could say that a bicycle kept otherwise we end up with a disjointed situation, as we securely in London and dispensed when you need it did at St Pancras, where only the eleventh hour is worth around £500 a year to a London commuter provision of cycle parking really sorted out matters. as an alternative to the London zone card. There was due to be a protest at St Pancras— somewhat upstaged by Greenpeace unfortunately— all about the fact that the station had gone ahead without recognition that there was a substantial 1555. Would it be useful if TfL and Crossrail amount of cycle parking taking place and no formal commissioned an analysis of the time savings and the recognition of providing for that in the re-opened benefits to cyclists, given that one in 20 trips in station. London will be made by bike, we hope, at around the time that Crossrail will be operational? Would it be 1557. Can you confirm that the lack of cycle parking useful to have a time savings study? at the St Pancras International Station was as a result (Mr Holladay) I think a study of this would be very of a failure to include that at an early stage of the relevant. The claim of Crossrail is that it is going to process? improve people’s journey times by six to eight (Mr Holladay) It was very much an afterthought. minutes, I think, on certain journeys into central The original location for the cycle parking was far London, whereas we, with the Keep Cycling on away on the north corner of the site, and Track Campaign last year, went through a number of representations have actually brought it into the people’s journeys and found that a typical London station. That said, it is still a long way from the trains commuter would save in the region of 30 minutes on and in the wrong direction for most people’s a typical London journey into and out of London. In journeys—they have to walk away from where they fact the example we found was a man who was saving want to go to to pick up their bike after alighting 40 minutes on a journey between Redhill and from the train. So the tendency still is at St Pancras Stratford, simply because he was able to take his bike that you will see bicycles chained to lampposts on on the train, alight at London Bridge and cycle to Pancras Road and on Camden Council land down Liverpool Street for a direct train, and at the other towards King’s Cross, simply because it is still a long end a 15 minute walk was turned into a five minute way to go to where the cycle parking has been added bike ride. So I think an analysis of how cycling will as an afterthought, rather than being designed in as a have that impact will give you some concept in sizing convenient interchange. It always is the case that and looking at the requirement for cycle parking and where things are designed in as an afterthought that cycle hire at some of the inner stations because it is the use tends to require confrontational policing— not being covered and from the evidence of the you cannot park your bike here, you have to park it demand increasing, which we have pictorially— there and carry it further round; it is far better to have unfortunately I could not go around and count every regimes that actually form naturally. So very much single bike at Waterloo every time I was doing a like at Waterloo the popular place to park is actually survey—we are talking of several hundred bikes in all a very good place to park, so lots of people use it. sorts of places as well. The evidence is that cycle use is increasing dramatically where those gains are made 1558. There are aspects of increased demand for on- and a bar chart showing the connection losses . . . I street cycle parking. Your Lordships may be aware will go into a thing about Dutch Railways where they that at Millbank the City of Westminster has been were looking at time-saving on journeys, and far installing much more cycle parking in the last few cheaper than making trains run a little bit faster it years. I walked past this morning and there are now was actually to eliminate the delays and the waiting spaces for 100 bikes along Millbank before you get to on connections. If you know that it is two minutes to Horseferry Road. It is pretty heavily used. Given jump on a bike and ride instead of a potential seven these aspects of increased demand some other minute wait for the next tube train then obviously alternatives in addition to on-street parking could be you make a faster journey by jumping on a bike. secure, pay for cycle parking, and to examine this Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
154 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
8 exhibit B, sections 1 and 2 have some solutions used 1560. MR PECK: I am going to display another by the Bay7 Area of the transit system again. BART, item here which is the report from the Dutch Ministry at least three of their stations oVer free secure, of Public Works. This is similar to what is being covered cycle parking, which is available in a manned proposed in London. It is free or very cheap heavily shelter. This, I believe, is occurring in one place in subsidised public transport by bicycle. They provide London at the moment, in Finsbury Park. There is 100 rental stations at various rail interchanges across also a proposal from the Holborn Business the Netherlands and it is pretty much automated. Improvement District for a similar thing for There have 200,000 rentals and, as you can see, it commuter cyclists in Camden. They are going to put costs just about £2 a day to rent a bike. This is the sort in an underground shelter which will be paid for by of thing we are likely to see coming out of the London cyclists, which will have changing facilities and system in the future. showers. These things are springing up elsewhere in London as well—London Bridge Station has a bike 1561. If we could look at this section, please, which shop which is looking at setting up an underground illustrates another aspect of the Dutch integration, as parking facility. Could this be an option for various you can see 33 per cent of rail travellers get to the parts of Crossrail, do you think, in the long-term, station by bike and the levels of cycle storage9 at some private initiatives perhaps subsidised by other areas stations are given, 10,000 bikes at Amsterdam of TfL? Central Station of storage space and Utrecht has (Mr Holladay) I believe that there are opportunities 17,500 bicycle spaces at the central station. This is here; I believe that we need to ensure that such for a town of only a couple of hundred thousand opportunities are carefully monitored and people. The Netherlands is a diVerent situation, but understood in any process. The growth is fairly we are looking at five per cent mobile share for evident where things are monitored. On-street cycling in London and we should be preparing our parking, I am not quite aware with what is going on public transport facilities for areas in these sorts of with Westminster Council with their on-street circumstances. parking, but I am aware of the programme that has been running in Glasgow where, since 2000, they 1562. One other thing I would like to point out, going have monitored putting bicycle parking in there, back to page five very10 quickly, is that both the BART installing in the region of 300 bicycle parking spaces a station cycle paths are in the financial districts of year and they are measuring 37 per cent year on year both Berkeley and San Francisco, so it is extremely growth of parked bikes. Parked bikes is a very good expensive real estate. 11 measure of the number of cycle trips being made. Likewise, studies have gone on of secure cycle 1563. Moving on to page six, which is section two, parking; people will pay for it and there are a number also on BART, it is the issue of bike lockers. Do you of schemes in the oYng, and also a number of means have any idea whether this will be a sensible use of of looking at pricing this and demand for it. space in the Crossrail circumstance? (Mr Holladay) The old system which BART operated is quite clearly spelt out by that document. The bike lockers were very much allocated to individuals and the systems which are being proposed there are more flexible allowing utilisation of space 1559. The only drawback as far as you are concerned by a number of people. Again, this overcomes the about Finsbury Park is the distance from the station. point where if somebody is only using the service one (Mr Holladay) I think Finsbury Park has certain or two days a week it gets better utilisation. If I might flaws to it in the sense that again it was an also point to what you mentioned, the cycle centres, afterthought and it was not designed in as part of the it is very relevant. You mentioned London Bridge. It station; it has been built on land that is more is operational and one of the big customers is convenient to use than trying to put it into the station Financial House, which has 60 employees a day itself, build it into the station. When you look at the regularly cycling in and it is very telling when you bike stations on BART the bike stations have been look to Central London, going round the major built on to a corresponding Caltrain network, which financial operators, the percentage and number of are actually built into the station. If you go to the 8 Netherlands you will also see that the rail company Public Works and Water Management (SCN-20080228-001) 9 has built these facilities into the station, so that the ThePublic Public Works Transport and Water Bicycle, Management, Dutch Ministry Background of Transport, (SCN- transfers are fast and rapid and it is a fully 20080228-002) integrated system. 10 The Public Transport Bicycle, Dutch Ministry of Transport, public transport systems (LINEWD-93 05-005) 7 11 public transport systems (LINEWD-93 05-005) publicCommittee transport Ref: systems A6, CTC (LINEWD-93 Exhibit B: Cycle 05-006) parking policies at Committee Ref: A6, CTC Exhibit B: Cycle parking policies at Committee Ref: A6, CTC Exhibit B: Cycle parking policies at Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 155
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club staV who are actually using bicycles to get to work report coincides with the City of London Police these day. There is potential there to both look at the calling a summit about construction traYc in the City destinations where large numbers of bikes are parked of London. I arrived just after one young woman and figure that most of those people are coming in by cyclist was crushed by a cement mixer and it was later train, those who do not live in a cycle-able distance. discovered that this one vehicle had killed another That is a very open prospect where some people cycle young woman and put another one in a wheelchair up to 20 miles, but people will come in by train and within a very short period of operating around the then cycle to a major oYce block and those oYce City of London. The vehicle, like most concrete blocks are parking substantial numbers, so mixer trucks, was operated by a small contractor in correspondingly there should be substantial numbers livery, in other words most of the big companies do at their arrival points in London. not actually own their trucks, they are just hiring 12 people to drive them in livery. There is a strong need to control the use of construction traYc. There is also 1564. Finally, can we move on to the issue of lorry a major pressure on construction traYc. If you have movement, which is covered in Exhibit C. The first got a continuous pour of concrete you require the section in Exhibit C, (1) includes excerpts from an as concrete to be coming continuously to do this, so it yet unpublished Transport for London research would be the means. You eliminate the delivery of report into deaths of cyclists involving goods large amounts of bulk material by having a batching vehicles. What this establishes is that half of all the plant on site or you have to co-ordinate a series of cyclists who are killed in London over a five-year trucks, eight wheelers usually, coming in to deliver period, from 1999 to 2004, were killed in collisions the concrete on a regular basis. It is very important to involving goods vehicles, despite the fact that this plan how that material comes in. The same goes for figure makes up just one per cent of the licensed the extracted waste. You have only got a limited vehicles in London. The point we are trying to amount of space on a central London site to stockpile achieve with this section is to underline the waste material, you have to get it oV-site and to where importance of managing lorry movements and you are tipping it. This is where the Channel Tunnel subcontractors in the construction process of Rail Link was very fortunate in being able to donate Crossrail. Mr Holladay, can you explain why lorries, all of the tunnelling material to build a hill in particularly construction lorries, pose such a Stratford. It saved them a big problem, but it is an significant risk to cyclists? issue which is going to come up with digging big holes (Mr Holladay) All large vehicles, HGVs have very under London for Crossrail. It has got to be shifted, poor all round visibility, they rely very much on it means big heavy goods vehicle traYc. mirrors and have a number of blind spots. When you are on a bike or on foot as a vulnerable road user adjacent to the left-hand side of an HGV, the only 1565. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH:A way the driver is going to see you are there is if you point for clarification, please. You said that this hold your hand above your head and wave it, they sequence of accidents occurred with one big truck, do might just see your hand out of the side of the window you mean one driver or one truck driven by of the cab. Also, with construction site vehicles now diVerent drivers? most HGVs are required to have “lifeguards” fitted, (Mr Holladay) I think the same driver was involved in that is panels or rails along the side which tend to stop two of the crashes. people from going under the wheels in a side impact. Vehicles on construction sites, such as tipper wagons 1566. Because it implies that there was a fault in the and skip lorries, do not have to have those there, they vehicle rather than the driver of the vehicle. would be an encumbrance and they are particularly (Mr Holladay) No, I do not know whether I can say vulnerable. Additionally, sites have a demand to get this, but I am aware of one contractor being vehicles on and oV. The muck shift for Crossrail is summarily dismissed from operating on the Channel going to be quite substantial and when you are doing Tunnel Rail Link site because of the standards of substantial muck shifting it tends to be four axle rigid their drivers’ driving. There was an incident which tipper trucks which shift them up. As the previous was witnessed by an engineer I know working on that table shows, 5-axle rigid trucks feature pretty site which was exceedingly dangerous driving simply prominently in the fatalities. We have yet to really get because—I think it is set out in this—a lot of drivers to the bottom of the mechanism for this, but it seems shifting muck are paid by the load or required to shift likely that if you fall and you fall with a 4-axle rigid this particular amount of muck, so productivity is truck with no side protection, you go under twice as seen as a goal regardless of safety necessarily. many wheels to get mangled. The driving of those Particularly notable is on-site, when you are trucks is also something which is under review. This operating trucks you come under the Health and 12 Safety at Work Act on-site, and there are various (LINEWD-93 05-008) conditions to establish the safety case and assess the Committee Ref: A6, CTC Exhibit C: Lorries and cyclists Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
156 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club risk. As soon as you go out through the gate the that particularly dictates which modules should be conditions are much less stringent for operating on taken, but we are doing our utmost at CTC to make the road and we feel that when you have a major sure that both the truck driver training and bus driver project such as this the regime of risk and hazard training includes modules about the relationship management needs to extend beyond the gate. between their vehicles and cyclists, to explain, perhaps, to the driver why you are cycling in the middle of the lane in front of them rather than at the 1567. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I side. As a personal issue, I absolutely loath the victim speak as someone who has cycled throughout most of blame sign saying, “Don’t go down the inside” my life, including into London, not so often these because the greater percentage of left turning truck days but I still come in occasionally. If you will incidents would appear to be where the truck actually pardon the pun, it is a bit of a two-way street, both forgets the cyclist is there, either when they have literally and metaphorically, in as much as I agree made an overtaking manoeuvre and decided to turn with you about lorries, but you learn pretty soon to left or they set oV from traYc lights and turn left and cycle defensively if you are an experienced cyclist. the cyclist has not deliberately ridden up the inside of You do not go up on the inside. It does not stop the truck, they are riding along with perhaps a naive accidents completely by any means and I lack of awareness that there is a thirty tonne truck wholeheartedly agree with you about the need to there. The awareness of that sort of risk needs to be train not just lorry drivers but bendy buses are trained into the drivers and into the cyclists. I am also another nice little hazard that you learn to be careful aware that there is a very good piece of video material to avoid. The point I want to make to you is that as which was done by the father of a girl who was, again, the cyclist touring London, given the rise in a lot of killed by a truck in London which makes the point inexperienced cyclists on the streets of London, we very adequately that a lot of the time we do not need are not talking about what I would regard as the to use the big trucks. I think that is a point we are cyclist nirvana of Holland, do you not think also making also in our submission, that do we need to there has to be an emphasis on that as well, which is have the muck shifted by trucks all the time? Are not to discount the very valid point that you make there ways of making sure it comes out through the about the need for training, the need for enhanced tunnel? Can we shift it out in other ways, and do we safety standards? need to bring in big loads as big loads? Can things be (Mr Holland) I think there is very much a cultural brought in in smaller quantities in vehicles more thing to develop. We have had possibly two appropriate? generations where there has not been much of a general public culture of cycling, of what you do and do not do. It is very interesting, CTC is the 1568. MR PECK: Thank you. Again, returning to St accreditation agency for cycle trainers and I meet up Pancras, although you have made the point that most with people who are doing cycle training. Quite of the work from the Channel Tunnel Rail link tunnel interestingly, you get the zeal of the convert coming was removed back through the tunnel, even on the through when they describe how they take an site of the construction for St Pancras International, inexperienced adult cyclist and put them through we are aware of several incidents just from the cycle training and that inexperienced cyclist is construction involved in that process. convinced that riding on a footway is safer, whereas (Mr Holladay) Yes, particularly I think there were figures and studies show that you are between four two fatalities at the same point on the junction of and eight times more likely to have a crash if you ride Camley Street and Goods Way. A number of aspects on the footway than if you ride on the road. When the of the CTRL development were particularly unsafe trainees come in they are caring and convinced that for cyclists. The whole area got a reputation of being footway riding is a safe way forward. After a period a very dangerous place to cycle simply because of the of proper training they go out with a zeal of a convert large number of trucks going in and out delivering saying “No, we must ride on the road, we must ride and, also, the very temporary nature of some of the as vehicles”. You are right, there is a great deal of road works. The road lining and signage was not education to the general public that the bicycle has to always to the best practice standards and that was, be ridden as a vehicle when it is being ridden at speed indeed, pointed out. I believe in the remedy work and and is ridden on the road. The other point I would the ratification Camden are in the process of make in terms of training is that in September 2009, resigning and relining it in places where it is positively you may be aware, there will be vocational training dangerous. for truck drivers. In London we have had vocational training in advance of the requirement for PSV drivers, so Transport for London is doing a modular 1569. What do you think Crossrail should be doing training course for bus drivers, which includes a to ensure that these lorry provisions are minimised, module called Big Bus, Little Bike. There is nothing hoping to be reducing movements? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 157
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
(Mr Holladay) Because of the number of incidents have a site speed limit and be able to actually and the alarming statistics, I am aware that the realistically enforce it by making sure that the majority of cyclists in London are killed by a very vehicles only travel at those speeds, and that does small percentage of the vehicle traYc moving around have a knock-on eVect in the way incidents will occur on the roads. The Metropolitan Police have a unit and the scale of any incident that occurs. which is especially trained in health and safety risk Additionally, point 6, cycle training, I think, quite assessment, which I think is the only one in the often if you train a bus-driver or a lorry-driver up to country for looking at this sort of truck movement realise what the cyclist sees and why the cyclist is item. I think we should be looking at minimising the doing those things, there is a much better risks that arise. We should be looking at proper understanding. routing of vehicles and monitoring because the one way that the Health and Safety Executive deals with risk on factory and construction sites is to have an 1571. I will very quickly run through some of the eVective reporting and monitoring regime when suggestions we would have then on all of these points. things do not necessarily come to a fatal, dangerous On the latter point, first of all, we would hope that or injury outcome, but where a risk is seen or a hazard Crossrail would engage us in further dialogue on the exists is to be properly identified and worked on by potential for a code of practice to be used for management. contractors and for the nominated undertaker, where they have contractors, to adopt this code of practice. On the parking issues, we understand that there are 1570. Would you agree that section 3, which is the considerable anxieties with Crossrail not to impose London Cycling Campaign Code of Practice which too many conditions on acquiring space within the they suggested to the ODA,13 that a version of this compulsory purchase area in order to provide things could be of useful assistance to reducing collisions, like cycle parking, but we do feel that the particularly the sections on driver14 training, the use of circumstances are such that the growth in cycling will additional mirrors and so on? mean that some sort of parking must be provided at (Mr Holladay) Yes, I think there is a lot to commend all stations, both on-street and, if possible, some of the LCC’s Olympic Lorry Code. It has actually been the examples we have given of secure cycle parking written by cyclists who are also lorry-drivers, so they can be done on a local authority/TfL subsidised level. do understand both sides of the fence in this respect. The examples from San Francisco and from Holland Item 9 is quite interesting as well. With a London bus, and various places show that these things do actually most of the major operators issue their drivers with result in a large increase in casual cycle use for short cards which cover section 170 of the Road TraYc Act trips. It would be very useful to have an analysis of requirement so that, if you have a crash or any the time savings that could be made if one in 20 incident with a bus, the driver simply hands you the Crossrail journeys was actually made by bike, using card and says, “Don’t have an argument with me. the access or the egress modes from those central Just phone my boss and there are all my details”. I stations. On the carriage issues, I think again the think that is the sort of identification that can go into evidence from a lot of other providers and rail this procedure. Buses also are required by law to have companies both in this country and elsewhere the operator’s name and address in letters on the indicates that peak-time bans and the complete nearside so that you can immediately identify the liberty to use services do exist and can operate and, vehicle and the owner. This identification issue, I although it would be our ideal solution to have no think, is very important. The ability to get back to ban at all, a peak-time ban, I think, would be at least somebody and report a hazardous occurrence, bad a minimum requirement that we think would be driving or whatever is absolutely essential. suitable for a new development such as this, given Intelligence speed application systems, as we know again the likelihood of an increase in cycle traYc in from the Metropolitan Police on 3,000 vehicles the future. I think that more or less covers our introducing black boxes, cut down the number of Petition and our comments. Mr Holladay, is there minor incidents. The ability to monitor the way anything else you wanted to say? vehicles are used in town is very important and (Mr Holladay) I think possibly reflecting on the intelligence speed application can be fitted to modern policy we drew up at the CTC, described simply in vehicles. One bus operator has done this, Epsom terms of cycle carriage, we prefer management rather Coaches, and restricted their buses that only operate than policing and, to some extent, it may even reflect within a 30 mph speed limit to 30 mph. As a result, that we go for pricing, although that is a contentious driver stress was reduced and minor incidents were issue when people have had a free service for a very reduced. I can see an application here where you may long time, but the ability to take a bike on a train, if 13 you want to, is something which can be managed like (LINEWD-93 05-009) 14 a market demand. Obviously when the trains are (LINEWD-93Committee Ref: 05-010) A6, CTC Exhibit C: Lorries and cyclists fairly empty and you want to get more passengers on, Committee Ref: A6, CTC Exhibit C: Lorries and cyclists Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
158 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club attracting them on with bicycles is a benefit. If the that was a matter that the ODA had actually already trains are full and, going by London standards, you carried out as part of their transport assessment, yes? have more passengers than you have got capacity on (Mr Holladay) Yes. the trains, you have to use every available space for passengers and discourage people. The management 1578. Item 2, compulsory adoption by contractors of side of it is to provide attractive alternatives, like the Health & Safety at Work Regulations, that is a secure places to park bikes overnight or readily statutory requirement, so that was being done in any available cycle hire at stations which is easily event, yes? accessible to the same standards as if you were (Mr Holladay) In respect of managing work-related travelling on the train with your own bike, so the road safety, there is a number of issues on that, I transparency should be that you either travel on the think, that do come up because there were diVering train with your own bike and get oV at the station and standards being quoted. make the journey or, if you cannot travel with your own bike, you get oV at the station and immediately 1579. Item 3, the European Directive, now, that is accessible is either a bike that you have left there actually to be implemented later this year, is it not? overnight or the previous day or there is a hire bike (Mr Holladay) That is correct, yes. which is convenient to use for the journey you wish to undertake in town. 1580. So there is no doubt that that will be the law by the time Crossrail— 1572. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, you may want to (Mr Holladay) That is on all new vehicles, but then deal with this, but I think we will not do it now. again you have to make sure that the old vehicles are up to standard, do you not? 1573. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, there is only one very small issue, important, but small, which I was going 1581. Then my notes say that 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were all to cross-examine on because, as I have indicated rejected by the ODA. before, where there are primary issues of fact, and (Mr Holladay) I would not know exactly on that one. this Petition is really all about policy and judgment, I would suggest that the more eYcient way for the 1582. Then item 9, identification of vehicles, they did Committee to deal with it, rather than me making a accept that, wherever it was practicable to do so. rather tedious meal of the issue through cross- (Mr Holladay) Yes. examination, is just to proceed to call Mr Berryman, but I just have one thing I would like to ask Mr 1583. MS LIEVEN: I will ask Mr Berryman to Holladay and perhaps I could do that now. comment on to what we can do in respect of construction vehicles when he gives evidence, if that 1574. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you do that. is acceptable. 1584. CHAIRMAN: But I think not until ten to 12. Cross-examined byMsLieven 15 The witness withdrew 1575. MS LIEVEN: This is only in respect of the After a short break ODA position and the Lorry Code that you put up which is, I think, your Exhibit C. Now, what this 1585. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, I think one of the was, was the Lorry Code that was put forward by the things most helpful for us and, I am sure, for the CTC London Cycling Campaign, was it not? would be if you could explore with Mr Berryman to (Mr Holladay) That is correct. what extent you may be able to meet the points that they have been making this morning. I appreciate 1576. And it was not actually accepted by the ODA. that you probably cannot meet all of them, but the I have a note of the ODA’s position somewhere. extent to which you can would be very helpful. Quite a lot of these things they did not accept. Are you aware of that? 1586. MS LIEVEN: Yes, and, my Lord, in order to (Mr Holladay) I am aware that there were expedite matters, I might lead Mr Berryman a little contentious issues, yes. bit, but hopefully your Lordships will not mind and, if you or Mr Peck feel I am going beyond a line, I will 1577. If I just run through it, item 1, which is routes of course stop. and junctions around the Olympic sites to determine likely pedestrian, cyclist and motorcycle flows, well, 1587. CHAIRMAN: I thought I noticed that Mr 15 Peck might have been doing something a bit similar (LINEWD-93 05-010) this morning! Committee Ref: A6, CTC Exhibit C: Lorries and cyclists Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 159
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
1588. MS LIEVEN: Well, he might have been, my company which is the successful bidder for that Lord, but, to be fair to Mr Peck, as he explained franchise. fairly, he is not a barrister. 1593. At what point is that likely to be decided? MrKeithBerryman, recalled (Mr Berryman) That will not be for some time yet. Examined byMsLieven The appointment of the TOC would probably take place a couple of years before the railway opens and 1589. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, we obviously do it is very unlikely that it would be done before then. not need to go through your CV again, but could you just explain for the Petitioner’s benefit what your 1594. In terms of the likely policy, I think the carriage position with Crossrail is? of cycles in peak periods is not really an issue, and I (Mr Berryman) I am the Managing Director of Cross think the CTC understand that that may well not be London Rail Links which is a joint-venture company acceptable, but I just wanted to look at the oV-peak between Transport for London and the Department times. Surface sections, I think we anticipate that it is for Transport established to promote this scheme. likely that bicycles will be able to be carried on surface sections oV-peak. Is that right? 1590. Now, so far as making provision on Crossrail (Mr Berryman) Yes, I think it is very unlikely that for the carriage of cycles on trains is concerned, can either the franchising authority or the TOC would you just explain the position on that? have any problem with that and we would expect that (Mr Berryman) Yes, it might be a good moment just to be the case. to explain what the rolling stock is likely to look like on Crossrail. Crossrail is a very high-intensity service 1595. On the sub-surface sections, which is what I with a lot of passengers, particularly in the central have described as the ‘central tunnel sections’, can section, and a frequent service, so it needs to be able you just explain to the Committee what the problems to unload and load quickly, so it will be a train with are with committing now to taking cycles on those lots of doors and not many seats. The actual layout sections? inside the trains is not decided yet, but there will be (Mr Berryman) Yes, the issue really is to do with space, as we mentioned yesterday, to be occupied by London Underground Limited and the connection wheelchair-users, for large luggage, prams and the that we have with their network. As I think was like, and that could also be used by cyclists. Indeed, explained by the Cyclists’ Touring Club witness, the lobbies in the doors will be very substantial and bicycles are not allowed on the Tube-style trains, the they can also be used by cyclists, so there will be small-diameter trains, and he explained why that plenty of room for cyclists during the oV-peak. was, but there are a number of other issues as well. Obviously, during the peak, we expect the trains to be The platform space on those stations is very limited, very crowded. As far as the lifts are concerned from there is the potential for bicycles to be ridden on the the deep-level stations, as was heard yesterday, they platform, though I am sure no responsible cyclist are substantially 16-person lifts on all the deep-level would do that, but some people do it, and there are underground stations, so they are comfortably big conflicts between ordinary passengers and cyclists enough for bicycles to go up and down. Therefore, with the limited space, so London Underground have there is no barrier in the construction which is a very strong presumption that bicycles should not be proposed for Crossrail which would prevent bicycles carried on their Tube network. They can be carried being carried. on the sub-surface network, the large trains, like the District Line and the Metropolitan Line, but not on 1591. CHAIRMAN: Except when there are not the Tube trains, and I think the witness explained any lifts. that already. The problem with Crossrail is that there (Mr Berryman) Actually I think bicyclists tend to is no barrier between our deep-level stations and carry their bicycles up and down staircases where London Underground stations, so, once a bicycle is there is not a lift. in the system, the Underground are frightened that that would enable a bicycle to be taken on to their 1592. MS LIEVEN: In terms of carriage on the system where bicycles are not allowed. Now, of trains, first of all, just explain to us who will decide course that may change before the railway is built. the policy as to at what time cycles can go on trains Cycling policy is something that is developing all the and in what sections. time. I think there is a greater appreciation of the (Mr Berryman) Well, the policy will be decided by value of cycling now than perhaps was previously the the franchising authority. Under the current case, so we do not actually know what the position arrangements being worked out between the will be in 2017, but, if things stay as they are, the Department and Transport for London, that is likely working assumption will be that cycles would not be to be Transport for London and the train operating allowed on the deep-level trains. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
160 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
1596. If we were to unilaterally impose a policy at this (Mr Berryman) No. stage on Crossrail that said bicycles would go through the central section, how diYcult would that 1602. They are immutable? make life for LUL in their deep-level tubes? (Mr Berryman) They are immutable I fear, yes. (Mr Berryman) I think they would consider that to be a very serious problem for them. The reluctance to carry bicycles on the deep-level tube is a very 1603. MS LIEVEN: Merseyrail, Mr Berryman, can longstanding policy with them and, as things stand you explain in this respect what the key diVerence today, they would be reluctant to change that. between Crossrail and Merseyrail is? (Mr Berryman) Whether that can be varied over time, whether we can Merseyrail operates what I think is called a courtesy policy in the peak, so they try and come to some satisfactory arrangement to make sure discourage passengers from carrying bicycles, but at that people do not take their bicycles from one side of other times they are allowed and they are allowed in the station to the other, I am not sure at this stage, but the underground section. The first thing to say is certainly that would be the current position. Merseyrail is very much less busy than the London network generally is. All the trains and all the 1597. Just to make it absolutely clear, if one was platforms there are full-sized trains, they are not going to interchange between Crossrail at Tottenham Tube trains, so there is no question of bicycle users Court Road and the Northern Line at Tottenham taking their bicycle from a large-sized train into an Court Road, if someone could bring a bicycle from unsuitable train, that just does not happen on Crossrail into the deep section of Tottenham Court Merseyrail because there is no Tube network. Road is there any way, other than having lots and lots of staV standing at corners, to stop people just taking 1604. Thank you. I am going to leave16 the other their bike on to the Northern Line? international examples at this stage and move on to (Mr Berryman) No, there is nothing, nor on to the cycle parking issues. Can we put up our Exhibit 3, Central Line. please, which shows the cycle parking. First of all, is it right to say, as I said in opening, that the only two stations where there is no provision planned at the 1598. No, I just used the Northern Line as an current time for cycle parking are Tottenham Court example, but it is true of all the deep-level tunnels? Road and Bond Street? (Mr Berryman) It is indeed. (Mr Berryman) That is correct.
1599. MS LIEVEN: We have heard various 1605. Mr Holladay made lots of reference to lots of examples of elsewhere but the only one I want to ask things that might happen in terms of the Mayor’s you about at this stage is Liverpool and the encouragement of more cycling, things like secured Merseyrail system. cycle parking, free bicycle provision within Central London, issues such as that. To what degree in your view is it appropriate that Crossrail through the 1600. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Crossrail Bill should be taking steps in respect of Just before you move oV this, I think we might as well those kinds of initiatives? clear this point. I understand exactly the point you (Mr Berryman) Those initiatives are other parts of are making in relation to those deep-level tunnel the transport policy for London overall which is set areas and the interchange points with London by the Mayor and Transport for London. Of course, Underground, but is there any way that the station whilst we welcome anything which improves the design could be altered so that people could not journey quality of our passengers, it is not our place transfer bikes? Has that been looked at? to restructure the whole of the transport provision (Mr Berryman) That would be counterproductive to for this kind of thing through the whole of London. the main aim of the railway which is specifically to Things like the bicycle hiring system and so on is a allow free transfer between various lines so that the mayoral initiative and something which is more system works more eYciently and so on. It is hard to appropriately done by the Mayor rather than by think of any way of putting up a barrier to stop this project. bicycles which does not also stop PRM passengers, or even parents with buggies or whatever. 1606. Where it has been possible to do so, such as at Farringdon and Whitechapel, to what degree has 1601. BARONESS FOOKES: The basic Crossrail worked with the local authorities to ensure infrastructure, that is the narrowness of the actual bicycle parking? Tube size and so on, there is no way that is going to 16 be altered, is there? 93 04-006) Crossrail Ref: P13, Cycle parking at stations (LINEWD- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 161
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
(Mr Berryman) Most local authorities in the UK 1611. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: encourage the use of cycles now, and I think all the Are you saying that you have done the same sort of local authorities involved with Crossrail do. The in-depth analysis of the possibilities in conjunction London Boroughs of Camden and Tower Hamlets, with the local authority at Bond Street and which are the two boroughs primarily involved there, Tottenham Court Road as you have with the others? but also the City of Corporation, are all very keen to Whilst I understand that you cannot be expected to ensure that parking facilities are provided. solve all these problems and there are joint responsibilities, nevertheless we talk about an integrated transport system and we have got an 1607. MS LIEVEN: I think that may be a little hard opportunity here to do as much as we possibly can to on the London Borough of Islington actually because make that concept a reality. What I want to ensure is it is Islington that is responsible for Farringdon. that you have diligently explored every possibility (Mr Berryman) I had forgotten that. Yes, you are with the local authority for the reason Mr Holladay quite right. The problem is ameliorated to some gave, which is designing something in or trying to extent there by the fact that certain streets are going anticipate, is a damn sight easier, if you will pardon to be closed and pedestrianised and that creates space the vernacular, than it is trying to retrospectively deal for reasonable and good quality bicycle parking. For with the situation. example, at Whitechapel, when your Lordships went (Mr Berryman) As far as the stations themselves are to visit it we walked through the back of the station, concerned, we have explored with the local if you remember, into a large open area. That will be authorities that there are no road closures associated pedestrianised and it is expected that bicycle parking with those and there is no space where significant will be provided there. It is outside our limits, it is not bicycle parking could be established. However, as I something that we are acquiring land to do, but it is think was explained in opening, there are also what something we will do jointly with the local authority we call over-site development opportunities at all of in the area. On all of these examples that is the case. these stations and we are currently exploring with in particular Westminster whether some of those over- 1608. Take Farringdon as an example, Mr Holladay site development opportunities may themselves made the point that often infrastructure planning, result in street closures. I have to say that is what is called retrofitting, so coming along later and something that is completely outside the scope of this adding something in, can be very problematic and Bill, it is something which is associated with the expensive but if, for instance, at Farringdon he was developments above the station. If that eventuates, right to say that with the advent of Thameslink 2000 and negotiations with authorities on these matters lots and lots of people were getting from Farringdon are not always easy, then there may be a possibility of to St Pancras and it was convenient for them to leave doing something at that stage. their bike at Farringdon, how easy will it be after Crossrail opens, or maybe before it but not now, to 1612. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is going to be a matter provide extra bicycle parking on Cowcross Street for the local planning authority, is it not? outside Farringdon Station? (Mr Berryman) Indeed. (Mr Berryman) That would be relatively easy because Cowcross Street is a street which runs 1613. MS LIEVEN: Take Bond Street as an outside Farringdon Station between Farringdon example, and I have to say because it is one I know Road and the back of the station and that will be well, if Westminster in future years decided to extend pedestrianised. There is quite a lot of space there. It pedestrianisation into Davies Street or South would be easy to add additional facilities later on if Moulton Street and they wanted to provide bicycle such a need was demonstrated. parking there, is that something that would be within their control? (Mr Berryman) It is. 1609. MS LIEVEN: The last point on cycle parking, Mr Holladay— 1614. One other thing on cycle parking just because Mr Holladay mentioned it. There was mention of the 1610. CHAIRMAN: But not at Bond Street? secure bicycle facility that has now been provided at (Mr Berryman) I am afraid at Bond Street and Finsbury Park. Could you just explain the diVerences Tottenham Court Road it is not really possible to between that and what could or could not be done at identify any space where such a facility could be Bond Street or Tottenham Court Road? provided. The area, as you will know, is very (Mr Berryman) Yes. As it happens, just by congested and there are no big spaces where we are coincidence, when I was a director of the SRA I was closing roads or anything like that where such a very peripherally involved in the provision of that provision could be provided. facility. My recollection is it was on, if you like, a Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
162 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club freestanding building constructed on a separate site Shopping Centre. That may be a more appropriate some 50 or so yards away from the station. It is an location. excellent facility. It has got undercover parking for bicycles on racks and everything, it has got a bicycle 1620. Is that closer? repairman downstairs and I think it has even possibly (Mr Berryman) That is closer, yes. got bicycle hiring. The point about it is it was on a site that was available and part of a comprehensive re- jigging in particular of the bus station which was 1621. I would not have thought that Moulton Street being considered at the time, although I am not sure was so far as to be unmanageable and it does have a if it was ever actually done. The thing that made it very broad area which is not— feasible was the fact that there was land available and (Mr Berryman) It does, you are right. It is kind of a suitable site could be found. That is obviously much outside what we would normally consider our area of easier at a site which in a relatively less built up part influence but you are right, yes. than, say, Bond Street or Tottenham Court Road. 1622. I just oVer it as a thought. I was trying to think 1615. BARONESS FOOKES: I just want to pursue about that whole area. The next area is Wigmore the point made by Lord Young on this question of Street on the other side of Oxford Street. the division of responsibility, shall we call it. We fully (Mr Berryman) That, I think, would be too far away. take it that you do not have certain responsibilities about which the cyclists are anxious, but one can take 1623. MS LIEVEN: Taking South Moulton Street what one might call a sort of passive attitude and wait as an example, Mr Berryman, is there any reason why for the local authorities to come to you or you can Crossrail, or you in particular, would have any take the active side and say, “How can we discuss this problem with bicycle parking in South Moulton with you at this stage?” Which is it? Street? It is really a matter for Westminster. (Mr Berryman) My Lady, I would not like to say (Mr Berryman) Not at all. On the contrary, we would anything unkind about local authorities but I am welcome it. afraid bitter experience tells us that if you take the passive attitude then quite often something does not 1624. It may be that store owners in South Moulton happen. We try to take a fairly proactive attitude as Street would feel aggrieved about it, but that is a far as we can. matter for Westminster. (Mr Berryman) As the Lord Chairman said, that is a 1616. That was what I was hoping you might say. I matter for local authorities to deal with and it is part presume there is no reason either, of course, why of the planning process. quite independently of Crossrail and all its works the cycling club should not pursue these points with 1625. Thank you. Can we move on to the final topic individual stations, but that is for them. then, which is construction traYc. I think we can give (Mr Berryman) I believe that they are a very active some assistance on this subject and I am going to lead lobbying organisation and do pursue local on this if that is all right. First of all, we are quite authorities on these matters on a regular basis. happy to give an assurance to the Cyclists’ Touring Club, the Petitioners, that when we carry out site 1617. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: In the induction procedure for lorry drivers, and I think we quest for open space around the Bond Street area will carry out site induction procedure for all staV there is one pedestrianised street that I am aware of, on site— which I think is Moulton Street, is it? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. (Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes. 1626. --- we will include within that a module on cycle 1618. But Moulton Street is not used for cycle awareness. Is that right? parking at the moment, I think (Mr Berryman) That is correct. (Mr Berryman) No, it is not. Moulton Street is a little way away from our station actually. 1627. So we are quite happy for that assurance to be given to the CTC, and we give it expressly to the CTC 1619. Nothing is perfect. as Petitioner, and that assurance should be on the (Mr Berryman) Nothing is perfect. In connection record. I think we can also assure the CTC that when with the over-site development, or over-station we responded to their House of Commons’ Petition development, we are talking about possibly we said we would maintain a dialogue with them pedestrianising part of Weighhouse Street, which is about the carriage of cycles on Crossrail, do you the street between our station and the West One remember that? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 163
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
(Mr Berryman) I do remember that. diYcult to manage them. There are actually a few places on the job where we will have to use smaller 1628. I think we would also be happy to include lorries simply because bigger ones would be within that assurance to the CTC that we will have a inappropriate, but for general use it will be four axle dialogue with them about appropriate training for lorries. I should say we are making strenuous eVorts lorry drivers, so if they want to tell us things that to avoid as far as possible moving spoil out of ought to go into the module we will talk about that London by lorry. We cannot avoid it completely, I with them. am afraid, but what we are trying to do is make as (Mr Berryman) That is right. much use as possible of the tunnels themselves, to make as much use of railway freight as possible, and 1629. Are you happy to do that? to make use of barges where possible. So the (Mr Berryman) Happy to do that. intention is that the starting point is the fewer lorry movements there are the better. Where it is 1630. Following the ODA’s example, we are happy to unavoidable—and it is sometimes unavoidable— encourage all contractors to provide further cycle then it needs to be controlled. awareness training for lorry drivers as a matter of encouragement, is that right? 1636. BARONESS FOOKES: I am not sure what (Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes. the position is or will be in relation to congestion charging, but is there likely to be a greater input the 1631. Just a couple of other points. I think the larger the vehicle or the number of vehicles? Is it position is that lorries serving Crossrail will be possible to look forward? identified as being for that purpose wherever (Mr Berryman) It is very much a matter for the practical. That is our current policy, is it not? Mayor as regards congestion charging. We will have (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is generally the case, to pay the congestion charge, of course, but what the although there may be some instances, such as Mayor’s policy will be—and indeed who will be the suppliers perhaps of concrete or something like that, Mayor—from time to time, we do not know. The where a vehicle is identified prominently by the firm congestion charge has gone up significantly already, which provides the vehicle. Generally speaking, all as you know, and is likely to go up further. It is a very the vehicles which are on hire to our contractors or long way ahead as far as that is concerned. subcontractors will be identified as Crossrail vehicles. 1637. CHAIRMAN: It is only the local highway 1632. Another aspect of concern on this subject authorities who can change the layout, for instance which the CTC have raised, which we touch on in our the street junctions, is it not? Petition Response document, is that of lorry routes (Mr Berryman) Yes. and their interaction with cyclists. Can you just explain how lorry routes will be dealt with? 1638. If we cast our minds back to Spitalfields and if (Mr Berryman) It is set out in the Bill that lorry they are going to improve the traYc system there, the routes need to be approved by the local authority. road system, it is only Tower Hamlets that can do They will take into account issues of pedestrian safety that? and bicycle safety when they make such approvals. (Mr Berryman) It is only Tower Hamlets who can approve it and design it; I expect they would want us 1633. Is that a matter that the local authority will to pay for it. have full control over? (Mr Berryman) It is. 1639. I am sure they would, but it is in their hands? (Mr Berryman) It is in their hands, indeed. 1634. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: The point made about size of lorries, can any amelioration be made on that? There is a sort of 1640. BARONESS FOOKES: And you would be trade-oV, I guess, size over frequency? willing so to do, that is pay for it? (Mr Berryman) There is indeed. (Mr Berryman) We do not have a lot of choice, my Lady! 1635. So what consideration have you given to that aspect? 1641. MS LIEVEN: As far as our last issue is (Mr Berryman) Normally, as the Petition said, we concerned if, for instance, we are putting lorries use four axle lorries. That is the size which seems to be down a street in Spitalfields, which is well used by the optimum in terms of balancing between the size of bicycles, could part of the traYc management plan be the vehicle and the number of movements that take that we erect alternative signs for cycle routes to take place. If you go smaller than that it becomes very them away from our lorry routes? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
164 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
(Mr Berryman) I think that is something that we 1650. In addition to that you will note that you can would need to agree with the local authority, and of already take your bicycle outside of peak hours on all course we would be willing to do that if it is practical the sub-surface routes—the District Line, Circle to do so. In that particular area I cannot recall if there Line, Hammersmith and City? is a designated cycle route there anyway, but if there (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct. was we would certainly be willing to do that. 1651. So already you are in the position where you 1642. I was not thinking of any particular cycle route, can take your cycle with you on these sub-surface it is just that it is an area with which some Members routes, which are integrated underground stations, of the Committee are familiar because we have and transfer through a deep level tube? already been on a site visit. (Mr Berryman) To some extent that is true. Baker (Mr Berryman) Yes. In principle the answer to your Street is a good example because the interchange question is yes. between Baker Street sub-surface lines and the tube lines is not an easy one—you cannot just walk straight through whereas you will be able to between 1643. The last question on lorry routes, is it generally Crossrail and the Northern Line at Tottenham Court our approach to try to get lorries on to the strategic Road; at that station there will just be a level road network as quickly as possible away from our connection with a very simple way down to the other sites? line. At Baker Street you would have to go down an (Mr Berryman) Yes, very much so. escalator which, even for a cyclist, carrying a bicycle is not that easy down an escalator. 1644. Is that something of assistance to cyclists in terms of getting lorries out of the less used streets 1652. But it is the case at the moment—and I speak where there might be more cycling usage? from personal experience here, I have carried my (Mr Berryman) I am not sure it is more cycle usage bicycle into central London illegally from an external but the less used and narrower streets obviously line into central London and changed on to a deep present more of a hazard in terms of interaction level tube—you could see that could occur? between diVerent road users, not just cyclists but also (Mr Berryman) It can occur but, as I am sure you pedestrians as well. know and you have just remarked it is very strongly discouraged by London Underground Limited. 1645. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much, Mr Berryman; those are all my questions. 1653. But could it not be the case for TOC-operated Crossrail also to strongly discourage this practice? 1646. CHAIRMAN: Mr Peck, do you have any (Mr Berryman) It could be but, as I say, it is questions? something which will need to be decided nearer the time involving Transport for London and the TOC. 1647. MR PECK: A few, my Lord. It is something, speaking purely personally, I cannot see that it would be a disaster if bicycles were carried but we do have to respect the wishes of the other Cross-examined byMrPeck transport operators involved.
1648. MR PECK: First of all, on the carriage issues, 1654. Why do you think that the system in New York Mr Berryman, is it not the case that on the deep level and Glasgow operate with a flexible provision tubes at the moment you can take your bicycle, say, entirely? There is no ban at all; why do you think from High Barnet to East Finchley on the Northern that is? Line? (Mr Berryman) I have absolutely no idea at all. (Mr Berryman) I believe that is the case, yes. 1655. CHAIRMAN: You either know or you do 1649. Say, for instance, you were carrying your not know. bicycle on the High Barnet to East Finchley section (Mr Berryman) I have no idea at all. and you carried on on that with your bicycle, you could easily get into the tube network that way; there 1656. MR PECK: Moving on to parking, I is no one stopping you at East Finchley to take your appreciate your comments that Crossrail is not bicycle oV if you happen to have it with you at that responsible for carrying out the wishes of us and time? other people who may want policy changes, but is it (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right; there is nobody not the case that you are half owned by the stopping you. That is a question you would have to Department of Transport and Transport for put to London Underground. London? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 165
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct. (Mr Berryman) The total volume of material that needs to be moved is very substantial—it is about 1657. Do you have regular dialogue with them to eight million cubic metres. We are aiming to move discuss their change in policy? more than half of that, so you could say four and a (Mr Berryman) Yes, we do. half to five million cubic metres by means other than the highway. We may be able to increase that—we have some interesting ideas we are working on as to 1658. Do their policies influence your choice of how we might increase that, but I would not like to design and accommodation of the stations? go further than that at this stage. (Mr Berryman) Yes, they do, very much so. 1665. Will that mostly be carried out through the 1659. Have you had a dialogue with Transport for tunnel? By which modes of transport will that spoil London or indeed the Mayor’s oYce since the be removed? announcement in February? (Mr Berryman) It will be moved from the point (Mr Berryman) About the increased cycle routes? where it is excavated to a rail head or a barge head by conveyor and then it will be taken away by train or 1660. Yes and the 6,000 free bicycles which were by barge. provided at key destinations? (Mr Berryman) No, we have not had a specific 1666. Do you have a published plan for achieving discussion with them about that but we will be doing that? so in due course. I think that the two projects, the (Mr Berryman) Yes, we do. bicycle rental project and Crossrail, are to a large extent independent one of the other. It may well be 1667. MR PECK: That is all, thank you. that they choose to have hire stations near our train stations and that will be a very sensible thing to do 1668. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Mr but they are not necessarily interlinked in quite the 17 Berryman, on the Southern rail network that I use positive way that you are implying by your question. frequently, and which passes through Gatwick, we have carriages that are intended to provide an 1661. Can I refer to my evidence at page 7? Again, arrangement to put a folding bicycle. This leads to a since they do say that they will be focusing at key lot of confusion between those with luggage and destinations, such as railway stations and major those with a folding bicycle because the manner in attractions, could you envisage in the future which the racks are laid out is an open invitation to dialogues with TfL engaging with them to design put the folded bicycle flat on the top deck, which Crossrail stations to accommodate such docking therefore means that it excludes any possibility of stations? putting cases on it. Are you going to have any better (Mr Berryman) Yes, I would be astonished if we did arrangement in these carriages that does not result in not engage with them to do that. that conflict? (Mr Berryman) I think the design of the rolling stock, 1662. On any of the over-site developments with my Lord, is something which is a little way oV yet. At Westminster City Council, is Westminster City the moment our specification for rolling stock is set Council responsible for the planning issues regarding in very broad terms about things like the number of those over-site developments? seats and the number of doors and the power system, (Mr Berryman) They are. and so on. I do not think the designers have got down to that kind of detail just yet. 1663. Will they be carried out by third parties in all circumstances in terms of the private developer 1669. I am a great believer in designing contention looking at the over-site? out of things, so I hope that you do it. (Mr Berryman) We have what we call collaboration (Mr Berryman) So am I. agreements with a number of private developers who are eVectively our partners in those developments. 1670. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Lord James has anticipated the point I wanted to 1664. In terms of the lorry movements, could you try debate, but just to pursue that because I think it is an and estimate or set a target for the amount of spoil important area in as much as this is trying to get the which will be removed by water and rail or through right balance in terms of potential wheelchair usage, the tunnel itself? cycle carriage, luggage, etcetera; it is going to make
17 for an interesting design challenge. I am interested to cycling and walking in London” Mayor of London press release, ensure that you are going to take into account a 11 February 2008 (LINEWD-93 05-007) reasonable assessment of all those factors. As soon as Committee Ref: A6, “Mayor unveils programme to transform Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
166 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
I use the word “reasonable” I know that that is a (Mr Berryman) They will. broad term, but what sort of percentage of carriage space would you allow, for example? You must have 1677. Are they likely to be concerned about ensuring looked at other rolling stock and said, “In those areas that there is suYcient space for bicycles? we would allow 20 to 30 per cent of a particular (Mr Berryman) Yes, they are, as I think has been carriage.” I am interested in the criteria that you explained by both the Petitioners and ourselves. would apply in making those assessments. Encouragement of cycling is an important facet of (Mr Berryman) If you want to look at current trends their transport policy. in rolling stock design I think the recent stock on the Jubilee Line gives you a very good idea of how the 1678. MS LIEVEN: Just to give the Committee seats are likely to be laid out. First of all, most of the some comfort. Those are all my questions for Mr seats are likely to be longitudinal, that is to say not Berryman. facing or back to the engine—we do not say that any more, but you know what I mean—so that the seats will be along the sides of the cars. And every so often, 1679. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Berryman. probably at one door in each car there will be a space where there are no seats, there are just bump seats— The witness withdrew a little thing you can perch on at the side—and those are the spaces where you would expect people with 1680. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, do you want to add buggies, people with big lumps of luggage, people anything in closing? with bicycles and wheelchair users to use. Then every so often in those there will be locks for wheelchair 1681. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, if I can detain the users because if you are in a train in a wheelchair one Committee for about two minutes just to pull some of of the things you do not want to do is that every time the points together. The Committee has all the points the train stops is to go surging forwards or but as far as bikes and trains are concerned the backwards, so you need locks for wheelchairs. So it is carriages will be designed so that there is space. There balancing all those diVerent kinds of uses which will will be consultation through the appropriate parts of be part of the challenge for the rolling stock Crossrail to ensure that we have the balance right designers. and—to take Lord James’ point on board—to take into account current best practice and lessons learnt 1671. BARONESS FOOKES: Given these from elsewhere. complexities is there any idea of having a full-scale mock-up of such a carriage so that the potential users 1682. As far as when bikes are allowed and on what can look and see whether it works or not? parts are concerned, I would urge the Committee that (Mr Berryman) There will be mock-ups constructed is not a matter which should be decided now. We are before the real things are constructed, yes. entirely cognisant of the level of support for bicycle usage and obviously TfL is half of Crossrail and TfL 1672. And you will give the opportunity for people is very, very strongly in favour of more bicycles, but who are not “experts” but likely users to have the it would not be right to adopt a policy now as a chance to look at these? unilateral step which is inconsistent with London (Mr Berryman) I am not sure that we have thought Underground’s very longstanding policy and which that through, my Lady. could cause London Underground very great operational problems. It is really an issue which 1673. May I suggest that you do? needs to be addressed at the appropriate time, but as (Mr Berryman) We will do so. part of an integrated transport strategy, which I can assure the Committee it will be with Network Rail, 1674. MS LIEVEN: Can I ask one question in re- London Underground, other parts of TfL and the examination, my Lord, to give some comfort on Department of Transport. carriage design? 1683. Cycle parking, again, to assure the Committee that we have worked positively with local 1675. CHAIRMAN: Yes. authorities—Islington and Tower Hamlets are good examples of that—and we will continue to do so, but Re-examined byMsLieven to a large extent much of the evidence which Mr Holladay gave is really outside our control. If TfL 1676. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, given Transport want to have free bike use, then it is for them to go to for London’s role in this project, will they have some Camden or Tottenham Court Road, Westminster or say in the design of carriages? Bond Street and talk about where that can be Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 167
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club provided. It is not something that Crossrail can the Travellers Group are likely to be particularly take on. long. We then come to Habitat who have withdrawn.
1684. On construction traYc, again, to reassure the 1692. CHAIRMAN: I think they have withdrawn. Committee, we are very aware of the concerns and of the issues which arise around construction lorries. 1693. MS LIEVEN: Not quite withdrawn, but they We have given the assurance to the CTC that we will are very, very unlikely to come. Sir John Cass’s include cycle awareness in site induction programmes Foundation, it is an issue about lorries close to a and we will encourage contractors to take that on school and we are still in discussion with them, we board in their own training as well, so it is something just do not know at this stage whether they are going we have very much got in mind and will take forward to come or not. Mr Middleton, who is about talking to CTC. I think those are the main issues, extending the route to, amongst other places, Milton unless there is anything else. Keynes will undoubtedly come. We will say that he goes outside the principle of the Bill. It is really more in your Lordship’s hands and Mr Middleton’s as to 1685. CHAIRMAN: Mr Peck, do you wish to say how long he takes. The Smithfield Market Traders’ anything finally? Association are likely to come before your Lordships but there is programming to be done about 1686. MR PECK: There is one thing I do want to say precisely where. about the cycle carriage use, we did not think it was appropriate to discuss them here because we felt that 1694. CHAIRMAN: I gather they want a day. was a matter for detailed discussion at a later date and we have obviously very strong views on the 1695. MS LIEVEN: Yes. subject that we anticipate that being done through a process of consultation. Perhaps with hindsight we might have brought those issues to your attention as 1696. CHAIRMAN: There probably is not much well today. It is a pity we did not. use going into Tuesday afternoon.
1697. MS LIEVEN: I think perhaps the best thing is 1687. CHAIRMAN: We are very grateful to you if to leave that to Mr Walker and your clerk’s very you are doing so, but I think you will have to remain capable hands to discuss. Wednesday morning we very closely in touch with the various authorities have got a noise site visit, that will happen, and concerned with this. Wednesday afternoon we have got Mr Saunderson, who is the owner of some land close to Farringdon 1688. MR PECK: That would be a very good idea Station and his Petition is about compensation and it is very useful to air some of these issues today. eVectively. He will undoubtedly come, he came to the Thank you very much for the opportunity. House of Commons. I think in the House of Commons we took about an afternoon on him, it was one session, so we would predict it would be about 1689. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, before we finish the same. As I understand it, we now have nobody for today’s proceedings, I do not know whether it is Thursday because there has been to-ing and fro-ing helpful for me to go through next week to tell you about Thursday but it is a free day. what is and what is not likely to come before the Committee. 1698. As far as Smithfield’s is concerned, it is a compensation issue primarily and they did appear 1690. CHAIRMAN: I think we know but anyway, before the House of Commons. I think they took do that please. about a day, perhaps a little bit more, and I think they are raising not dissimilar issues again.
1691. MS LIEVEN: Monday afternoon we have got 1699. CHAIRMAN: We will try and get that Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and rearranged. the Open Spaces Society coming to talk about Dog Kennel Bridge. They will undoubtedly come so that will happen. Tuesday we have Tower Hamlets and 1700. MS LIEVEN: As I say, I think perhaps we will the Eleanor Street All Travellers Group coming to leave it to Mr Walker and the clerk. talk about the travellers’ site at Elm Street. We understand that Tower Hamlets will be about an 1701. CHAIRMAN: I am not going to try and hour and both of them will come. I do not think that rearrange it myself, I promise you! Processed: 14-08-2008 19:13:44 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401314 Unit: PAG1
168 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
28 February 2008 The Petition of the Cyclists’ Touring Club
1702. MS LIEVEN: I do not know what we have 1703. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That said to them about rearranging, so I am on very seems to be the end of business for this week. We will dangerous territory here. all assemble on Monday at 2.30pm. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 169
DAY SIX MONDAY 3 MARCH 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Jones of Cheltenham, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Snape, L Fookes, B Young of Norwood Green, L James of Blackheath, L
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
MrEugeneSuggett appeared as Agent
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
1704. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. Before we decision but it was a comment made in July 2006—but start, there are two points on which I would like the Ramblers and the Open Spaces Society were not clarification. We have now been given more maps with content with that change. the footpath links but I suppose the definitive map of South Buckinghamshire is the ultimate and I do not 1707. Going back to the story, the bridge lies between knowif anybodycan producethat, becauseit isalways Iver and Langley, crossing the Great Western a matter of joining up footpaths and making circular Railway. The scheme is to demolish the bridge and not routes and things. It may be that we do have enough in to provide a replacement. It is the issue of replacement the petitioners’ exhibits, but I just say that. The other which is really fundamental to the Petitioners, I thing is that I have here petitioners’ photograph K of understand. On the western section, west of Heathrow Dog Kennel Bridge and I would like to know a bit Junction—sometimes called Stockley Junction more about the fifth track, because I can see that there here—we are electrifying the track all the way up to will be problems with the fifth track at Dog Kennel Maidenhead and, also, at the location of Dog Kennel Bridge. Bridge, putting in a fifth track. There is power in the Bill to put in the fifth track. There is no issue that it 1705. MS LIEVEN: Perhaps I can weave those two would be possible to put it in, but it is for those two matters into my brief opening and Mr Berryman can reasons that Dog Kennel Bridge has to be demolished: give you much more detail in his evidence. the electrification and the fifth track. So far as electrification is concerned—Lord Snape will know far more about this than I—you have to put electric 1706. As your Lordships know, we are dealing this cables above the track. This means that bridges along afternoon with the Petition of the Ramblers the route either have to be demolished or the tracks Association, Open Spaces Society and Iver Parish have to be lowered or the tracks can be skewed in some Council and the one issue is Dog Kennel Bridge. 1 cases so that you have enough clearance between the Perhaps I could show the Committee on the route map top of the train and the bridge. One way or another, we because I am afraid we have leapt straight from the 2 have to increase the clearance at each of the bridges north east section into the west section. (Pause) Dog west of Stockley Junction. We have looked in detail— Kennel Bridge lies between Langley and Iver and Mr Berryman can tell the Committee about this— Stations. The first two Petitioners, the Ramblers at each bridge to see whether or not it is possible to Association and the Open Spaces Society, appeared lower the track, skew the track or whether we have to twice before the House of Commons’ Committee in demolish the bridge. The conclusion at Dog Kennel July 2006 and January 2007, the latter on Additional Bridge is that any solution other than demolition Provisions 3. In July 2006, the House of Commons would be disproportionately expensive but also could asked the parties to go away to consider a solution for have serious operational consequences. the problem. We did slightly change the alternative footpath arrangement in the light of the House of Commons decision—it was not part of their interim 1708. I should explain at this point that Dog Kennel
1 Bridge is one of the Brunel bridges along the route 2 west of Stockley Junction. It is one of four bridges 10 04-001) which the Secretary of State, on the advice of English Crossrail Line 1—Western Route (LINEWD-OPN1-015) Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links (BUCKCC- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
170 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
Heritage, listed in April 2006 as Grade II listed. We 1715. In the documentation it is clear that in 1992, entered into extensive negotiation with English British Rail, who at that stage wished to demolish the Heritage about these bridges and about the bridge, indeed got powers to do so in an Act in 1992. consequences of the listing. We have managed to So Parliament has already been given permission for preserve two of the listed bridges, but our conclusion this bridge to be demolished once, but it was part of is that two of the listed bridges, including Dog a scheme on the Great Western Line which was never Kennel Bridge, will have to be demolished. implemented, because of rail privatisation and lack of funds. At that stage there was a path creation 1709. CHAIRMAN: You will be able to tell us the agreement between Buckinghamshire County reasons why they were listed. Other than being built Council and British Rail Board which created the by Brunel, it may be there are other reasons. path to the north. It is quite clear from the documentation that it was expected at that stage that there was no footpath. Indeed, if we go to exhibit 8, 1710. MS LIEVEN: That is the fundamental your Lordships will see the sign which has been reason. 4 erected on the bridge for many years by the British Railways Board indicating that the way across the 1711. CHAIRMAN: It is historical. bridge is not dedicated to the public. As a matter of law, in my submission there is no possible doubt that 1712. MS LIEVEN: It is entirely historical. They are there is no public right of way across the bridge. That part of Brunel’s historic railway and they were is why we are under no legal obligation to replace. considered to be four good examples. It is perhaps worth noting, although I think it is perhaps a side 1716. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: issue today, that it is very diYcult to see Dog Kennel My knowledge of the law is a bit shaky in this area Bridge unless you are the driver of the train. The train but it does seem odd, when you say there is a footpath driver gets an excellent view of it; the walker gets to the north and there is a footpath to the south and virtually no view of the bridge at all. I think the there is a bridge between them, that there is no right position is that the passenger on the train gets very of way. Do they not establish some right of way by little view of it either because the line is quite straight using it over a period of time? I ask that as an at that location. There is not one of those side-on ignorant layperson. views that one sometimes gets. That is the history of the bridge. As I say, we have had a lot of discussion with English Heritage. English Heritage have not 1717. MS LIEVEN: Not ignorant in the least, petitioned and are content with the position where because your Lordship is right that it is possible to two are preserved and two are demolished. establish rights of way by usage—“by prescription” is the legal phrase—but here we have a clear legal situation in 1992 where there was no right of way 1713. The second issue in relation to Dog Kennel established, and from the date when the notice was Bridge is that of non-replacement of the bridge. That 3 erected—and we do not know precisely when that is the issue with which today’s Petitioners are really was but it was certainly erected in 1992—nobody concerned. Slide 04-023 shows the position on the could gain prescriptive rights because there is a notice ground. Dog Kennel Bridge is in the middle of the saying, in eVect, “You’re walking across this bridge plan and there is a footpath from the south which but you are doing it because I, the owner, am letting runs from the road up to Dog Kennel Bridge and you”. Since 1992 at least, there could be no there is a footpath to the north which runs from the prescriptive rights and there is no evidence before north side of the bridge up round the Bison Works that which has convinced Buckinghamshire County and up to the canal. There is, in my submission, no Council that there are any prescriptive rights at that issue that there is no public right of way or footpath stage. across the bridge.
1714. As far as the definitive map is concerned, my 1718. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Do Lord Chairman, we have not produced it because you have any idea why the bridge was built in the first there is no issue that on the definitive map the place and continued to exist? footpath runs up south of the railway, and runs north of the railway but there is no footpath across the 1719. MS LIEVEN: The bridge was undoubtedly bridge. Nobody has bothered to produce the being used as an accommodation bridge by the definitive map because that is not in issue. farmer. On photo 009 you will see a gate with a
3 4 Diversions (BUCKCC-10 04-023) along footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10 04-008) Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge—Alternative Footpath Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links E—Photograph Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 171
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association 5 and the Open Spaces Society padlock. The padlock and the gate are opened by the survey to find out whether, in fact, this was an farmer. Certainly now there is every reason to believe important path being used by people, even if not that, since the railway was built, the purpose of the under any legal right because as a responsible public bridge has been to allow the farmer, who farms both authority we would not want to be knocking down a north and south, to get his machinery or livestock— bridge and providing no replacement if this was a or whatever it may have been over the last 160-odd critical part of a footpath network which was well years—across the railway. I am slightly guessing now used, even if it was not used by law. On two weekends but Mr Berryman or Mr Mould will tell me if I have in June 2006 we surveyed the use of this bridge this wrong: the position now is that if you build a between eight in the morning and seven at night and road across a farm and you sever the two parts of the we found nobody, not a single person—there is the farm, the Highways Agency is under an obligation to evidence, but I am not sure the Committee need that build either an accommodation bridge or an (indicating)- that no-one crossed the bridge on those underpass to allow the farmer to continue to farm two weekends in June, quite a fair time to test because both halves. If you do not do that as the public it was good weather,6 it was in June, but it was not in authority, you have to buy the other half of the land the holidays, so you could not argue that everybody from the farmer. I am assuming that when Brunel was away, it seemed to us to be pretty clear, but also built this railway a similar principle would have if we go to exhibit --- applied. If the railway went though the farmer’s land and it was severed, then the Great Western Railway 1724. CHAIRMAN: Before you do, I think Lord Company would have been under an obligation to James has a question. build an accommodation bridge so the farmer could get his livestock backwards and forwards. 1725. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: It is a fiddly one but I am afraid it is because I do not know 1720. CHAIRMAN: The farmer might have the law in this area. I understand from both private petitioned! roads and access around where I am that there is a rule that the owners have to establish their rights by 1721. MS LIEVEN: He might well have done, but I closing the pathway or the road for one day in every am afraid we have not referred to Hansard to find out year in order to maintain their legal rights. Does any whether that is the case. That appears to be the such closure take place on this bridge? reason for the bridge. 1726. CHAIRMAN: No, you can put up a notice as 1722. LORD SNAPE: If Brunel built this bridge to well, can you not? allow the farmer to get from one field which he owned to another field which he owned, is there not any time in that intervening 160 years that a right of way could 1727. MS LIEVEN: The sign is good enough, my have been established. Lord, that acts as closure.
1723. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, it could have been 1728. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: You do established, yes. There is no doubt it could have been not have to close it to prove your authority? established, but the evidence is unequivocally that it was not established because in 1992 1729. MS LIEVEN: No. Buckinghamshire County Council, who were the Highway Authority and, therefore, responsible for 1730. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: public rights of way, entered into a path creation Secondly, why is it called the Dog Kennel Bridge? agreement so far as the land to the north was concerned which made it quite clear that there was no right of way over the railway. They are the statutory 1731. MS LIEVEN: I know the answer to that, my body with responsibility in the matter, and in 1992 Lord, because it is in the Ramblers’ exhibits. It is very they were satisfied there was no public right of way. I close to the old hunt kennels. I could not find a do not know to what degree Iver Parish Council precise location but it is because the hunt kennels, argued about that at that stage, but what we have and I will find the reference somewhere, were in the here is a statutory body making a perfectly clear vicinity. decision. I would not want the Committee to think that we had just said, “No public right of way, that’s 1732. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Do the end of it”, what we did was carry out a detailed these kennels still exist?
5 6 along footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10 04-009) Bridge—10 June 2006 (BUCKCC-10 04C-001) Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links F—Photograph Crossrail Ref: P15, Pedestrian and Cycle Count—Dog Kennel Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
172 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1733. MS LIEVEN: No, I do not think they do, my pedestrians, so what we proposed instead in AP3 was Lord, I very much doubt so. that people diverted to the east and walked up through the residential streets and then had to go on 1734. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: We do a relatively short part of this road (indicating) and not have a Petition from the foxes asking for the then we proposed creating a new footpath. It is not at bridge to be demolished! all easy to see on the big screen, but the dots are existing rights of way but the solid green line is the 1735. MS LIEVEN: No. I stand to be corrected by new path we proposed to run along the north side of the Parish Council, but given the proximity of the the railway and then link into the existing footpath to M25, Heathrow and rather a lot of development, I the north. would be surprised if hunting, legal or illegal was still going on in this location. 1740. While I am showing the alternatives, there are 1736. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Maybe two alternatives that the Petitioners suggest. One is we should know the answer because it could be quite that we come across this land here (indicating) which a factor if there was, in fact, a hunting kennel still is owned by British Rail Residuary Board and the there as to whether it was assisting them to break the diYculty with that is it is outside our limit of law or not. deviation, so we have got no power to provide that. Of course we could have talked to British Rail 1737. MS LIEVEN: I do not believe there is, my Residuary Board about it, but we have got no power Lord. It is definitely because there was a hunting to do that. kennel, I read it this morning. The other point on non-usage, I should make it clear, we are not 1741. The other is that people walk up here suggesting for one moment that local residents who (indicating) up to the south side and then come back say they have used it are telling the Committee lies, I on the south side and cross at Iver Station, but the am sure that from their evidence some people have diYculty with that—there is a footbridge here—is used it on some occasions, but the two things that we that it lies within the station, it is on the paved side of refer to7 are, first of all, the survey, and, secondly, if we the station, so it would allow people who had not got put up Exhibit 6, this is a series of photos taken by Mr tickets legal access into the station. We understand Berryman when he visited in again I think it was June that would not be acceptable for the train operating 2006. My Lord, that is a stile to the north on company at the moment, but it would become Footpath 15 and although it may have been a verdant completely unacceptable if that station is gated. At summer and although we all know that nettles grow the moment it is a “you have to show your ticket” quickly, in my submission that is quite clear evidence kind of station, but there may well in the fullness of that that footpath had not been used for a number of time be proposals to put in gates there as there are on weeks at its lowest. certain other locations on Great Western, so allowing paid side access would be operationally quite 1738. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: What is the alternative crossing? How far are they? unacceptable we understand. Those are the 8 alternatives that have been discussed and just to 1739. MS LIEVEN: If we put up 023, please, I was reiterate to the Committee, our proposal and what is just about to come to this. This shows what is being now in AP3 is that there will be a new footpath proposed (indicating) The current position starting created along the north side of the railway there from the south, this is Footpath 15, that is Dog (indicating) to link into the existing footpath Kennel Bridge (indicating) and that is the footpath to network. the north. It is diYcult to see, but I think the canal bridge is there (indicating). We originally proposed 1742. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Ms that people diverted to the west up the road, across Lieven, if you look at the diagram, the picture shown Chequer Bridge there and then we proposed a new on 25 and 26 in the information we have been given, footpath here along the north side linking back into they indicate a very interesting feature which I do not the existing footpath. The Petitioners were not happy think you have mentioned. That is that this bridge about that because they did not like walking along a appears to have the almost unique characteristic of busy road and there was also a problem with going being crossable without having to climb steps or go under Chequer Bridge and it was not a good place for up a slope, so it is almost on the level. Does that not 7 provide enormous benefit for handicapped people along footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10 04-006) 8 and would that not be lost with the abolition of the CrossrailDiversions Ref: (BUCKCC-10 P15, Dog Kennel 04-023) Bridge Links C—Photograph bridge? Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge—Alternative Footpath Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 173
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1743. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, there are a number of 1750. MS LIEVEN: He might have been a Liberal diYculties with that. Your Lordship is right in but I suspect it is more likely that he was a member of relation to the actual bridge, but as we have seen a the other party. My Lord, I will leave it to the moment ago, to the south there (indicating) there is Petitioners at this stage. the locked gate and the only way to access the bridge is by climbing the stile. Can we put up the photo of 1751. LORD SNAPE: Before we do, can I ask Ms the locked gate again. This gate is locked, (indicating) Lieven one question. When you were showing us the it is locked by the farmer. This is a relatively urban alternative routes, you said that the Promoters were fringe area, so I expect he is keen to keep it locked. prepared to put a path to the north side of the railway Hidden on the left-hand side is the stile which when line to take care of the diversion, I am sure there is a Mr Berryman visited—it is Mr Berryman who took very good reason, but I would like to know it, why this photograph. The stile was completely can you not put a path on the south side of the overgrown, so the only way that you can get access to railway bridge, which would shorten the deviation Dog Kennel Bridge is over the stile. It is also true to considerably? say that because of the nature of much of the footpath it would not be particularly good for people 1752. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I think the answer to with restricted mobility in any event. that is because of these houses on A23. Mr Berryman will correct me if I am wrong, but, first of all, I do not think there would be enough space but, secondly, 1744. CHAIRMAN: Could I suggest to my even if there was, it would probably be very colleagues that perhaps we ought to hear the unpopular to put a footpath all the way along there. Petitioners and let Ms Lieven finish and any questions that are left over afterwards we can ask. 1753. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. We have rather prolonged the introductions, but we are 1745. MS LIEVEN: Just finally on that point, my looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Lord, to the north where the footpath joins9 the canal there were steps—I was looking for them in the 1754. MR SUGGETT: Thank you, my Lord photos, 004 is one example—so although you go flat Chairman. My Lord Chairman, my Lady and my over the railway, you go up to the canal. Lords, my name is Eugene Suggett and I am here to act as agent for the Petitioners in this matter, Petition 10. Ms Lieven has helpfully outlined the fundamental 1746. The other thing I should deal with is that purpose of this Petition, to ask your Lordship’s references about the kennels are in the appendix to Committee to amend the Bill so as to provide a Mr Graham’s evidence, which I hope the Committee replacement footbridge in the place of Dog Kennel has got. It is even more interesting than I had Bridge at Iver in Buckinghamshire or alternatively, to remembered because the name of the bridge was amend the Bill so as to provide a suitable separate given in 1838 because of the nearby fox hound footpath replacement for the one that will be lost if kennels of the Right Honourable John Sullivan who Dog Kennel Bridge is not replaced. As Ms Lieven has was Under Secretary of State and Commissioner for said, your Petitioners are the Iver Parish Council, the India and High SheriV of Buckinghamshire, so they Ramblers’ Association and Open Spaces Society. My were his kennels. I believe that appendix also states Lords, it may help if I explain that I am afraid, I am that the bridge was built as an accommodation not a lawyer and petitioning in this sort of way is not bridge for the farmer. my line of work normally, so I should apologise in advance if there is any sort of amateurishness on my part, it is not meant as any disrespect to your 1747. LORD SNAPE: He would not be a Labour Lordships. man then! 1755. CHAIRMAN: Please, do not worry. 1748. MS LIEVEN: He certainly would not have been a Labour man in 1838, because my knowledge 1756. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, straightaway I of the Labour Party is that good! need to begin with an apology, paragraph six of the Petition refers to a Clause 56 in the Bill and that, in fact, is now Clause 57. I am sorry we missed that 1749. BARONESS FOOKES: He might have been amendment when it was put in at the last minute a Liberal! before the Bill passed from the Commons to where it 9 is now. I am obliged to Ms Lieven for setting the along footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10 04-004) scene so helpfully, that means I can proceed much Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links A—Photograph Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
174 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society more briefly than I had planned and in a moment I of the map. That road is the Langley-West Drayton propose to call two local witnesses who between them road. Footpath 15 commences there and heads will present the facts and will say why we are not roughly northwards over a large open field with very content with the Promoter’s response. Unless the good views, especially westwards. After about half a Committee wishes otherwise, I will assume that your mile it reaches Dog Kennel Bridge by which it is Lordships are satisfied with the descriptions of the possible to cross the railway to reach Footpath 15A, Petitioning organisations, the way they appear in the go past the Bison Works industrial site and connect Petition at paragraphs seven, eight and nine in the with Footpath 17 along the canal bank, and by means Petition. of that to continue northwards into Iver along either of two further footpaths. Iver Parish Council 1757. Very briefly, Iver Parish Council is the parish resolved to make this petition because it recognises council in whose territory are the aVected paths. the importance of retaining the link between Your second and third Petitioners are both Footpaths 15 and 15A. In the network of local organisations that seek to defend the beauty of the recreational footpaths this is a particularly important countryside to promote walking as a recreation and one. It is especially important because in the as a means of transport and to protect and extend the rectangle bounded by the railway, Market Lane, network of public footpaths and other ways used North Park and Thorney Lane it is the only oV-road principally for walking. As your Petitioners indicate route unless you count the roads at Richings Park in paragraph 10, we do indeed support the long term residential estate. It is also an important link with advantages of the Bill if it is passed. It will be Footpath 24 to the south, which can be reached with beneficial to our members and to all of those only a small amount of road walking along the travelling into and across London, we are generally Langley to West Drayton Road, which at that point full of welcome for what is proposed, but we would has a footway to it, so it is a good oV-road link be happier still if Dog Kennel Bridge could be between the two communities of Richings Park to the replaced somehow. south and Iver to the north. If, in accordance with current health initiatives, people are to be 1758. My Lords, I think that is as much as I need to encouraged to walk more and drive less, routes like say at this stage. With your Lordships’ leave I would this, which has attractions in spite of the Bison like to call the first witness, Glenda Collins. Glenda Works and its cranes, will become increasingly Collins is the Clerk to Iver Parish Council. A sketch important. The northern continuation of the park map called “A Sketch10 Map PDF” goes with Mrs comes out in Iver near the two local schools, so there Collins’s evidence. Could that be displayed please? It is scope for promoting it as a Safe Route to School. is the map labelled A at the front of your Even if it were true, as the Promoter says, that there Lordships’ bundle. is not much use made of this path now, there is scope for it increasing if health initiatives have their hoped- MrsGlendaCollins, Sworn for eVects. In the parish council’s view it would be Examined byMrSuggett prudent to allow for that by replacing this bridge and dedicating it as a public footpath. The parish council knows that many local people use the path. Some of 1759. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, the witness has a them use it frequently. People from further afield use proof of evidence and I am going to ask her simply to it too, especially those walking southwards to or read it. northwards from the Colne Valley Way walk. Being (Mrs Collins) My name is Glenda Collins. I am the a rural path, its use is not of a regular pattern and we Clerk to Iver Parish Council of 45b High Street, Iver, do not think that occasional spot surveys are a proper Buckinghamshire. Iver Parish Council is the first test for assessing the amount of use of a path in this Petitioner. Dog Kennel Bridge is in Iver parish and location. The parish council supposes that you could the purpose of our petitioning is to request the take any rural path and survey it and you would find retention or replacement of Dog Kennel Bridge so that the public can continue to use the two definitive that in relation to the population not many people public footpaths, Footpaths numbers 15 and 15A, use it, but that does not mean that it is of no value to that it links. These will become redundant dead-ends the people who do use it. The Promoter’s survey if the bridge is not retained or replaced. On behalf of should not be the acid test and I am asked by the the parish council can I just set the scene by reference parish council to say that it is a valuable path and that to the sketch map presently on display? You will see it ought to be retained. We recognise that no public the words “North Park” towards the lower southern right of way is recorded on the Highway Authority’s definitive map of public rights of way as going over 10 Association map of Dog Kennel Bridge and associated footpath the bridge itself, only up to it on each side. I network (BUCKCC-10 05-001) understand that the omission of the bridge itself from Committee Ref: A11, Open Spaces Society and Ramblers’ Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 175
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society the definitive map does not prove that it is not a right (Mrs Collins) Yes. of way, only that there is no record of it having become established as a right of way through long 1762. Let us take schoolchildren, if they wanted to usage before any notice went up saying that there was walk to Iver. At the moment from this location the no right of way over the bridge. The next witness is logical thing to do would be to go across Thorney going to say more about this issue but it seems to us Lane Bridge, where I think there is a footbridge, is unjust that the bridge should be demolished without there not? replacement by what seems to be a technicality. At (Mrs Collins) Yes. the first hearing of a similar petition by the House of Commons Select Committee, the Chairman said that 1763. So they are completely segregated from the they were perturbed by the situation and asked the traYc at Thorney Lane Bridge, are they not? Promoter and the Petitioner to discuss other possible (Mrs Collins) Yes. solutions. The Promoter suggested the provision of the new route shown in green on the sketch map running from the right-angled bend in Footpath 15A 1764. And then they either presumably continue up directly eastwards along a depression between the the road, but is there a pavement all the way up the Bison Works and the railway and then along the road— driveway to the Bison Works to come out at Thorney (Mrs Collins) There is a pavement. Lane. Your Petitioners proposed instead the route shown in red running from north of the Bison Works 1765.— or, if they were going to walk by the non- and then diagonally over a piece of open land to road route, then on our alternative they would divert reach Iver station. This land is understood to be in west there and walk to the south of the Bison plant, the ownership of British Railways Board (Residuary) yes? Ltd. The parish council is of the view that this would (Mrs Collins) Yes. be a far better route than the Promoter’s proposed alternative route. The Promoter’s proposed route is 1766. It is pretty unlikely that anybody who was of no amenity value, being unattractive and of no walking to Iver for the purposes of getting to Iver practical value in getting from any one place in Iver rather than a recreational walk across a field would to any other and so is not an adequate replacement divert back from Richings Park along—I think this is for the path to the south of the bridge, which is of a North Park, is it not? rural character. If Dog Kennel Bridge is to be (Mrs Collins) Yes. demolished without replacement the red route would be far better compensation, especially if it was able to 1767. And then up the field. Even at the present time connect with the north side of the station at Iver. The that would be a pretty big diversion in order to get next witness will amplify this point, but in concluding to Iver. I should reiterate that the parish council’s view first (Mrs Collins) I think it would depend which bit of and foremost is that the bridge should be replaced. It Richings Park you lived in because there is a lot of is an important public amenity in our locality and so Richings Park below the map. Old Slade Lane and Iver Parish Council asks the committee to accede to The Poynings comes oV the map at the bottom here the petition to provide a replacement for Dog and there are more developments going in on the Kennel Bridge. southern side of North Park.
1760. MR SUGGETT: Thank you very much. I 1768. But one of the points you made in your petition have no questions. is that our proposal is going to make life more diYcult for schoolchildren trying to walk to Iver. First of all, for the bulk of Richings Park up here, if Cross-examined byMsLieven they were trying to get to school they would be pretty 11 unlikely to come back this way and up here. It would 1761. MS LIEVEN: Can I start with one or two be a diversion for them, would it not? questions? Can we put up 023 because it is a map (Mrs Collins) At the moment it might be but if the rather than your hand-drawn sketch? It is showing Safe Route to School had something like the walking very much the same thing. I just want to ask you a bus and all the parents parked in the United Reform couple of questions about people walking from Church car park, which is quite near Dog Kennel Richings Park up to --- I think Iver is up here Bridge, there would be a place then to walk children (indicating); is that right? across the fields in a walking bus. It is just an option. 11 I am not saying it will ever happen but it could be Diversions (BUCKCC-10 04-023) an option. Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge—Alternative Footpath Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
176 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1769. I think you may have touched on my second 1775. I walk quite a lot and I know paths that are used point already, which is that it is not going to be a and the ones that are not so used, and if you look at wildly attractive walk at the moment for children to the photographic evidence it does not look walk to school across a couple of fields and round the particularly well used. If it was well used I am a bit side of the industrial estate, is it? puzzled why nobody sought to establish in the past a (Mrs Collins) I think it would be more attractive than right of way. If the parish council valued it as a local walking on the road. When you walk past the amenity, every now and then you survey rights of way industrial estate you can barely see it. I walked there and you have to because there are all sorts of groups on Saturday myself just to be absolutely certain, and and other people who for various reasons seem to at this time of the year with very few leaves on the deny rights of way, so I am a bit puzzled about why trees it is fairly well hidden. you did not seek to establish a right of way previously, or there is no record of it. (Mrs Collins) I think if you ask the same question to 1770. In terms of it being better than walking along Mr Graham, who is coming after me, you will get a the road, for these people who live in the vast more detailed answer because he knows more about majority of Richings Park it would be better for them the historical side than I do, but I understand that in in order to get into Iver for there to be a footpath the 1950s the parish council did try to get this done along the north side of the railway, would it not, and there is a reference in his statement to in 1992 the because it would be quicker from here to go over county council saying that there was a lot of upheaval Thorney Lane Bridge like that rather than have to in the parish because of what was happening over divert all the way back round— Dog Kennel Bridge then and Mr Graham is a (Mrs Collins) It would be even quicker to take the member of the Iver and District Countryside blue route. Association and the parish council relies heavily on that group and supports that group in looking after 1771. Yes, but between what is on the table in the Bill, all the footpaths in the area, so if that group objected which is the green route, and the existing route it then the parish council would have supported them, would be quicker to go by the new route in the Bill, and that group did object. would it not? (Mrs Collins) It depends whether you are going for a 1776. CHAIRMAN: Mrs Collins, the legislation has walk for pleasure or whether you are going for been in place since 1949 and it has always been quickness. There are two reasons for walking and possible for an organisation like the parish council to they are, one, to get from A to B in a certain time, and claim a footpath right of way (or rights of way) over the other is for pleasure, and certainly the more any particular land. Prior to 1992, when the notice pleasurable one is the existing one rather than was put up, did the parish council do anything to walking alongside the road between Bisons and the persuade Buckinghamshire County Council to railway. include the bridge on the definitive map? (Mrs Collins) As I understand it, in the fifties I think 1772. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much. it was about to go to a judicial review to get it put as a public footpath.
1773. MR SUGGETT: I have no re-examination, thank you, my Lords. 1777. It would not have gone to judicial review in those days, it would have been Quarter Sessions. (Mrs Collins) That is the term, that is right. Examined by THE COMMITTEE 1778. Did they do it? 1774. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I (Mrs Collins) I understand the County Council instinctively want to sympathise and do something pulled out. but I am puzzled in a way. It does not look like at the moment it is a very well used route, does it? 1779. The County Council decided not to put it (Mrs Collins) I do not know that any footpath would forward as being a footpath. be a very well used route at the moment. When I (Mrs Collins) That is what I understand, but Mr walked along it on Saturday the path was well Graham knows more of the history. trodden. The grass was muddy and flat where people had been walking. I bumped into two people, I think, on the walk. I do not know how well used any other 1780. You are the Clerk of the Parish Council and in path would be. I am not a great walker myself. charge of the records. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:37 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 177
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
(Mrs Collins) That is what happened. The Parish (Mrs Collins) Where is that—on the right-hand side? Council had asked for this to be done, and the County Council were going to do it and then at the last minute 1787. Right down the road at the foot of footpath 15, decided not to. there Horton Brook runs from right to left—across to Chequer Bridge. (Mrs Collins) I do not think there is, no. 1781. Did you contest that decision at all? (Mrs Collins) I cannot recall. I have not spent enough 1788. Which would be a very pleasant little walk if time looking at the records, I am afraid. there was. (Mrs Collins) I have a footpath map here. 1782. LORD SNAPE: You say in paragraph 5 of your evidence that you were asked by the Parish 1789. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Can I Council to say that it is a valuable path and ought to ask a question that does not touch on anything we be retained. As we have heard from the promoters, at have heard so far? If the famous builder of this bridge the time Mr Berryman did his survey no-one was were to come back to give evidence today and we using the path. Can you give an estimate of how asked him what was special about this bridge in terms many people in your opinion would use the path in of innovation or any unique feature, what would he the course of a month, a week or a year? say to us? (Mrs Collins) I do not know. I saw two on Saturday (Mrs Collins) It is to do with the brickwork I think. using the path; that is all I can say. 1790. Otherwise it is a bridge, is a bridge is a bridge. (Mrs Collins) I understand there is some fancy 1783. On the bridge? brickwork, but I do not know whether that is unique. (Mrs Collins) No, one was on this side of the bridge and the other was on the other side of the bridge. I 1791. Destruction of this bridge is not going to asked each one of them whether they generally as a destroy some unique feature of that great man that rule walked completely from one end to the other and can never be capable of being replicated elsewhere or they said, “sometimes we do, sometimes we do not”. seen elsewhere! (Mrs Collins) I can only assume that if English 1784. In paragraph 9 you asked the Committee to Heritage are happy that it is not— accede to the petition to provide a replacement for Dog Kennel Bridge. We have heard in evidence that 1792. You appreciate the importance of the question? the committee should make various (Mrs Collins) Yes, I do, but I can only say that if recommendations in the overall scheme of the 15 English Heritage had not fought the case, and we billion of the Crossrail scheme and that none of them have to rely on their expertise— amount to a great deal of money, but taken together they do. Has the Parish Council made any estimates 1793. The answer is that there is no feature here that of the cost of replacement of Dog Kennel Bridge? is unique. (Mrs Collins) It was one of the questions asked of the (Mrs Collins) Not that I know of. promoters when we had the meeting to discuss the original proposal to go under Chequer Bridge, but I The witness withdrew do not think I have ever seen those figures. We saw some figures at the time but we thought they were MrPaulGraham, Sworn very expensive and must be able to be done cheaper. Examined byMrSuggett
1785. Those figures were provided by the promoters 1794. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, this witness also to you, then, rather than you providing the figures to has a proof of evidence, and I am going to invite him the promoters? to read it. (Mr Graham) (Mrs Collins) The County Council were going to go My name is Paul Michael Graham. away but Mr Graham can probably give you more information on that. The County Council were going 1795. CHAIRMAN: We can take your address as to go away and look at the figures as well. read. (Mr Graham) I have lived in Iver since 1980 and lived in nearby West Drayton for four years before 1786. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:I that. I am Footpath Secretary of the Iver & District presume, Mrs Collins, looking at map 23, that there Countryside Association and was formerly its is no footpath running alongside Horton Brook! General Secretary. I have organised group walks Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
178 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society and footpath maintenance parties in Iver and the Buckinghamshire County Council and South Bucks immediately surrounding area for over two decades. District Council, though the Petitioners did not I have been a life member of the Ramblers’ appear, solely (we understand) on the grounds of the Association for more than 20 years; and the Iver & cost of representation. (Unlike voluntary bodies, District Countryside Association has been a local authorities feel they must be represented by member of the RA and the Open Spaces Society for counsel if they appear.) The demolition of the bridge more than ten years. I have used Dog Kennel Bridge will cause a diversion of 1.5 km for users of many times on walks and have seen other people Footpaths 15 and 15A. This is unacceptable, using it and the footpaths either side of it. The particularly as the two alternatives involve using the Petitioners urge that if the Grade II listed Dog entire lengths of the busy Thorney Lane North and Kennel Bridge has to be removed then it should be South or Market Lane. Part of the latter has no replaced and provision should be made for the footway. This part of Iver between Langley and dedication of the new bridge as a public right of West Drayton is the narrowest part of the Colne way. A summary of the history of the bridge and Valley Park. Removal of the vital link to Iver the associated right of way is in Appendix 1 of my Footpath 15 would leave only one right of way evidence. The paths leading up to the bridge—now running north-south, Iver 16 in the far east of the known as Footpath 15 and Footpath 15A—were Park. Circular or through walks in the south of Iver oYcially recognised as old-established public and surrounding area would be severely limited as footpaths in 1953 under the procedures of the a result. The sketch map shows this. Please can we National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act see some photographs at this point? First, 1949. The route appears on a pre-Enclosure map of photograph B, which is Market Lane, looking 1794, albeit with some subsequent deviations caused southwards to Chequer Bridge over which the12 by the Britannic cable works, the canal, the gravel railway runs—which is where the proposers workings and the railway. It is clear that the public originally intended13 the footpath should come out has used Dog Kennel Bridge without let or and the pedestrians somehow go underneath. hindrance ever since 1882 to the present day. When Photograph C, which is Market Lane looking north the railway was first built, it was crossed on the to Chequer Bridge. Then photograph D, which14 level, 120 metres away from Dog Kennel Bridge, but shows another part of Market Lane and people apparently started using the bridge instead, demonstrates the suburban nature15 of this forced and in 1914 the Great Western Railway Company alternative to the rural Footpaths 15 and 15A. had the pedestrian level crossing of the railway Then photograph E is Parlaunt Road, the Langley- extinguished. It is diYcult to see what their intention West Drayton road, looking east. I believe that was unless it was to dedicate the bridge to the public these photographs highlight the busy nature of the as a replacement crossing. But the actual bridge is local roadways. In a document Actions and Vision not shown as a right of way on the definitive map for the Colne Valley Regional Park 2006-09, one of because by the time of the definitive mapping the key objectives of the regional park authority is procedures in the early 1950s a sign had appeared to “maintain right-of-way and vehicle access over on the bridge denying the existence of a public right Dog Kennel Bridge”. Crossrail have said that the of way on it. So it is probable that a right of way cost of providing a replacement bridge would be was established by presumed dedication through prohibitive. We agree that it would be expensive but long usage before that sign was erected, but the it would be a small fraction of the overall billions evidence by which that might be proven is of course of pounds that the whole Crossrail scheme will cost. no longer available as the users are long-dead. That The Parish Council say that whatever the benefits leaves us with the ludicrous situation of two public that this large transport scheme will have for the footpaths leading to a bridge over which a right of travelling public, it is not right that it should be at way is not definitively recorded, so the Promoter can the expense of local people or users, or that such an say that no right of way exists on the bridge because important right of way link should be severed we can no longer prove that one does. In 1990, when permanently. Though Footpaths 15 and 15A will an earlier railway project was proposed by British not be legally extinguished by the demolition of the Railways, an oYcer recommendation that the bridge, the eVect will be precisely the same, as there Buckinghamshire County Council reconstruct and would be no practical point for anybody to use maintain Dog Kennel Bridge if necessary was 12 Bridge from Market Lane, Langley (BUCKCC-10 05-002) agreed but not actioned. The County Council 13 estimated the cost of this at that time to be £150,000. BridgeCommittee from Ref:Market A11, Lane, View Langley looking (BUCKCC-10 southwards of 05-003) Chequer The bridge’s importance to the rights-of-way 14 (BUCKCC-10Committee Ref: 05-004) A11, View looking northwards of Chequer network was made clear to the House of Commons 15 Select Committee by the petitions of (BUCKCC-10Committee Ref: 05-005) A11, View of Market Lane, Langley Committee Ref: A11, View of Parlaunt Road, Langley Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 179
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society 24 them. They will become redundant. That is ask for the first page of the Promoter’s response to extremely unfortunate, because though we cannot Petition No 10 to be displayed, please. claim that the route to be lost is exceptionally spectacular, it nonetheless provides a circular walk for local residents over mainly agricultural and rural 1796. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have that now. (Mr Graham) In the third paragraph on the first land, largely of open16 aspect and with some far- ranging views; an altogether diVerent aspect from page, the Promoter points out that “powers for the demolition with replacement of Dog Kennel Bridge the local17 suburban pavements. Could I have photograph F, please? This is the start of Footpath had previously been secured by the British Railways 15 on the Langley-West Drayton road. Photograph Board in the British Railways (No 2) Act 1992, but had not been exercised.” The implication seems to G, please. It goes through18 this large field and from here there are the far-ranging views which, on a be that nobody objected then. In fact a report by an clear day, include distant hills and Windsor Castle. oYcer of Bucks County Council dated 4 January Photograph H, please. It then approaches Dog 1990 used the words that there would be “considerable local unrest if the bridge were to be Kennel Bridge, which19 the farmer, Mr Rayner, keeps gated at weekends to keep vehicles out; but removed” and stated that the bridge is “heavily used pedestrians can access it by the stile on the left. by local walkers”. The Iver and District Countryside Photograph J, please. This is the view of the railway Association objected to the 1992 Bill but the from Dog Kennel Bridge; the photograph gives controversy died down when it became clear that some idea of the unrestricted distant views over British Rail had no means of financing the powers authorised by the 1992 Act. Could we be shown the open countryside. It was fairly20 late on in the afternoon at the time I took it. Photograph K we third page of the Promoter’s response, please. Under have included since it gives a good view of Dog the heading “Dog Kennel Bridge: provision of Kennel Bridge from Footpath 15A. This was taken alternative footpath” it says that “the Promoter from the footpath itself, which I think Ms Lieven notes that you appear to have accepted that there is 21 no public right of way over Dog Kennel Bridge said in her introduction it was not possible to see itself.” We do not accept that. We believe that the bridge at this particular point. Photograph L, public rights of way were acquired in the past before please. Although in the House Commons Select any public status was brought into question by the Committee hearing the Promoters produced sign erected on the bridge, but it would no longer photographs of the route taken when the summer be possible to prove this. This is not the same as us overgrowth was at its highest, which may have given 22 saying that there is no public right of way over the the wrong impression that the path is seldom bridge. Next, a little lower than that, the Promoter trodden, this photographs shows a well-trodden quotes 18166 of the transcript of the House of line. Photograph M, please. This shows a clear, Commons Committee proceedings where the well-trodden width between this semi-tunnel of the Promoter mentioned a couple of surveys that were hedges which would have grown together otherwise. 23 done on the use of the way, and use was either This is the section that goes past the Bison Works minimal or non-existent on those occasions. Of and the hedges have a mitigating eVect on that course it would have been better for our case if there industrial operation. Photograph N, please. Finally had been more use when this survey took place but the path joins Footpath 17 at the canal bank where we question whether a spot-survey is a proper or fair you can walk east or west. All of that would be lost means of gauging the value of this kind of path. It if Dog Kennel Bridge was demolished. In a response is not the kind of path which necessarily gets routine dated 29 January this year the Promoter has daily use. It does not connect one well-used amenity commented on this Petition and it may help if I with another, as an urban path might, and a survey comment in turn on the Promoter’s points. I would might not detect much use even over many hours, 16 but over many years I have seen dozens of people Road, Langley (BUCKCC-10 05-006) 17 using it, albeit not on any predictable pattern. You 10Committee 05-007) Ref: A11, View of Footpath 15 from Parlaunt can see that it is well-used, from the way in which 18 it is well-trodden in many places along its length— 15Committee (BUCKCC-10 Ref: 05-008) A11, View of Footpath 15 (BUCKCC- 19 despite the photographs produced by the Promoters DogCommittee Kennel Ref: Bridge A11, (BUCKCC-10 View of Dog Kennel05-010) Bridge on Footpath taken at a time when it was overgrown in places in 20 FootpathCommittee 15A Ref: (BUCKCC-10 A11, View of05-011) the Great Western Railway from the summer. I would add that the parish council and 21 I are aware of much more frequent use than was 10Committee 05-012) Ref: A11, View of Dog Kennel Bridge from 22 apparent form the Promoter’s survey and we would (BUCKCC-10Committee Ref: 05-013) A11, View of Footpath 15A (BUCKCC- 24 23 Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and FootpathCommittee 17 (BUCKCC-10 Ref: A11, Further 05-013) view of Footpath 15A the Open Spaces Society (SCN-20080303-001 to -003) Crossrail Ref: P14,Promoter’s Response Document to the Committee Ref: A11,View of the junction of Footpath 15A and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
180 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society not be here today if that were not so. Finally on this between the network of footpaths to the north of point: even if there were only small use at present, the line, so that, using the pavements and quiet side recreational walking is becoming more popular and roads of Richings Park, walkers from north of the it is by no means unlikely that demand will grow in railway can access Footpath 24 to Colnbrook (just future. It is inconceivable that a bridge would ever oV the map) and join the Colne Valley Way by that be built in future and it would be a terrible missed means. If it cannot connect to the station opportunity and lack of foresight if provision were footbridge, then it could cross the railway by the not made now. It would deprive future generations existing bridge at Thorney Lane. We recognise, as of a simple and basic and free form of healthy does the Promoter, that this option of ours means recreation. At the conclusion of the first hearing of that Footpath 15A would become redundant, but the Petition in the House of Commons, the we submit that the net amenity gain to the walker Committee said that “we are perturbed and we have in terms of the quid pro quo is significantly better not closed the decision that we may retain a foot with our preferred option than what the Promoter access over this line”. They asked the Petitioners has proposed. Please could we see the fourth page and the Promoter to see if a solution could be found. of the Promoter’s response? In their response, the Could map A be shown again, please. Two routes Promoter implies—as counsel for the Promoter said were proposed: one by the Promoter and one by the in the House of Commons Select Committee Petitioners in the House of Commons Committee proceedings—that the quid pro quo is about right proceedings. The Promoter proposed the green with their own route, the green route, because they route. With the Promoter’s proposal, a walker said, “we are not taking a rural idyll and putting it proceeding south along Footpath 15A beside the next to an industrial site; we are taking a footpath Bison Works would turn eastwards and walk in a that goes past industrial land and putting it past channel between the railway and the works. There some more industrial land, so . . . the replacement is are no attractive views at all from this path an the perfectly acceptable”. With respect, that misses the path will be narrowly fenced, probably with high point. The proposed alternative path is supposed to security meshing. The channelled path will then be the exchange for the southern section of the path: emerge on to what we think is the private access the section between the bridge and the Langley to road to the Bison Works. It has no footway and West Drayton road. That section really is of open, seems to be used by heavy vehicles associated with rural aspect, especially looking south and the works, which makes it a safety issue as well. No westwards, with distant views, and that is the section walker other than a fanatical train-spotter would which will be made redundant if the bridge is not derive any pleasure from using this way. It is not at replaced. We say that the proposed route between all comparable to the route along Footpaths 15 and the Bison site and the railway, which has a 15A in terms of recreational amenity. It would not completely industrial feel to it, is not a fair meet the statutory criteria to do with convenience replacement at all, whereas our proposed red route and enjoyment which are weighed in the balance has some amenity value about it, being over an open when a diversion is brought about under ordinary space with some good views to it. The Promoter also highway legislation. Though your Petitioners’ very said in the House of Commons Committee hearing strong preference is that a bridge be provided, we that the land over which our much-preferred path suggested as an alternative the route shown by red would run was not available because of the dashes from the junction of Footpaths 15 and 17 to possibility that it would be used for development. connect with Iver Station on its northern side. This But even if at some future point it might be is over an area of grass and scrub which is of open developed, that does not stop it from being used in aspect and is altogether more pleasurable to walk. the meantime. If it is developed, there are powers In connection with these proceedings I have walked under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to this route with the Rights of Way Team Leader at divert or extinguish rights of way which could be Buckinghamshire County Council, who expressed used here to put our proposed path around the satisfaction at the prospect of this path becoming a periphery of the site, and, anyhow, it may never be public right of way, either diagonally across the land developed. It is full Green Belt land and it would or around its perimeter. Ideally this would connect not be developed. We do not think that any of these direct with Iver Station at its northern side, so that criteria are grounds for preferring the Promoter’s walkers could cross the line via the station proposal to ours. During or after the House of footbridge and not have to use the footbridge to the Commons stages, we asked the Promoter to provide east over Thorney Lane. We believe that this station a detailed cost breakdown of providing a simple footbridge is going to have to be extended in any replacement footbridge but they have not done so. case. We believe it should be used as a footbridge for It appears to us that the Promoter has not non-rail users so as to make a pedestrian crossing considered the option of providing a simple steel Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 181
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society structure at the north side of Dog Kennel Bridge in 1936 sought the power to stop up and extinguish order to span the fifth rail. It appears to us that this rights of way over the bridge”, do you see that? would be perfectly possible. It should not be costly (Mr Graham) Yes. (in the overall scheme of Crossrail) to provide an add-on span with adequate clearance. For all of 1800. It seems probable that the reason why Mr Hall, these reasons we ask the Committee to amend the who was Clerk to the Parish Council in 1954, was Bill so as to provide for a replacement bridge or at making that statement was in support of a claim for the very least to provide an alternative route as a public right of way across the bridge, does it not? proposed by the Promoter. (Mr Graham) As you know, between 1949 and 1954 25 there was considerable debate about the right of way 1797. Would you like to take us through the history? across the bridge, whether or not it should be (Mr Graham) If you wish. Perhaps we could look included in the definitive map for the first time and, again at sketch map A. If you could imagine theth yes, Mr Hall was Clerk at that time. You are correct, southern part of Footpath 15B and the northern part that statement was made in relation to that sequence connecting with an almost straight line, going across of events. what would then be open, unenclosed fields in the 18 century, that was the original route. It was codified in 1801. It is a statement that that would have been the Enclosure Act in 1801. Subsequent to that, made under the relatively recent 1949 National Parks initially the railway in 1838, then the canal in 1882 and Countryside Act in support of the Parish and then industrial sites, the cable works Council’s claim that there was a public right of way (subsequently the Bison Works) and thet Ridgewayh across the bridge? Industrial Estate, have all diverted the path in this (Mr Graham) I do not know, I would have to go back way. In particular, the path was diverted by the Great and look at the exact thing. I have got it in writing Western Railway in the early part of the 20 century, here but I do not know the context in which it was partly because the level crossing, where pedestrians made. crossed the railway, was becoming unsafe because of the increased speed of traYc and the widening of the 1802. But it seems highly likely? rail. Sadly, at that time public footpaths were not (Mr Graham) It is possible, yes. nearly as highly regarded as they are now and no provision was made, in a legal sense, the sense that we 1803. In 1954 there would have been a great many know today, to provide an alternative over Dog people still alive who would have been alive before Kennel Bridge. Nonetheless, from at least 1882 to the the Second World War, alive before 1936 who, if they early 1940s the public did use Dog Kennel Bridge had used the footpath regularly before 1936, could without let or hindrance and it was only in the 1950s have given evidence of that on behalf of the Parish that a sign went up. I was not living in Iver in 1950— Council, could they not? in fact I was barely alive—but nonetheless if myself (Mr Graham) They could indeed and I am sure if I or the parish council had been around at that time we had been around then, and Mrs Collins and most of would surely have pressed the county council to take the inhabitants of Iver, that would have happened, a more robust attitude than they did in the 1950s. but sadly, as you probably know, the climate Sadly, they backed down at the Quarter Sessions to regarding rights of way was totally diVerent then. which Mrs Collins referred earlier. I think that summarises it. 1804. We know that Iver Parish Council were around then, we know that they had this point in mind and 1798. CHAIRMAN: Thank you we know that Buckinghamshire County Council, who were the statutory body with powers under the Cross-examined byMsLieven Act, did not accept in 1954 that this was a public right of way, did they? 1799. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, my Lords, just a (Mr Graham) That is not quite true. They took it as few questions. Good afternoon, Mr Graham. First of far as the Quarter Sessions. There were two objectors all, just a question on your appendix. Towards the to the bridge itself being put on the definitive map, bottom of the first page of the appendix you say, one was the British Rail and the other was a local “According to a statement made in 1954 by Mr D G landowner, a farmer, who happened to be on the Hall, Clerk to Iver Parish Council, the Great Western Parish Council. In the face of objections from those Railway Company, using the Great Western Bill two, the Buckinghamshire County Council initially
25 decided to fight the objection and backed down at Association map of Dog Kennel Bridge and associated footpath quarter sessions. I do not know why that is. I have network (BUCKCC-10 05-001) looked into it briefly, I have asked for rights of way Committee Ref: A11, Open Spaces Society and Ramblers’ Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
182 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society at county council, but it is not in their records. I can view is that a notice having been put up there for that only assume that they simply backed down because it length of time would render an application for it to be was too expensive or perhaps because, as I say, the made definitive very, very diYcult and unlikely to climate was diVerent in those days. Landowners succeed; hence that is the reason why we have not tended to be on both parish and county councils and done it. Our association has, in fact, made several to regard rights of way as not so important as they do applications for rights of way to be put on the nowadays. definitive map and had the backing of the County Council and they have been successful, but in this 1805. We are throwing around a lot of allegations case we took the advice of the County Council and about Buckinghamshire County Council. decided not to proceed. (Mr Graham) You asked me for the reasons, the 26 background to this and, I am sorry, I do not know 1814. MS LIEVEN: Can I move on to a diVerent anything more about it. I tried to investigate but that point? Your photographs B and D, if we can look at is my submission. B very briefly, this is Chequer Bridge, is it not? (Mr Graham) Yes. 1806. What is clear from the facts is that in 1954 Buckinghamshire County Council did not support 1815. It is not our proposal, following AP3, that the public rights of way over the bridge, did they? footpath be diverted to use Chequer Bridge, is it? (Mr Graham) That is not true. You asked it before (Mr Graham) That was the first proposal, the second and I have said it is not true. They did in fact support does not use Chequer Bridge. a right of way over it because they put it on the draft definitive map, but faced with objections they backed down at Quarter Sessions. 1816. That is not our current proposal, is it? (Mr Graham) No.
1807. So at Quarter Sessions they were not convinced 27 that there was a public right of way? 1817. If we put up the aerial photograph of Thorney (Mr Graham) No, they withdrew it from the Quarter Lane Bridge, this is the M25 (indicating) just for Sessions before the Quarter Sessions were held. context, is it not? (Mr Graham) Yes, the Bison Road is on the left at 1808. Okay. Thank you, Mr Graham. the bottom.
1809. CHAIRMAN: Mr Graham, it never went on 1818. This is Richings Park here (indicating)? the definitive map? (Mr Graham) Yes. (Mr Graham) That is right, exactly. 1819. Come out of Richings Park, walk over a 1810. MS LIEVEN: There is no issue. It is not on the dedicated pedestrian bridge, it is a foot bridge, is it definitive map. not? (Mr Graham) It has never been on the definitive map (Mr Graham) Yes. and it is believed that about that time the first notice appeared on the bridge. 1820. Walk along here (indicating) on the north side 1811. MS LIEVEN: Can we pick up a couple of of the tracks to rejoin the existing footpath, yes? other points? (Mr Graham) Yes.
1812. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mr Graham, before 1821. So they do not have to share a busy road bridge or after they abandoned the case at Quarter Sessions? as they did under the Chequer Bridge proposal? (Mr Graham) That is right. (Mr Graham) We do not know. I am sorry, it is too 28 long, nobody even remembers. 1822. Can we look then at another of your 1813. You just might know. photographs, photo K? This is a photograph taken (Mr Graham) I am afraid I do not know. When I first from the footpath, is that right, of Dog Kennel moved to Iver in 1980 and became interested in Bridge? footpath work about the mid 1980s I asked the oldest 26 inhabitants around and they did not know. As far as Bridge from Market Lane, Langley (BUCKCC-10 05-002) they knew, that sign had always been there since the 27 20080303-005)Committee Ref: A11, View looking southwards of Chequer war, but they were not sure. I have sought the advice 28 of the County Council highways oYcers and their FootpathCrossrail 15A Ref: (BUCKCC-10 P18, Ordnance 05-011) Survey Map of Iver (SCN- Committee Ref: A11, View of Dog Kennel Bridge from Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 183
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
(Mr Graham) That is right. 1831. To be absolutely clear, there is no issue that we 29 have consistently produced figures for the cost of the 1823. Can we put up our 23, please, and just establish replacement bridge. What you are concerned about is exactly where this is taken from. My understanding is the breakdown of that cost, is that right? that it is just there? (Mr Graham) Yes. (Mr Graham) Yes, to the railings of the fence. 1832. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much. 1824. If I could put up our photo, please, I would suggest that it is slightly30 deceptive, your photograph K, is it not, because in order to have taken that 1833. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, I have no re- photograph you would have to put the camera examination. through the fence? (Mr Graham) Yes. I said that just now. 1834. CHAIRMAN: Has anybody got any questions? 1825. In terms of the human view, you see Dog Kennel Bridge only through this closed metal fence, Re-examined by THE COMMITTEE do you not? (Mr Graham) It is not closed. 1835. CHAIRMAN: Mr Graham, can you tell me a 1826. You see Dog Kennel Bridge through that fence, bit more about the Colne Valley Regional Park do you not? Authority. You say in paragraph eight that (Mr Graham) Yes. maintaining, if there is one, a right of way across Dog Kennel Bridge is one of their key objectives, what are 1827. The last point relates to what you said at the their other key objectives? (Mr Graham) end of your statement because it may be there is a They have a raft. It extends all the way slight misunderstanding here. You suggest at from Staines in the south to Rickmansworth in the paragraph 22 that we have failed to produce the costs north, a distance of about 25 miles. of a simple replacement footbridge. (Mr Graham) I did not say that, well I hope I did not. 1836. How does this fit in with the other key I hope I did not mean that. objectives? Have you got any document at all which shows this? 1828. What you say is, you asked the Promoter to (Mr Graham) Mr Suggett has the whole document. provide a detailed cost break of providing a simple replacement footbridge but they have not done so. 1837. MR SUGGETT: That said, I must confess I We did produce costs in the House of Commons of do not have it with me. providing a simple replacement footbridge, did we (Mr Graham) Briefly, the Colne Valley Regional not? Park is an association of all the local authorities in the (Mr Graham) But not a breakdown. area—Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire et cetera and London ones as well and voluntary groups 1829. What you want is a detailed breakdown, is it? and businesses that combine in a lower level kind of (Mr Graham) It was diYcult to argue with an overall national park way to produce the best possible estimate of cost, which I think was in the region of outcome for that urban fringe Colne Valley area for £1.2 million or something. both local people and for people in London and major conurbations coming to use it as green belt 1830. Mr Berryman will give evidence on that in a land. Part of that includes public access. I have said minute. in my evidence that this is one of the narrowest parts (Mr Graham) Well, funding in that order. It was a of the Colne Valley. I said it is 25 miles long, in places single figure and it was diYcult for us as laymen. I am it is barely a couple of miles wide and at this not a railway person, I am hardly even a footpath particular point in Iver there are only two paths that person, but it was diYcult to criticise an overall run north and south through the Colne Valley figure. All I know is that in 1990 the County Council between Slough on one side and West Drayton, part engineers produced a figure of £150,000 and I was of Hillingdon Borough on the other; Iver 15 is one of trying to reconcile the two and I found it impossible the only two paths that go through open countryside. to do so. 29 1838. It is for exactly this sort of reason that I wanted (SCN-20080303-004) 30 to know some more details and you have not got FootpathCrossrail 15A Ref: (BUCKCC-10 P17, View of railway 05-011) fence from Footpath 15A anything to show us? Committee Ref: A11, View of Dog Kennel Bridge from Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
184 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
(Mr Graham) Not to hand. that is Slough which stretches for five miles in that direction. The M25 runs right through the middle of 1839. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: the Colne Valley Park at that point. You can see Why do they want to maintain vehicle access when Footpath 16 to the right of the motorway. Footpaths there is no vehicle access at the moment, as far as I 15 and 16, however, are the only two north/south can see? links in the Colne Valley Park at this point because (Mr Graham) Sorry, I have to go back to that only another half a mile in the eastern direction you particular page, page eight. I must confess, I do not come to West Drayton, which is the edge of the know. I included the quote in full. The only person Greater London boundary urban area. You have got who has vehicle access rights are the owners of the here a gap of barely two miles with only two land either side. We are certainly not campaigning for footpaths leading north/south through it. It is the vehicle access rights and I do not know why that is narrowest corridor in the whole part of the Colne in there. Valley Park.
1840. I just wondered looking at a couple of the 1844. CHAIRMAN: Where is the river? photographs there are piles of soil as if somebody has (Mr Graham) The River Colne runs just to the east been trying to use it. of Footpath 16. In fact, Footpath 16 runs alongside (Mr Graham) It may because some of the key the Colne Brook, which runs parallel to the Colne at stakeholders in the Colne Valley Regional Park are one point. farmers because farmers have a diYcult time in this area. Mr Rayner, the farmer here, has a particularly diYcult time. On the urban fringe it is a diYcult 1845. So there is another footpath on the other side activity and many of them are included in the of the M25? deliberations of Colne Valley Regional Park. (Mr Graham) You can only see the beginning and Possibly, access over the bridge for farming purposes end of it. Footpath 16, where the red pointer is now, was included for that because it was considered that then bulges east, crosses the railway through a tunnel, it would be good to try and encourage farming in this I am thankful to say, rather than a bridge, and comes urban fringe area. I do not know, but that is only a out in Iver village to the north. It is not a direct line guess. in the same way that Footpath 15 is but it meanders a little along the Colne Brook. 1841. Looking at some of the photographs you see that there are piles of soil which looks as if somebody 1846. So it is another north/south footpath? has been illegally trying to cross and the farmer is (Mr Graham) It is another north/south footpath but trying to prevent them. these two are the only two in that region. Sadly, (Mr Graham) Yes, that is true. I have spoken to Mr Thorney Lane and Market Lane are both busy roads. Rayner several times, I know him quite well. That Neither of them is a B road but they are both filled was put there by him as a further discouragement to with industrial traYc from the Bison Works and the stop the gate being opened with bolt croppers and Ridgeway Works and generally because they are motorbikes taken through. overflow roads from the motorway, sadly, a lot of the time. 1842. CHAIRMAN: Mr Graham, do you think that the actions and visions for the Colne Valley Regional 1847. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I Park document will give us a better perspective where take your point about the survey that was made by this very short link fits in? Crossrail. Nevertheless, it was a survey in the height (Mr Graham) If I had been sensible enough to of the summer. Ideally, you might have had produce a map showing the Colne Valley Park at this something diVerent but it was a weekend survey over point, I think it would become clearer. two weekends, so you cannot just discount it. 31 (Mr Graham) I have to accept it, yes. 1843. It is not clear at the moment. (Mr Graham) I am sorry. The best I can do is to go back to sketch Map A, if that is possible, please. You 1848. No more than I would discount your anecdotal can see that the shaded areas are urban areas. evidence of usage, but it seems to me you cannot Langley on the left hand side is the western edge of ignore that and say that it was in some way unfair to the Colne Valley Park at that point. To the west of do it
31 (Mr Graham) I am not saying it was unfair to do it at Association map of Dog Kennel Bridge and associated footpath all, no. Can I say that Mr Suggett I know is going to network (BUCKCC-10 05-001) present further evidence about use. Committee Ref: A11, Open Spaces Society and Ramblers’ Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 185
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1849. The first option is to keep the existing bridge. as indeed are the platforms. To us it is extremely That is your preferred option? unlikely that British Rail would ever have a security (Mr Graham) If possible, that is right. We would like system of allowing only paying passengers onto the to see it mainly as a footpath, and if it could be platforms at that point because it is not a heavily preserved as a heritage footpath because it is used station. historical, fine, but if it were replaced by an alternative we would not cry any tears at all. 1857. But it is part of the new Crossrail, is it not? (Mr Graham) It is indeed. 1850. The compromise you suggested involves linking from Footpath 24 and using pavements on 1858. CHAIRMAN: Mr Graham, I think that the side roads; is that right? whatever it is you have been saying about the (Mr Graham) Yes. Buckinghamshire County Council and their motives and actions and so on has got to be treated with some 1851. I just want to make sure I have not care because it is pure speculation really, is it not? misinterpreted it. Then you get to Iver station. (Mr Graham) About the 1950s? (Mr Graham) That is right. 1859. All the things that you said about the county 1852. If you take that bit of green route that goes council. They have not petitioned, we do not know round and does not go over the station, you use that what their attitude is and we did not know what their footbridge across Thorney Lane, do you not, which attitude was, not from them at any rate. is the one that the council showed us on the (Mr Graham) I am sorry—they have petitioned now photograph? but they have not appeared. They did not appear at (Mr Graham) Yes. the House of Commons Select Committee and they have not appeared here. 1853. That is a perfectly safe means? (Mr Graham) It is indeed, yes. 1860. I do not know that they have petitioned us, have they? 1854. And it is not a very large diversion, actually, (Mr Graham) I do not know whether they did or not. is it? I know they petitioned the House of Commons Select (Mr Graham) No. Committee but they did not appear there and they are obviously not here now. 1855. So the only other point I can make—and I have a great deal of sympathy with the point you make— 1861. They have withdrawn their petition in this is that if we could achieve that all would be for the House. best in this best of all possible worlds, almost? (Mr Graham) Have they? (Mr Graham) Yes, we agree. We take the point that I think Ms Lieven made, and I hope I am not 1862. It is simply that one always has this problem misquoting her. She said that Crossrail do not have about what people think a local authority might have statutory powers to engage with the British Rail thought, but it is very diYcult to say if they do not Board but it is possible to talk to the British Rail come and tell us themselves, so we are going to have Board. They are a British residual board. It is spare to treat this with a bit of care. land left over. It has been in their hands ever since the (Mr Graham) I understand. canal was built, I think. 1863. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 1856. I was just trying to explore with you whether you would see that as part of that, the quid pro quo, Further cross-examined byMsLieven that you going over the Thorney Lane footbridge would not be an unreasonable thing? 1864. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, just before Mr (Mr Graham) I think if we were oVered the red best Graham goes, I think I can give some mild assistance route, not going over the footbridge but going round on Footpath 16, which might be appropriate32 while by the Thorney Lane Bridge that you talked about, I Mr Graham is still in the witness box. The only would have to talk to my colleagues but I think trouble is that it is not a good map and we will have personally that would be a reasonably acceptable to put it on the scanner. We will do our best. We alternative, yes, absolutely. Can I say though on that have got Dog Kennel Bridge here. This is Footpath point that when Mrs Collins and I came in by train 15, and Footpath 16 is marked on this. I hope your from Iver this morning, Iver station is unattended 32 normally and the bridge is open access to all people, 20080303-005) Crossrail Ref: P18, Ordnance Survey Map of Iver (SCN- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
186 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
Lordships can see. What that says is “Colne Valley farmers’ accommodation works, as I think was stated Way”. For those of you who are familiar with earlier, to link two parcels of land that belonged to footpaths, it has got the little green diamonds that go the same farmer, and would almost certainly have with an important footpath, if you want to put it like been erected as a result of representations made at the that, and it runs up the bottom right hand corner of time when the Great Western Railway was built. Richings Park, up here. (Mr Graham) That is Footpath 16. Actually, that is 1875. CHAIRMAN: I think we can go on till five. Footpath 21. Footpath 16 is to the right, as it were, of Thorney there, but it goes underneath the railway 1876. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, my Lord. Mr just north of your pointer there. Berryman and I will do our utmost to allow the petition to be completed by then. 1865. Underneath the railway there, and then it goes up to Iver and your Lordships can see it has still got 1877. CHAIRMAN: I do not want to rush you but these green diamonds, and it comes up here. it is just that these things always take a certain length (Mr Graham) That is right. of time. 1866. And then diverts— (Mr Graham) No. It keeps going over the motorway 1878. MS LIEVEN: I do not see any point, Mr and into Iver village. Berryman, in going back through the exhibits we have just seen, but can we turn to your particular 1867. So that is the alternative route into Iver marked expertise? Can you explain why the bridge needs to as being the Colne Valley Way. come down? (Mr Graham) That is right, and then on the very right (Mr Berryman) Yes. It is basically because we are hand edge of your map is West Drayton station and electrifying the tracks which run underneath the the built-up area of London. There are no bridge. The clearance between the track and the footpaths there. structure has to be a certain height to allow for the train, the pantograph above the train, the clearance 1868. I thought that might be of assistance. of the wire and the electrical clearance around the (Mr Graham) Yes, thank you. wire to prevent the high voltage in the cables running back to earth. At the moment the bridge is not su ciently tall to allow that to happen. That means 1869. CHAIRMAN: Is there anything else, Mr Y there are only two real alternatives. One is to Graham? demolish the bridge and the other is to lower the (Mr Graham) No, that is fine. track, and there are various other locations on the Great Western line where this has arisen. What we 1870. CHAIRMAN: You will have the final word, have tried to do there is make judgments as to Mr Suggett, in a moment. whether it is better to lower the track or to demolish the bridge. If the bridge is well used we replace it, of 1871. MR SUGGETT: Thank you, my Lord. course. In this case we are proposing not to replace it on the grounds that it is not well used. The other The witness withdrew factor which is taken into account is the heritage value of the bridge. I should explain that lowering the 1872. CHAIRMAN: We cannot go on beyond half tracks is a significantly expensive operation and we past four but it must be worth starting. think in this particular case it would cost about £6 million, so the option in this case in any event would 1873. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, my Lord. Can I call be to demolish the bridge rather than to try and lower Mr Berryman, please? the tracks.
MrKeithBerryman, recalled 1879. Can you just explain why there33 are problems Further examined byMsLieven about lowering the track at this location? What is the problem with this location? 1874. MS LIEVEN: I think everybody in the room (Mr Berryman) Can I have 025 up? The problem is familiar with who you are, Mr Berryman, so we do basically is that the Great Western Railway, as we not need to go through that. Can you just explain have established already, was engineered by Brunel, what the function of Dog Kennel Bridge is? who had very high standards in his work, and the
(Mr Berryman) Yes. It is a brick arch bridge crossing 33 the Great Western Main Line. It was, as far as we water level for track lowering on relief lines of 594mm know, originally constructed for the purpose of (BUCKCC-10 04-025) Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge—Estimated standing Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 187
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
Great Western runs on very shallow gradings. It was dosomethinglikethat ifweputafifthtrack in,orwhen referred to at the time as “Brunel’s billiard table” we put a fifth track in if we get the bridge. We would because it is almost level. If we look at the plan here have to try and do something more elegant than this, showing the bridge, what we have tried to do is assess but that would be the idea. what would happen if we lowered the tracks. In fact, thetracks onthemain linedonot needtobe loweredso 1881. Briefly, what would be the benefit of the fifth much, and I will come back to that point in a minute, track? but the trackson the relief lines, thelines that Crossrail (Mr Berryman) It is to allow freight trains and even will use, would need to be lowered by about 800 passenger trains to be overtaken. What we would do millimetres, just over two feet. What we did here was with the fifth track is that this track would become the that we made an assessment in a storm, how much track for use by trains going towards London. This water would flow into the area where the tracks were track would remain as now, the track used for trains lowered. We assumed that 80 per cent of that water coming away from London, and the middle track would just drain away into the ground and the rest of would be connected to both of them so that if a slow itwouldformapuddle.That isafairlystandardwayof freight train is going into London it could go into that assessing these sorts of things. If we did that we would little track and be overtaken by a passenger train. get a puddle which was about 70 metres long, and Alternatively, at other times of the day, if a freight every time there was a storm there would be a puddle train was coming out of London and needed to be here of greater or lesser length, and that would moved, it could go into that centre track and be inevitably lead to softening of the formation under the overtaken by a train on this track. track and diYculties with the track. The way that would be avoided would be by putting drainage down 1882. The next question I was going to ask was about to some convenient place so that the water could run the public right of way but I think we have gone away, but because the tracks here are so flat the through that suYciently. I do not know if you have drainage would need to go a very long way to find a anything to add to what we have already heard, Mr suitable outfall, and that brings all kinds of problems Berryman? with underpinning the bridge to lower the tracks. The (Mr Berryman) I do not think I could really. actual physical lowering of the tracks is a big job and the construction of the significant piece of drainage 1883. Can we go on to the bridge not being much used. work would be a very large job, so we expect that the Can you explain what material Crossrail has gathered outturn cost, as I said earlier, would be between £5 for its conclusion to show that this bridge is not much million and £8 million, depending on the details of the used by pedestrians? design, and it would involve several long possessions (Mr Berryman) We have done a number of surveys of the railway during which the railway would be over time. There were the two surveys that were held in closed, both tracks, unfortunately. 2006 that have been mentioned, but we had done
34 previous surveys, and on none of them did we find 1880. While we are on the engineering aspects of the anybody using the bridge. My personal experience of case, can you explain the position about the fifth track it was in June 2007 when I went down to this bridge in very brief terms? We need exhibit 40 for this. with my wife to have a look at the state of it. I think (Mr Berryman) Exhibit 40 is not Dog Kennel Bridge some of the photographs I took on the day have been but it is very similar. The reason I put this up is that shown already. On that day, the stile, which the there are places on the line where there is a fifth track Ramblers have mentioned could be used, was or in some cases there has been a fifth track. Indeed, completely overgrown and invisible; I literally did not only 200 metres to the east of Dog Kennel Bridge the see it and climbed over the gate instead. railway goes to five tracks. We are proposing to extend Unfortunately, I did not take a very good photograph that length of five tracks to join up with the next of it because I did not know it was there and did not section. This gives us a very good idea of how the realise there was35 any significance in this part of the job railways developed. This is the bridge as it would have I am on—not that one, this is further up the footpath. originally been built in 1938; this is Brunel’s famous broad gauge track that was supported on timber piles. 1884. It is no.9. By 1878 they built another two tracks, and these were (Mr Berryman) The stile is here and we understand it built of standard gauge. You can see here the standard has now been cleared, but at the time when I went up gauge, what they call dual double gauge tracks. You there, there was literally a tree growing across it—the can see in 1914 a fifth track was added at this point, tree branch is here. Even if one had realised it was a and an additional span was put in. We would have to stile, one could not have used it because it was so very
34 35 Original Features (BUCKCC-10 04-040) along footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10 04-009) Crossrail Ref: P15, Brunel Overbridges—Survival of Other Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links F—Photograph Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
188 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society overgrown. Then the step of the stile, which is down 1889. CHAIRMAN: A footbridge? here, you could not see at all because it was covered (Mr Berryman) A footbridge, yes, 2 metres wide. in nettles. That is why I did not realise it was there. If I had realised it was there, I still could not have used 1890. MS LIEVEN: Can you give the Committee it because there was a tree branch growing right some impression as to why it is that much money? across it—a substantial tree branch, not a twig! (Mr Berryman) The bridge itself would cost around
36 £60,000. The rest of the cost is foundations, 1885. It might be put that the stile was not used arranging railway possessions— because people could easily climb over the gate. Can we look at photograph no.6? Is that one you also 1891. Sixty? took? (Mr Berryman) I am sorry, around £600,000. The (Mr Berryman) Yes, this is at the point where the rest is railway possessions, getting access to the site, footpath turns round the corner to go up by the Bison getting craneage in, generally what we call Yard to the north of the railway. It was completely preliminaries and overheads. overgrown and it was very obvious that no-one had walked down there for a considerable length of time. 1892. That is option 1. Option 2 is a footpath The photograph does not show it very well, but diversion north of the railway line running west, and further up there was very heavy vegetation, not the connecting with Hollow Hill Lane. sort of thing you just push aside. It is quite severe to (Mr Berryman) That would have been going this push through—and very clear that no-one had way. Coming from the canal you would go down walked up there for some time. there and then along the north side of the railway. 37 But this was dismissed on the grounds that this bridge 1886. Can we turn to the alternatives that Crossrail here, which is Chequer Bridge, is very pedestrian- has looked at, and put up 023? unfriendly indeed. We looked at either walking down (Mr Berryman) Sorry, can I go back to what there or possibly down there, but both of those were happened after I had been on that trip? dismissed because the bridge was felt to be unsafe to make it a pedestrian route. 1887. Of course you can! 1893. What we have called option 3 is the footpath (Mr Berryman) Because I was very concerned when diversion across the land to the north of the railway. I saw these footpaths, and it became obvious that no- What is the problem with that from our point of one had used them for a long time, I arranged for view? following weekends to have comprehensive surveys (Mr Berryman) The problem with that is that it is done. In the past we had done surveys at certain times outside limits. Of course, if the local authority of the day and certain times, and I suggested that we wanted to create a footpath there we would be very, did two complete weekends from eight in the very happy to help them do that, but we cannot do it morning to seven at night, all day Saturday and all because it is outside our limits. day Sunday, which we did for two consecutive weekends; and not a single person used the footpath or the bridge. After that we became quite convinced 1894. MS LIEVEN: Option 4 is the AP3 scheme. that it was very ill-used. 1895. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Can you explain that to me? It is a legal term, I 1888. Can we run through the options, please? The presume, when you say “it is outside our limits”! first option is replacing the bridge—and we talked (Mr Berryman) The limits of deviation set out the about that. Can you give us the cost of replacing area in which we can do works. Basically, in this area the bridge? the limits are broadly along the railway boundary so (Mr Berryman) Since the Commons period, we have we cannot really go outside the railway boundary; sharpened our pencils and looked at cheaper options but in the case of this green line here, we took powers of replacing the bridge. We have come to an out-turn in AP3 (additional provisions to the Bill) to extend cost now of £1.7 million to replace that bridge. That our limits so that we have got the land to build that would be using a fairly standard lightweight steel footpath. bridge. There are a number of suppliers—they are a proprietary kind of item. That includes putting 1896. Is there anything to stop you picking up the foundations in. telephone and speaking to Mr Peter Trewin, who is 36 the Secretary of the British Railways Residuary along footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10 04-006) 37 Board—he comes from the same town as me and I DiversionsCrossrail Ref: (BUCKCC-10 P15, Dog Kennel 04-023) Bridge Links C—Photograph can give you an introduction if you like—and saying, Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge—Alternative Footpath Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:38 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 189
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
“Can we do some negotiating to get some land from stations. We would be reluctant to put a bridge across you for this deviation?” Is there anything legally to there because it will be a bridge for general public use, stop you doing that? and it is simply because it would make that revenue (Mr Berryman) There is nothing legally to stop us; in protection much more diYcult. fact British Railways Residuary Board is a 50 per cent shareholder of us, as you know! We do not have 1902. The final question I should have asked was powers under the Bill to do that. We can certainly Lord James’s question earlier to Mrs Collins: is there ask, but we cannot make them. anything unique about Dog Kennel Bridge that means it should not be demolished? 1897. MS LIEVEN: What do we understand their (Mr Berryman) No, it is a very typical bridge substantive concern is likely to be? There is no secret attributed to Brunel for the Great Western and some about this. of his other railways. It is the sort of thing that gets (Mr Berryman) There is no secret about it. The knocked oV by a draftsman in an afternoon when British Rail Residuary body is actually a very designing a railway. It is a standard—what we would commercial organisation—you will not be surprised now call a “kit of parts” bridge. It has been to hear, if you know Peter! significantly altered because, as I showed with the illustration of St Mary’s bridge, it has had a second 1898. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: span. There are a number of others that have not Unlike their predecessors, I have to say! been altered, and I think there are over a hundred of (Mr Berryman) They are concerned that the value of these bridges still existing, many of them in much this piece of land, which may conceivably be better condition. developed, although it is Green Belt, would be reduced by having a footpath going across it. 1903. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: We have only heard the word “safety” once all afternoon 1899. MS LIEVEN: Option 4 is the AP3 scheme, the and that was in relation to Chequer Bridge. Can you green route here. talk about the safety implications of removing this (Mr Berryman) That is right. bridge? Does it mean exposing the electric line which is going to be attractive to hikers in that they can 1900. Can you describe why we feel that is an jump over it or step over it and is there a danger acceptable route? resulting when the bridge is gone? (Mr Berryman) I think during the Petitioners’ (Mr Berryman) On the contrary. The fence line here, evidence we spoke about the best route from this area as we have seen, is a steel palisade fence which is to the north, so we felt that for people using it go get supposed to be vandal-proof and trespasser-proof; from A to B it is a much better route even than the and that would be extended across to join the two one that exists for most people, but it is better in the sections that already exist. That is the photograph of sense that it links up with this part of the footpath one side. That is a standard railway fence. This would and goes to the canal towpath. This is the bit, around not be an attractive option for people to try and get here, which is a more desirable and attractive area. across. Down here is all surrounded by the Bison concrete works, so when you are going across here, or here, 1904. BARONESS FOOKES: What about the you are going to go past the big pre-cast concrete original purpose of the bridge, to connect adjoining works. pieces of farmland that were needed by the farmer? (Mr Berryman) That would also stop the farmer 1901. Option 5 is the extension of the Iver Station using it, of course, because he cannot open the gate footbridge here. Can you explain what the problem any more than anyone else can without moving those with that is? piles of earth. (Mr Berryman) Yes. The point here, my Lord, is that there are already five tracks on this part of the Great 1905. You are satisfied that there is no problem with Western Railway, currently ending about here. The the farmer and he must have other means of access. footbridge only goes over to the platforms and (Mr Berryman) We have expressly discussed that provides entrance from the south of the station, so with him. that would need to be extended. As the Petitioners said, currently the station is either unmanned 1906. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: completely or only manned for a very limited number Does he not lose out? Is there not some depreciation of hours—I am not sure which. The proposal when in the value of his land? Crossrail opens is that all stations will be manned and (Mr Berryman) If there is, he has not drawn that to that there will be revenue protection on these our attention. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:39 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
190 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1907. My next question was going to be: Are you had become concerned only lately about the use of it paying him any compensation? by vehicles and so the stile to the left was until then (Mr Berryman) I was told oV for telling people this in unnecessary because the gate was kept open. the Commons but he is the only Petitioner who (Mr Berryman) I have absolutely no knowledge. I do demanded money before he would meet us. He know that members of my team—not me wanted paying for his time. personally—have observed it being closed before, but whether it was open on most days or not, I do not 1908. LORD SNAPE: Farmers and benevolence do know. not normally go together in my experience! 1918. At all events, you would accept that there is a 1909. MS LIEVEN: They are my all my questions, perfect functioning stile at the left-hand side of the my Lord. gate. (Mr Berryman) Yes. 1910. CHAIRMAN: Mr Suggett, do you have any questions? 1919. MR SUGGETT: Thank you very much. That is all I have. Cross-examined byMrSuggett 1920. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I will make a very 1911. MR SUGGETT: Mr Berryman, you short closing speech. I am sure your Lordships have mentioned that it was June 2007 when you did your the point about this not being a public right of way. survey. It is not on the definitive map. It has been accepted, (Mr Berryman) 2006. quite clearly, twice in the history, by Buckinghamshire County Council not to be a public 1912. I thought it was 2006. right of way. One was in 1954 when they did not (Mr Berryman) Yes, I am sorry, it38, was39 2006. proceed with the case in front of the Quarter Sessions. Whatever the reason for that was and whatever may 1913. Could we look at photo 006 and photograph L have been the politics of the 1950s, in 1992, when in the Petitioners’ bundle, please. I would like to British Rail got powers to demolish this bridge, again ask you about that wooden structure that can be seen Buckinghamshire County Council did not seek to there. The impression may have been gained earlier argue that it was a right of way and that the bridge that that was a stile but do you see, looking at it should not have been demolished. On the point made against photograph L, that that is some redundant by the Ramblers that by the 1990s there would not piece of furniture and that the path goes to the right have been much evidence, doubtless Iver Parish of it? Council would have amassed whatever evidence they (Mr Berryman) Yes, I can see that. had in the 1954 claim and that clearly was not enough to persuade Buckinghamshire. In my submission it is 1914. Earlier it was assumed that that was being quite clear that there is no public right of way there. represented as being a stile that was closed oV. It is also the case that, at any stage in the history (Mr Berryman) No, no. It looks like what we call a members of the public could have applied for it to be “kissing-gate” but half of it has disappeared. put on the definitive plan. Again, there is no evidence that they did so. It is certainly quite clear that 1915. And the path goes by it. Buckinghamshire did not make any such claim. (Mr Berryman) Yes. 1921. CHAIRMAN: The parish council could have
1916. Thank you for that.40 Where it goes through the done. gate that has the padlock on it, when you went there, the stile at the left-hand end was virtually invisible. 1922. MS LIEVEN: The parish council could have (Mr Berryman) Yes, there done at any stage. If they had thought the 1954 decision was wrong or was made for poor reasons, 1917. That is the one. Would you accept that the gate they could have made a claim at any stage after that. had been locked relatively recently, prior to that photograph? It is our understanding that Mr Rayner 1923. Perhaps more important is the evidence of use.
38 My Lords, the survey evidence and the evidence of along footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10 04-006) Mr Berryman is very strong. In the summer of 2006, 39 it is pretty clear in my submission that this bridge was 10Crossrail 05-012) Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links C—Photograph 40 not being used. There were two surveys—all right (BUCKCC-10Committee Ref: 04-022) A11, View of Footpath 15A (BUCKCC- they were snapshots, but two full weekends in the Crossrail Ref: P15, Pad-locked gate at Dog Kennel Bridge Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:39 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 191
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society summer when there was no use whatsoever and, or a suburban path, but the number of people on a perhaps even more importantly, Mr Berryman in his rural path, my Lords, will always be relatively small photographs showing no use for a significant period and it will vary significantly from day to day and before the day in June when he visited. There is week to week. evidence of use since but that perhaps may show the bridge has become a bit of a local cause ce´le`bre. However, even if the level of usage is such as some of 1929. I think two of the Promoters’ surveys were the local residents are suggesting, we are proposing a done on fine weekends, but good weather, we submit, replacement route and, as Mr Berryman has just shown you, for many people who are walking from A may be just the thing to take the local walking to B it is a more convenient route to get to Iver Village enthusiast further afield into the Chilterns or from Richings Park. It does not involve using a busy somewhere of that sort. My Lords, your second road. It is completely flat. There are no safety issues Petitioner, the Ramblers’ Association, believe that around the alternative route. I do repeat what I said there may be many hundreds of paths that go to in the House of Commons: although it is not a rural spectacular view points and landmarks which are not idyll, it is not replacing a rural idyll, and one has to used anything like every day, but which are of bear it in that context. importance and of value and should be kept. We say that a survey would need to be carried out for many months before one could begin to call the findings 1924. This is a case—as with the people of restricted statistically robust enough by which to judge the mobility in Newham last week—where your value of this kind of path. It is not right, we say, to try Lordships have to balance cost against benefit. The to gauge the importance of a road or path by the same cost here is in the region of £1.8 million in out-turn sort of survey that would be appropriate for a costs to arrive at a replacement bridge. It will be lovely, just like PRMs, if we could put in a lift pedestrian link in an urban area. Rather, my Lords, everywhere and bridges everywhere. I am not going we say that what is important is the evidence of local to repeat the speech about incremental costs and how residents. Mr Graham testified to use of the route on careful the Committee have to be, but at the end of behalf of Iver Parish Council. The Parish Clerk told the day you have to consider whether £1.8 million for your Lordships that many people use the path and a minimal level of public usage is a good use of she said that some of them use it frequently, and back public funds. in the 1990s the Highway Authority referred to the route being heavily used. I submit that our photographs, in contrast to the ones taken by the 1925. There is one aspect which I have not dealt Promoter during the height of summer overgrowth, with—which is the reasons for demolishing the when the Highway Authority had not done its job by bridge—but in my submission Mr Berryman’s clearing the vegetation, show that the line of the way evidence on that is compelling. It is not just that it is consistently trodden and kept open even on the would be very expensive to lower the tracks but, more narrow strip between the hedges by the bison works. importantly, is the impact it would have on the Great Western Railway with this very poor drainage situation. In my submission, it is clear that the bridge has to go. 1930. Moreover, my Lords, there are a few letters in your Lordships’ bundle from local residents at O, P, 1926. I have dealt with it very briefly but your Q, R and S at the back of your Lordships’ bundle. I Lordships have heard all the evidence. will not read them out, but if I may draw your Lordships’ attention to a couple of points in them. 1927. CHAIRMAN: Mr Suggett, it is for you to My Lords, to letter O, where Mrs Page mentions that have the final word. it is one of the few walks away from constant traYc and says that it is used, in her experience, by many 1928. MR SUGGETT: My Lord Chairman, thank people, including dog walkers, to the email at P where you. In closing, my Lords, I seek to mention first the Helen Powell says that she uses it in preference to the surveys conducted by the Promoter into the use of main roads from Richings Park to Iver because these footpaths. While we must bear with what lorries make the main road too dangerous, and, also, equanimity we can, the Promoter’s assertion that use my Lords, where she says that she sees lots of people either minimal or non-existent when the surveyors using the route. Martin Ames at Q, who although he were there, we do say that there are a number of uses it himself only ten or 12 times a year, says that objections to the practice of attempting to gauge the he has met others using it on many occasions and at value of a rural path by means of surveys carried out S, an email from George Fletcher who says that he on very few occasions. That may be fine for an urban used it regularly in the past. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:39 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
192 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1931. My Lords, we submit that even if there were not statutory guidance. My Lords, if I could quote briefly much use at the moment, it would be prudent, as from the statutory guidance: “Local highway Glenda Collins said, to provide now for increased authorities should consider the adequacy of routes future use. There is no doubt that recreational from centres of population or routes which can be walking is on the increase, the general household used in conjunction with public transport to allow survey over many years shows this. 46 per cent of all people to gain easy access to countryside from where adults in 2002 responded that they had gone for a they live”. My Lords, also in the context of Rights of walk of two or more miles in the previous year and Way Improvement Plans, quoting again, “Links that was an increase on 41 per cent in 1993 and 38 per Highway authorities are supposed to consider the cent in 1987. The 2000 survey also showed that 35 per adequacy of links which create circular routes and cent of adults had been for a walk in the previous better facilities for walkers, including dog walkers, four weeks. runners and cyclists”, and we submit that this is precisely such a path, it is close to Langley, West 1932. My Lords, in part two of the Countryside Drayton, Richings Park and Iver and it fits those Rights of Way Act 2000 Parliament has shown that it criteria about circular routes fairly and squarely and considers certain categories of local paths to be of a access to the countryside. special importance and we submit that this is one of them. My Lords, I am talking about Section 60 a 61 of that Act to do with what are called “Rights of Way 1943. BARONESS FOOKES: I am sorry to Improvement Plans”. In preparing its Rights of Way interrupt you but I wanted to enquire whether if you Improvement Plan the Highway Authority is felt that the survey undertaken by Crossrail supposed to have regard to the extent to which the Promoters was inadequate, and clearly you felt that network meets the— it was, whether because that took place in 2006, you might not have taken the opportunity to have 1933. CHAIRMAN: Have we seen this? conducted your own surveys or at least to ask regular walkers to take details on certain days. Was anything 1934. MR SUGGETT: My Lord, no. done to counter the statistics that were put forward in 2006? 1935. CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is going to be very helpful if you do not show it to us. 1944. MR SUGGETT: My Lady, we discussed this. 1936. MR SUGGETT: My apologies, my Lord, I We really do not think that spot checks, even quite was simply quoting from the statutory guidance frequent ones, are an adequate means of accessing the which accompanies the legislation concerning rights overall use of a path over a year or longer, for of way improvement plans. example. We accept entirely what the Promoter’s survey found and we cannot quarrel with it. 1937. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but we do not know what Buckinghamshire has done about it. 1945. BARONESS FOOKES: That was not my 1938. MR SUGGETT: My Lord, that is right. I was point. My point was if you did not like what the referring to the generality of the statutory guidance Crossrail Promoters were doing, did you make any simply to put this path into the context of the paths attempt, rather than anecdotal evidence, to produce recognised by that advice as important paths. statistical evidence of your own?
1939. CHAIRMAN: How do we know it is 1946. MR SUGGETT: My Lady, my I take advice recognised as an important path? on that for a moment. My Lady, I think I am unable to assist you further on that point. Enquiries were 1940. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, I am urging your made locally and some letters have been written in Lordships to find that it meets the description. support of retaining the route. 1941. CHAIRMAN: I see. 1947. BARONESS FOOKES: Yes, I think the short 1942. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, in preparing its answer is no. Rights of Way Improvement Plan, a Highway Authority is supposed to have regard to the extent to which the network meets the present day needs of the 1948. MR SUGGETT: I think that is about right, public and also the likely future needs, that is in the my Lady. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:39 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 193
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1949. BARONESS FOOKES: Thank you. 1953. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your presentation with your team. We are very grateful to 1950. MR SUGGETT: I was going to go on to refer you. I wonder whether you would be very kind and to what we hope will be the increased use of the route. leave us to discuss this while it is all fresh in our We have mentioned health initiatives and it is the sort minds. of path, we submit, that as people walk more instead of driving, it will be the sort of way which is useful for 1954. MR MOULD: My Lord, would you like me to people making local errands and trips in preference say something very briefly about tomorrow’s to driving. We submit that this path is already business? important, but importantly is more likely to become so in the future. Without Dog Kennel Bridge the 1955. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think that would be pathway would become redundant and a waste. helpful. I think I know the gist but do tell us.
1951. My Lords, your second Petitioner, the 1956. MR MOULD: We now have two Petitioners Ramblers’ Association, has experience of lobbying who are going to appear tomorrow. The first is the for footbridges to be built when a road has become London Borough of Tower Hamlets and they are dangerous to cross on the level after it has been going to be making a statement explaining certain turned into a dual-carriageway, for example. The matters that they have been negotiating with us for response we always get from the Highways Agency is, your Lordships’ benefit. Also, there is a short point “You should have come to us with this at the time the that they wish to raise and make submissions about road was being widened or duelled, it’s too late now, in relation to the proposals for the reinstatement of it would be too expensive”, and the implication being the traveller and gypsy site in Stepney Green. it would have been better to accommodate it into the costs of upgrading the road. My Lords, we suppose 1957. CHAIRMAN: So they themselves are not that if in ten or 20 years, someone sees what the value coming? of the bridge would have been after the health initiatives and the programmes like Safe Routes to 1958. MR MOULD: No, they are not coming now. Schools may have their eVect, they will be told the The travellers themselves have indicated that they are same—“This should have been built when the not coming. There will be that short point to deal railway was being widened”—and that is why we are with tomorrow in relation to the London Borough of coming to your Lordships with it today. Tower Hamlets. Then we are going to hear the petition of Mr James Middleton and, as your 1952. My Lords, that is really why our strong Lordships may recall, he is one of those who argues preference is for a replacement bridge. We suppose the case for a diVerent railway, in eVect. that every petitioner who comes here tells your Lordships that what they want is only a drop in the 1959. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is right, one that ocean compared to the overall cost of the scheme, would go to Milton Keynes. and we recognise that if everybody gets their drop in the ocean the costs will mount, but we do not think we are being over-bold in asking your Lordships to 1960. MR MOULD: That is right. The other matter find that this is a drop worth spending. It will be of I perhaps ought to mention very briefly is this. I am lasting benefit to the public, as many of them as wish aware that the Rail Regulator has issued a public to use it, that is, if the link over the line is maintained. statement today in relation to the matter that your My Lords, we suppose there may come a day in this Lordship knows was the subject of debate recently in world when everybody has to live more sustainably a hearing in front of him between the Promoter and and that that perforce would involve less travel, fewer the train operators, amongst others, and it seemed to trips abroad, fewer trips to Cornwall and the Lakes, me that I ought to make a short statement to your and more and more people having to take their Lordships tomorrow just indicating very briefly what recreation locally, and they will need opportunities is the subject matter of that announcement. for it and that will include oV-road footpaths with the opportunities for exercise that they bring. Bearing in 1961. CHAIRMAN: I am sure that is right. The mind that, and the initiatives about health and the Freight Rail Petitioners have presumably got the Safe Routes to School and all the rest, we say it would text, have they? be a prudent and pressing thing if your Lordships were to amend the Bill so as to replace Dog Kennel 1962. MR MOULD: I think they must have. It is a Bridge. My Lords, thank you very much for your public statement which will no doubt have gone to all time. those participating in that process. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:15:39 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401317 Unit: PAG1
194 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
3 March 2008 The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1963. CHAIRMAN: You introduce it to us 1967. CHAIRMAN: They are going to need quite a tomorrow for the moment and we will hear more lot of time, are they not? about it after Easter. 1968. MR MOULD: Yes, and we are going to find a day, we hope, when we can hear them. 1964. MR MOULD: Yes. It will be very short for tomorrow, simply to give you a sense of where we 1969. CHAIRMAN: And I gather a form of words have got to. by way of an undertaking or something of that sort is currently being worked on.
1970. MR MOULD: There are certainly matters 1965. CHAIRMAN: So altogether it is going to be with regard to undertakings on compensation issues very short tomorrow? that no doubt will be placed before this House.
1971. CHAIRMAN: We can only leave you to go on 1966. MR MOULD: Yes. The other Petitioner your negotiating about that. Very well. Thank you very Lordship touched on last week, which was the much. Publicly we will adjourn until 10.00 am Smithfield Traders,— tomorrow morning. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 195
DAY SEVEN TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Jones of Chelmsford, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Snape, L Fookes, B Young of Norwood Green, L James of Blackheath, L
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
MrRichardDrabble QC, appeared on behalf of thePetitioner.
BirchamDysonBell appeared asAgent.
Ordered: thatCounsel andParties be called in.
1972. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everybody. Ms 1979. MR MOULD: What I have for the Lieven, are you going to tell us about the ORR? Committee is a short statement on the Crossrail There is one other thing that has happened to me Access Option and, in particular, as I anticipated overnight, and that is I have read the paper on yesterday afternoon, as your Lordships will recall, on Directional Noise Sound from Ventilation Shafts, of the opening day of the Committee your Lordships which I have had a copy, but I think nobody else asked about the progress by the OYce of Rail among our team has. It is one of the things that has Regulation in considering the joint application by the been raised, I see, in the Tower Hamlets’ Petition at Department for Transport and Network Rail for paragraphs 31 and 32. I just wonder: have they seen approval to the access option of Crossrail services. I it? am pleased to report that the OYce of Rail Regulation yesterday afternoon published its 1973. MS LIEVEN: Have they seen the letter that proposed decision in relation to that matter. There went to your Lordship last night? I do not know, my now follows a fortnight for any comments on major Lord. Mr Mould is dealing with Tower Hamlets and, matters such as new information or factual also, dealing with the ORR statement, so if I hand inaccuracies, and at the end of that time the OYce of over to him, he will be in a better position to answer Rail Regulation hopes to issue its decision—that is to your Lordship’s questions than I. say, by the end of this month.
1974. CHAIRMAN: Will you in due time, Mr 1980. CHAIRMAN: Is it the timetabling? Mould?
1975. MR MOULD: My Lord, certainly. 1981. MR MOULD: That is right. So that means that it is still on target for railway Petitioners to be heard by this Committee starting on 21 April. 1976. CHAIRMAN: I think it is quite an interesting document once you realise that an “NSR” is a Noise Sensitive Receptor, because you are nowhere told so. 1982. CHAIRMAN: Good.
1977. MR MOULD: Unfortunately, I think it is 1983. MR MOULD: The headline point is that the generally the experience one has in reading technical OYce of Rail Regulation is willing to approve an documents that the person writing them assumes that we are all as well-versed as they are in the technical access option on the basis of a number of aspects of the case, including all the jargon. It is a modifications to it. I do not think it would be right for perennial problem of counsel. me to go into any detail at this stage—
1978. CHAIRMAN: We will see how we get on. Let 1984. CHAIRMAN: It would not mean anything to us have the railways. us anyway! Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
196 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
1985. MR MOULD: I should say, not least because 1994. CHAIRMAN: I do not know how much of the Promoter is also still ingesting what the Regulator this Petition is going to be pursued. There are quite a has said. The key point is that the access option lot of points in it. process is running to schedule. My Lord, that is all I propose to say about that. 1995. MR MOULD: My Lord, I think the position is this: until a few moments ago there was one matter 1986. I turn, then, to the business of the day, and the which Mr Drabble was going to raise with the first Petition that your Lordships are to hear is that Committee relating to the project plan, which the made by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Promoter and the London Borough have been May I deal, first of all, with the point your Lordship negotiating, for the reinstatement of a gypsy and raised about noise. The position, as I understand it, traveller caravan site at Eleanor Street in the Bow is that Tower Hamlets is one of a number of local Triangle. authorities whose concerns about fixed noise installations are being dealt with under the aegis of 1996. CHAIRMAN: I gather that has been settled. the Petition of the London Borough of Havering; they are acting as the lead authority in relation to 1997. MR MOULD: We have managed to reach a that. So, unless Mr Drabble corrects me later, I common position, which I will explain to your suspect that Tower Hamlets are presently content to Lordships, if I may, very briefly, in a moment. leave the matter of submissions to your Lordships’ House on that topic to be dealt with under the Petition of the London Borough of Havering. As 1998. CHAIRMAN: I think we are quite interested your Lordships will recall, that Petition was, I think, in this. We would like to know in what way it has put oV last week to be rearranged for a date in the been settled. It is a sensitive issue and something near future. So that is my understanding of the which we ought to know about. position with regards to fixed noise. 1999. MR MOULD: Of course. That is precisely 1987. CHAIRMAN: Nevertheless, have Tower what I shall do. That aside, Mr Drabble, I think, Hamlets seen this new document? proposes to read a statement to the Committee explaining the London Borough’s position in relation 1988. MR MOULD: That I cannot say. to other matters that are set out in that Petition. If I may, I will leave him to do that. Then I will respond, 1989. CHAIRMAN: It has the directional noise if necessary, in relation to any points arising from readings from ventilation shafts, of which quite a lot that statement. are in Tower Hamlets. 2000. CHAIRMAN: So we are having no witnesses? 1990. MR MOULD: Yes, of course. I am told that our understanding is that Tower Hamlets have not 2001. MR MOULD: No witnesses, no. Let me, then, seen the letter to which you referred—the letter of last first of all, just explain briefly the position we have night—but we believe that they have seen the paper reached as regards to the gypsy and caravan site at which went with it. As I say, Mr Drabble will explain Eleanor Street. In short, the position is this: the the position on that, no doubt. borough council own and operate a gypsy caravan site within what is known as the Bow Triangle site at 1991. MR DRABBLE: My Lords, the simple answer Bow, and here, outlined in red on the photograph, is I do not know. Mr Mould is entirely correct in you can see the travellers’ site itself in its existing saying that Havering are the lead borough dealing location. with the fixed noise issue; I am not instructed to take any points on fixed noise today and will not be doing 2002. The Promoter proposes to construct emergency so. Quite where this particular paper has got to, in escape and ventilation shafts within the Bow between Havering and ourselves, I simply do not Triangle, and we have marked on the photograph the know, I am afraid, but I am not concerned about it— location of the proposed shaft. As your Lordships we have no reason to have any concerns. can see, this location is within part of the existing area of the travellers’ site. What we have agreed with the 1992. CHAIRMAN: When you have had a chance London Borough is that the travellers’ site should be to look at it, if there is anything in it which you want relocated and reinstated within another part of the Havering to raise, tell Havering. triangle site, and the Hybrid Bill, as amended by an additional provision which passed through the 1993. MR DRABBLE: We absolutely will. That is Committee in another place, makes provision for the way in which it has been working. that. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 197
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
1 2003. If we can put up, please, 003, this shows the reinstated site; and (iii) a strategy for community proposed arrangements following the construction support during the relocation process”. and completion of the Crossrail works. You can see that this area here, which has got a sort of pale green 2007. Each of those matters shall be submitted for colouring, is the area which will be permanently subsequent approval by the local planning authority required for the Crossrail emergency access shaft, (that is to say, the London Borough of Tower and the access for that facility. The running tunnels Hamlets) and those conditions will make provision you can see outlined here and here, running in a for the time limits for submission of the detailed south-westerly/north-easterly direction. The design, relocation plan and community support travellers’ site will be permanently reinstated in the strategy for approval. brown area here, and the purple area is an area of surplus land that will be dealt with in accordance with our land disposal arrangements. That, I think, does 2008. CHAIRMAN: When you talk about the not give rise to any concerns today. strategy for community support, there was going to be some sort of working group, was there not? 2004. In relation to this, the Promoter has given an 2009. MR MOULD: Yes. undertaking to the London Borough (it is number 196 in our register) which, essentially, has two elements to it: the first is that the Promoter will 2010. CHAIRMAN: Has that been set up? relocate the existing traveller and gypsy site to a new site within the Bow Triangle (so that is this area here) 2011. MR MOULD: I am not sure that it has yet in such a way as enables the residents to be been set up, but what is intended is that that part of transferred in a single permanent move. The second the process should be taken forward between the aspect of the undertaking is that the Promoter will borough and— develop, in consultation with the London Borough, a project plan setting out the principal requirements 2012. CHAIRMAN: There do not seem to be any and processes for the relocation of the gypsy and 2 problems about that? travellers’ site.
2013. MR MOULD: I do not think there are, no. Of 2005. If I can have page 005 put up, please. This course, one thing we also should remind your document is the first page of the project plan to which Lordships, as an aside, is that this project plan I have just referred in its current draft, which was provides for consultation with the residents dated, I think, 26 February of this year. Until this themselves, as part of the process. morning, there was, I think, one outstanding point of debate between ourselves and the London Borough 2014. The issue that arose was in relation to what is in relation3 to this document. In order to explain that I just need to turn to the next page, page 6, and to ask said here; that is to say, that the Promoter was your Lordships just to look at paragraph 2.3 on that minded to impose those conditions. The London page. What that paragraph does (in particular 2.3.3) Borough had asked us if we could be somewhat is to indicate that in relation to the reinstatement of firmer in relation to the Promoter’s intentions. We the travellers’ site, the Promoter will exercise powers explained to the London Borough that the reason which are to be conferred under Schedule 16 to the why we expressed the point in that form was because Crossrail Bill, which relates to the reinstatement of we were dealing with the exercise of powers to be displaced facilities, and exercise those powers for conferred under the Bill for that purpose, and that certain purposes: in particular, that the Promoter is that was an appropriate way of expressing the minded to impose planning conditions, under that position. Schedule, requiring the submission of three matters. You can see those at (i), (ii) and (iii): 2015. After discussions this morning between myself and Mr Drabble, we have been able to take the 2006. “(i) a detailed scheme for the layout and matter a little further, and I can tell the Committee design of the reinstated site; (ii) a detailed plan for the that the Promoter’s position is as follows: the relocation of the residents from the existing site to the Promoter’s judgment is that there is a compelling case for the Secretary of State to exercise her powers 1 Eleanor Street Shaft (TOWHLB—86 04-003) under paragraph 2 of Schedule 16 to the Bill to 2 impose the three conditions stated in paragraph 2.3 CrossrailGypsy &Travellers Ref: P19, Proposed Site Relocation traveller’s (TOWHLB—86 site post construction 04-005) of 3 of the project plan dated 26 February, 2008—that is CrossrailGypsy &Travellers Ref: P19, Site Crossrail Relocation, Project Principles Plan—Eleanor (TOWHLB— Street to say, the three conditions to which I have just 86 04-006) referred the Committee. Crossrail Ref: P19, Crossrail Project Plan—Eleanor Street Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
198 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
2016. The Promoter, therefore, expects that the 2023. MR MOULD: I think it is principally focused Secretary of State will exercise her powers under upon supporting the gypsies and travellers. I would paragraph 2 of Schedule 16 to the Bill to impose those not wish to say that it will necessarily exclude any three conditions in relation to the reinstatement of relevant matters that might need to be dealt with in the gypsy and travellers’ site. The Secretary of State relation to the wider community. There may be is not, however, yet empowered to make that decision matters that would need to be dealt with in that way. and must do so in the light of all material I cannot say to you that I am aware of any particular considerations at the relevant time. The Promoter is matters that might arise in that respect, but I hope I not aware of any material consideration which might am right in saying that one would not, as a matter of justify the Secretary of State deciding at the relevant principle, exclude it. time not to exercise her powers so as to impose the three conditions stated in paragraph 2.3 of the 2024. BARONESS FOOKES: A supplementary to project plan, which is dated 26 February 2008. that—unless you are going to deal with it later: I am not clear about the timing of this from the point of view of the gypsies and travellers. Do they always 2017. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, I can see that (i) stay on the site and get moved around within it, or do and (ii) are suitable planning conditions. I am not they have to move oV completely and come back? sure how you enforce (iii). 2025. MR MOULD: No, the idea is that they would 2018. MR MOULD: The requirement is for the remain within the Bow Triangle. As I said, one of the submission of a strategy for community support, and key aspects of the commitment we have made is that that that should be subsequently approved by the the move should be a single, permanent move. That London Borough. I think the enforcement of that was one of the things that the Borough Council were condition would simply be that if there was a failure concerned to secure. That is the position. It is a to submit such a strategy then that would be matter on which I believe (again, Mr Drabble will something that the Council could seek to secure confirm his reaction to that), subject to the further compliance on. words of comfort that I have now explained to the Committee, we have now reached a position where I believe we can now agree the project plan and the 2019. I should say, also, that under the terms of the matter can proceed on that basis. Unless there is schedule itself (Schedule 16 to the Bill), there is anything else in relation to that point, I shall give way provision for an appeal to the Secretary of State for to Mr Drabble. Communities and Local Government, exercising, eVectively, her planning appeal powers, in the event of any dispute as to these conditions. 2026. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr Drabble?
2020. BARONESS FOOKES: I wonder if you 2027. MR DRABBLE: My Lords, my Lady, it is could clarify precisely what is meant by “a strategy probably sensible to start with what Mr Mould has for community support during the relocation just said in his four points, indicating the approach process”. that the Promoters take to the approval of planning conditions in relation to the project plan. We accept that, in the event of a highly unlikely development 2021. MR MOULD: Yes. What is meant is that which means the Secretary of State thinks it is wrong there should be a sharing of information between in public law terms to proceed down the route that is those aVected by the relocation process itself, so, for outlined in the project plan, she must have the right example, that the residents—the gypsies and to do so, but we would regard that as very much a travellers—who reside at the site should be supported bolt from the blue. As far as we are all concerned, during the course of the relocation process, and a there is no foreseeable reason why proceeding via the strategy should be prepared to plan for that aspect of planning conditions should not be followed through. the process being undertaken in a way which takes On basically the assurance that Mr Mould has read account of their concerns and makes appropriate on to the transcript, we are content with that way provision to meet them, and to deal with the forward. disruptive eVects of the relocation process itself. 2028. That does in fact mean, if I can move on to my 2022. BARONESS FOOKES: So community short statement that I wish to make in relation to the support is for the gypsies and the travellers; we are Bill in general, that the first point I wish to make is not talking about people in the location living in that I am pleased to say that the Council has reached houses. agreement with Crossrail on all the matters set out in Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 199
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets its Petition and is satisfied that it has secured the Council at the time of the publication of the Crossrail appropriate formal undertakings and, for that Bill, “We support Crossrail—but not at any price,” reason, the Committee will be glad to hear that we this remains the view of the Council’s current leader. will not be presenting evidence to the Committee. In this address, I will deal first, therefore, with the However, in view of the fact that the Committee have stations, then the other construction sites and, finally, made site visits to the area and will be hearing generic issues. evidence from a number of other Petitioners from the borough who may well make references to the 2033. In respect of the Isle of Dogs, the need for Council, we consider it most important that the Crossrail and a station will have been self-evident Select Committee have a full understanding of the from your site visit. Clearly, further major Council’s position in relation to Crossrail. developments and the consequent growth of employment in the area will not be sustainable 2029. As you will have already been made aware, the without greatly improved public transport. However, Crossrail Bill was published in 2005 and there have the Council objective has always been to ensure that been a further four sets of amendments to the original Crossrail and the improved transport links it Bill proposals, all of which aVected Tower Hamlets in provides will equally benefit the deprived areas of one form or another. In response, the Council Poplar as well as the major developments at Canary submitted three Petitions to the House of Commons Wharf. To this end, we have secured a number of Select Committee, detailing its various concerns important undertakings which will secure improved about the Bill proposals. However, the Council’s access to Poplar by improvements to footpath links approach has always been to negotiate and secure as well as the sub-surface tunnel which will eventually undertakings in advance of appearing at the Select link the Billingsgate Market site to the new station. Committee. As a result, the Council has found it necessary to present formal evidence on only one occasion which was in respect of the original Bill 2034. As you will also have seen, there are many proposals. residents living within close proximity to the proposed station construction works as well as a number of businesses who could be adversely 2030. The matters on which we gave evidence were in aVected. There are also buildings and structures of respect of securing undertakings on the employment historic interest, including the Museum of of local people on the construction of Crossrail, the Docklands, which will be aVected. We have, location of the shaft in Spitalfields and improvements therefore, sought to secure undertakings that protect to the entrance to Whitechapel Station. We reached residents, businesses and the buildings from what will agreement with the Promoters on an undertaking to be a very major construction project. secure employment of local people, but unfortunately the Select Committee did not agree with our case on the other two matters to which I will 2035. The second station in the borough is at refer later. Whitechapel and, as you will have seen for yourselves, is located in a completely diVerent type of 2031. By way of background to the Council’s area. Much of the property in the area is run-down approach to Crossrail, it is important to recognise and in need of regeneration. The area is congested, that, notwithstanding the major developments and but it is also vibrant and very heavily populated with employment growth on the Isle of Dogs and indeed many residential buildings in close proximity to the elsewhere in the borough, Tower Hamlets is the third construction site. The construction sites are also very most deprived borough in the country. You will also close to Swanlea School and the Royal London have seen from your site visits that it is densely Hospital, both of which are very heavily used. developed, is very lacking in open space and has a very diverse community both in terms of wealth 2036. Our first priority at Whitechapel has been to and culture. secure the maximum protection for residents, businesses, schoolchildren, the hospital and other 2032. In the light of this situation, the Council users in the area from what will inevitably be major supports the principle of Crossrail, subject to the construction impacts. In this respect, I am pleased to fundamental proviso that there will be stations at say that we have secured a range of undertakings both Whitechapel and the Isle of Dogs. In addition which are designed to protect the area from heavy and fundamentally, the Council support has been lorry traYc and construction activities, particularly conditional on minimising the environmental impact in the vicinity of Kempton Court and Durward of the construction works, but maximising the Street. We have also worked very closely with potential transport and economic regeneration Swanlea School and, as you will see from the Register benefits of the project. To quote the Leader of the of Undertakings, the school has secured a number of Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
200 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets important undertakings to protect its continuing correct—past McDonald’s. You will recall from the progress as a successful school. site visit that the proposed new entrance for the station is in an area behind the McDonald’s, and the 2037. In relation to our objectives to maximise the part of the presentation that I have just been reading transport and regeneration benefits of Crossrail, we is stressing the Council’s concern to ensure that there have sought to optimise the accessibility and is a visible and open entrance, linking Whitechapel convenience of the new station for local users because Station with the main road and more particularly we believe that this will be the best way to encourage with the hospital, and I was just going on to explain regeneration of the surrounding area. We have also what happened to those concerns in the hearing of taken into account the need to provide the best our Petition in the other place and indicate what our possible access to the Royal London Hospital which present position is. I do not know whether we have is now being redeveloped and which will be now got to a plan, but I hope that is suYcient to jog considerably expanded to provide a state-of-the-art the memory of members on the Committee as to what healthcare facility with a sub-regional catchment. we are talking about. Durward Street, which I have also been talking about, which is the site of major 2038. As you have heard, Whitechapel is the only construction impacts, runs parallel to the Crossrail station with a single entrance. Crossrail Whitechapel Road round the back, and you will suggests that this is because passenger numbers do recall from the site visit the4 school which obviously not justify a second entrance, although this may seem has a number of major issues with the construction surprising bearing in mind the large number of programme which are addressed in the undertakings. people that already use the station. Bearing in mind We can now put up a plan. the rather inconvenient relationship between the main access to the Royal London Hospital in 2044. CHAIRMAN: Cambridge Heath Road? Whitechapel Road and the proposed new station entrance in Fulbourne Street, the Council considers 2045. MR DRABBLE: It is on the corner at the east. it essential to retain the existing entrance on to There is Whitechapel Road, if Mr Mould can show Whitechapel Road, albeit it is extremely diYcult for us, and the hospital is the other side of Whitechapel people with restricted mobility. Furthermore, in Road and I suspect that the logo for Whitechapel order to take account of possible future development Station is roughly in the position of the existing to the east of the station, we also consider it essential entrance, and then Fulbourne Street, so the to retain passive provision for a further entrance on McDonald’s in the photograph we were just looking Cambridge Heath Road. at is on the corner there (indicating). My Lord, I hope that is suYcient to put my bare words in context. 2039. Since there will only be one entrance to the station in the foreseeable future and bearing in mind 2046. CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you very much. The its somewhat hidden location, the Council consider it bus did rather go round and round and we were never essential that this entrance is as accessible and visible quite sure where we were at any one time! as possible. For that reason— 2047. MR DRABBLE: Having been on site visits 2040. CHAIRMAN: Mr Drabble, I think some of myself, I have every sympathy. I will return to the my colleagues might be helped if there was a plan. text, my Lord, and I hope it makes sense. Since there will only be one entrance to the station in the 2041. MR DRABBLE: That is a good question, foreseeable future and bearing in mind its somewhat whether there is a plan. hidden location, the Council consider it essential that this entrance is as accessible and visible as possible. 2042. CHAIRMAN: I know we did go there, but it For that reason, we gave evidence at the House of does not necessarily follow that we remember exactly Commons Select Committee that the building on the which street was which. corner of Fulbourne Street and Whitechapel Road currently occupied by a McDonald’s restaurant, and 2043. MR DRABBLE: Absolutely. Mr Mould may we have just seen that in the photograph, should be assist us with a plan. While that is being found, included within the station site. This will provide a perhaps I can just put up on the screen a couple of spacious concourse and entrance area suitably in photographs because you have, I think, all been on keeping with the high quality of the new station itself. the site visit and you may remember the location of Unfortunately the Select Committee did not agree Fulbourne Street and the proposed station entrance. with us. However, we are still attempting to secure This is the view from the hospital side of Whitechapel improvements to both the existing station in Road looking down, as I understand it, Fulbourne 4 Street—and I need to make sure I am getting it Amendments of Provisions (SCN-20080304-002) Crossrail Environmental Statement, Impacts arising from the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 201
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Whitechapel Road as well as the new entrance in 2056. However, the Council considered that discussions with Transport for London, and we Crossrail had not fully justified the case for the use of would welcome the Select Committee’s support in Hanbury Street as the optimum location for a shaft achieving this objective. in Spitalfields and gave expert evidence that serious consideration should be given to an alternative site in 2048. CHAIRMAN: Is the McDonald’s within the Woodseer Street just to the north. This would have limits of deviation? involved a minor variation in the route alignment which the Council considered would cause no serious construction or operation problems. Unfortunately, 2049. MR DRABBLE: No, it is not within the limits the Select Committee did not agree with the Council of deviation. and decided that Hanbury Street was the better location for the intervention shaft. 2050. CHAIRMAN: So it is not within the Bill?
2051. MR DRABBLE: It is not within the Bill. The 2057. The Council still seeks to mitigate the Bill could be adjusted to provide for its purchase, if construction impacts and, to this end, has secured appropriate. undertakings that Crossrail will minimise the size of the intervention site and that it will continue to 2052. CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. I think that review the Crossrail ventilation and evacuation starts all sorts of things going on. strategy which could obviate the need for any shaft in Hanbury Street. In this respect, we were pleased to 2053. MR DRABBLE: To be crystal clear, we have have been advised by Crossrail that it seems likely the not petitioned in this House on this issue, but we site will no longer be required as a ventilation shaft thought it was helpful for the Committee to know which would reduce the size of the site and period of what our continuing stance is. construction. The Council will continue to press Crossrail to consider the possibility of eliminating the Hanbury Street shaft. Although the Hanbury Street 2054. Turning to the route itself, the whole of shaft has caused most local opposition, there are a Crossrail is in tunnel throughout the borough. number of other sites where the construction of However, as you will have been made aware, there is intervention shafts will cause serious disruption and a requirement for ventilation and evacuation shafts disturbance. to be located at one-kilometre intervals throughout the length of the tunnel. So far as the borough is concerned, this means that, as well as the two major station sites, there will be a further ten construction 2058. The site in Eleanor Street involves the sites, including a major construction site at Stepney displacement of the Council’s only permanent Green in the junction of the two arms of Crossrail. travellers’ site in the borough, and originally there You may not yet have been made aware of it, but were no proposals for its replacement or relocation. there will be another major tunnel running north- The Council first secured a commitment to relocate south in the Bow area which will carry the diverted the site and then, following further pressure from the Ham and Wick sewer, which presents its own serious Council and the travellers themselves, Crossrail construction impacts. Inevitably, in such a heavily agreed to include additional land within the Bill built-up area, these construction sites will have major proposals in order to ensure that the travellers could adverse environmental impacts during the be relocated in a single move rather than in two construction period. moves, as was originally proposed. Since then, we have been working with Crossrail in order to agree a 2055. One of the shaft sites is in Hanbury Street, project plan which deals with both the design of the which you have already visited. You will have seen new site and the relocation process. We are pleased to that it is in a very congested residential area and will say that in the last few days we have reached result in significant property demolition. Not agreement with Crossrail that the design of the site surprisingly, there is considerable local opposition to will comply with the recently published guidance on this proposed shaft. As you will be aware, it was the design of gypsy and travellers’ sites produced by originally proposed as a major tunnelling launch site the Department of Communities and Local which the Council very strongly opposed, but Government, and that the Council will have the right fortunately, shortly before the House of Commons of approval over the final detailed design of the site, Select Committee commenced hearing evidence, the and, as Mr Mould explained first thing, final Promoters adopted a revised tunnelling strategy agreement on the way forward has been reached in which no longer necessitated a launch site in the area. the way that he explained. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
202 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
2059. A number of other construction sites have been considerable misinformation on the project and its located in the borough’s very scarce open spaces at impacts. Stepney Green and Mile End Park. In addition, one of the construction sites for the Ham and Wick sewer is located in the middle of Grove Hall Park in Bow. 2062. However, rather than just object to the As a result of the construction works, two of the Crossrail consultation methodology, the Council borough’s few and heavily used football pitches will decided to take a more proactive approach to need to be relocated, and Stepping Stones City Farm consultation in the borough. We have adopted a will lose part of its site during the construction policy of sending regular newsletters to all the period. We have secured undertakings to ensure that petitioners located in the borough as well as other the football pitches are relocated prior to individuals and organisations aVected by Crossrail. construction work commencing so that there will be The Council’s webpage has a separate section on no short-term loss of a very scarce local facility. At Crossrail which is regularly updated and provides Stepping Stones Farm, Crossrail will finance the copies of the Council’s petitions, the Promoter’s reconfiguration of the site to enable the farm to response and other key documents. In addition, the continue in operation during construction works. At Council took a policy decision to publicise through Grove Hall Park, we have secured undertakings to newsletters or press releases any material it receives minimise the impact of the construction works on the from Crossrail which it considers relevant and will be use of the park and to secure its full reinstatement of interest to the borough’s residents and businesses. after completion of the works. To date 31 separate newsletters have been produced and circulated. 2060. I have so far discussed individual sites in the borough which will be aVected by the construction of Crossrail, but these are not the only impacts on the 2063. The Council does recognise that Crossrail is borough. Legitimately residents and businesses now seeking to take a more proactive and positive located above the tunnel have been concerned by the approach to community involvement. We very much possibility of settlement, noise from the tunnel boring welcome the request by the Select Committee in the machines as well as the running of trains when other place to require Crossrail to set up a Spitalfields Crossrail is operational. In its original petition the Community Liaison Panel with which in due course Council raised concerns about the adequacies of the the Council will become fully involved. We also information on settlement policy available to those welcome the very recent publication of the who lived and worked above the tunnel. As a result community relations strategy which we have not yet we secured an undertaking which now applies across had a chance to examine closely but which we believe the whole route to ensure that people living above the will contain much good practice. We hope that in the tunnel are properly informed about Crossrail course of proceedings in connection with the Bill it settlement policy and are able to secure proper legal will achieve a formal status. Further work is needed safeguards. The Council has taken the lead on re- by Crossrail, however, to eVectively engage with the writing Crossrail’s policy on noise and vibration and local community to ensure the success of the has provided practical and financial support to other Community Liaison Panel. boroughs which have been leading on other generic policies that aim to provide protection from construction impacts. These include the period of 2064. I hope this statement provides the Committee construction, working hours, environmental with a full understanding of the Council’s position in minimum requirements, airborne and groundborne relation to Crossrail and its continuing objective to noise, and dust control. ensure that the potential benefits of Crossrail to the borough’s residents and businesses are maximised 2061. Finally, and together with other petitioners, the while seeking to minimise the inevitably serious Council has taken a very proactive approach to construction impacts throughout the borough. I Crossrail’s policies on consultation and community thank the Committee for its patience. relations. The Council acknowledges that it has been a challenging task to ensure the community is fully consulted and informed on such a major project as 2065. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Drabble. Crossrail. Nevertheless, we feel that Crossrail both When we went to Hanbury Street, and I do not underestimated and under-resourced this work and, suppose in any way that is unique, the point that was as a result, the consultation approach adopted by being made to us by the people who lived there was Crossrail was inadequate and, as recognised by the how narrow the streets are and how tight the corners House of Commons Select Committee, resulted in are in terms of construction. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 203
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
2066. MR DRABBLE: Indeed. 2079. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Could we start with the first question. How many children 2067. CHAIRMAN: I do not suppose that is the are there within the travellers’ site? only place where that applies. What progress have you made about that because you are the Highway 2080. MR DRABBLE: I do not know immediately. Authority? Twenty-two, I am being told.
2068. MR DRABBLE: Agreement on the way 2081. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: forward in terms of traYc management plans has Presumably they go to the local schools? been reached, and was reached, by the Committee in the other House, so that from the Highway 2082. MR DRABBLE: Absolutely. Authority’s point of view we are satisfied that we have reached a way forward in dealing with the 2083. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: The undoubted construction issues that will take place question really, whichever way you come to it, is what and the residential areas around the shafts, not just impact will any of this have on their access to those Hanbury Street but elsewhere. schools and will they be exposed to the danger of the circulating equipment5 and traYc on the site? 2069. CHAIRMAN: I do not think the people we met have seen anything of the kind. 2084. CHAIRMAN: Could we put the Whitechapel map up again? 2070. MR DRABBLE: As I think I have just said on the consultation part of it, this has been a common 2085. MR DRABBLE: Indeed. experience in relation to whether or not the individual petitioners have understood what is being 2086. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: That negotiated between the Council and the Promoters question remains unanswered at the moment, Mr but, as I have just said, the material is on the website Drabble. and has been distributed. 2087. MR DRABBLE: I realise that. 2071. CHAIRMAN: I am sure that is right, but not everybody can deal with websites. 2088. CHAIRMAN: That does not deal with the travellers’ site. 2072. MR DRABBLE: Indeed. 2089. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I am concerned that the essence of the question—I may 2073. CHAIRMAN: They are quite a well organised have asked it wrongly—is how many children there group there, at least judged by the noise they made, are on the site, what schools do they go to and is there and I would have thought they were contactable. any danger created by the circulating traYc of the construction site relating to those children which is a 2074. MR DRABBLE: I know that regular new element for the safety of the individual? discussions at the local level take place all the time with the group and we are committed to public 2090. CHAIRMAN: This is on the travellers’ site? consultation and taking that forward. 2091. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Yes. 2075. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Mr Drabble, on Friday I had my visit to the site and I was 2092. CHAIRMAN: That is not on here. concerned to see the proximity of the three schools which eVectively are within the construction area or 2093. MR DRABBLE: My Lord, if I can answer the accessing the construction area. question as directly as I can on my own information and if we need any more, then I will turn behind and 2076. CHAIRMAN: Hanbury Street. ask it. I am told there are 22 children on the site. They go to the local schools. The purpose of the plan, by 2077. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: How which I mean the text which Mr Mould discussed many children are there within the travellers’ site, and with you, is, amongst other things, to settle a how many of those children go to any of those relocation strategy that will provide for a single move schools, please? of the travellers site. As far as I understand it, there are no outstanding concerns about the relationship 2078. MR DRABBLE: The Eleanor Street children 5 would not go to any of the schools— Amendments of Provisions (SCN-20080304-002) Crossrail Environmental Statement, Impacts arising from the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
204 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets between the construction works in the part of the site 2100. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: It is that will be freed by the movement of the travellers’ fine provided the traYc is not there, but my site and the relocated travellers’ site that follows that impression of what I saw are that entry gates are signalled move. likely to be too broad to be supervised by a single supervisor stopping children coming through if they 2094. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: The run through, as children do, competing with each relocation of the travellers’ site does not create any other. It is easy to get out quickly and there would be problem of getting to the schools for these children or mayhem on those narrow roads if there was any creating any new dangers? traYc and if the children come through in any numbers. 2095. MR DRABBLE: No, in terms of the relationship to the school, it is a relatively minor 2101. MR DRABBLE: Sir, I repeat that the way we relocation. Provided it is handled appropriately on have addressed that issue is to ensure that there no the site within the triangle, which is one of the lorry movements at the time the children are exiting purposes of the discussion we are having with the and entering the school. That is the precise way it has Promoters, then there is no need to anticipate any been taken forward. diYculty. 2102. CHAIRMAN: Mr Drabble, I suspect that the only way Lord James would be satisfied about this is 2096. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: In if he sees the text of the undertaking. accepting that answer, my Lord Chairman, could I make the point at some point during this, and I am not sure when and where it will occur, I was not 2103. MR DRABBLE: I hope Mr Mould, while I happy with the security of the access hours available have been talking, has been looking for the text of the to the schools on the three sites within the Hanbury undertaking. Road area and would like at some point to hear that debated. 2104. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: My only comment would be it would require extremely careful management and supervision because of the 2097. CHAIRMAN: I think it will have to be potential to go wrong if the supervision fails. debated now. 2105. CHAIRMAN: Shall we see the text of it first? 2098. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I was I do not think it is any use putting it up on the board concerned then in that case that the issue which arose, now because I imagine it is fairly complicated. as far as I could see, was that there was a reasonable margin being allowed as to the access hours when the 2106. MR MOULD: What I can show your trucks could not move and the children were going in Lordships is the Promoter’s response to, I think, and out of the schools. I think the schools may have essentially this very point that was raised by the more than one exit and entry each and I was unsure 6 Committee in the other place. This is the response we as to whether the children themselves would abide by made to their interim decisions in July 2006. Perhaps the rules and not make their own dangers by jumping if I just show your Lordships our response. If your barriers or getting through a window, that there was Lordships would have a look at 13.5, which I have enough security on the children’s entry and access. I marked, and I have underlined the word “any” there. am probably being very neurotic, but it seemed to me That is the start. We have entered into an a very extremely dangerous potential situation. undertaking with the borough council in relation to this, which broadly reflects that response, but I think 2099. MR DRABBLE: My Lord, as you will have it is crucial that the Committee should also note this seen, we have secured undertakings to ensure there and that is we have established a schools’ working are no lorry movements along the defined routes— group in which Swanlea School, in particular, is an and I am speaking from memory in the Commons active participant. That working group is intended to proceedings in my own case—that the traYc enable the Promoter, the schools and, indeed, the management plans work by identifying routes for the borough council, as I understand it, to share on a construction traYc. There are undertakings that regular basis operational and practical concerns there will be no lorry movements at the beginning and about managing the impact of the project as it aVects the end of the working day and we are dealing with a schools and school children in the area of Tower very limited number of lorry movements, even during Hamlets. Our experience thus far is that has been a the working day. We are satisfied that there are no 6 significant highway dangers arising from the No. 86—London Borough of Tower Hamlets (SCN-20080304- construction works in the light of that situation. 003) Crossrail Ref: P14, Promoters Response Document for Petition Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 205
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets successful and productive process and we had every 2114. MR MOULD: I will give way. reason to think it would continue to be so and the sort of concerns that Lord James raised are precisely the 2115. MR DRABBLE: My Lord, the position is we sort of concerns that are the subject matter of have accepted the undertaking on the schools’ discussion at that group. working group and intend to make it work, if I can put it like that. 2107. CHAIRMAN: I suspect that Lord James would like to see the text of the undertaking, it is in 2116. CHAIRMAN: You have accepted that the register. I am sure he does not need to see every undertaking? word of it now, but could it be supplied to him so he can see it? 2117. MR DRABBLE: We have accepted that undertaking, absolutely. These issues were issues that 7 were raised in our petition in the other place and, as 2108. MR MOULD: We can certainly supply it, but far as we are concerned on this issue, we have we can show your Lordships the text. I am told it is satisfactorily disposed of the undertaking and we are number 187. I will read it out: “The Promoter committed to carrying that forward. undertakes, where a proposed lorry route passes a school that is not currently subject to heavy goods 2118. CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful. What we traYc, it will restrict the hours during which Crossrail will do about this is let Lord James have a copy of the construction traYc will operate and/or introduce text of the undertaking and at some suitable stage we appropriate traYc management measures to be can raise it with the Promoter. If that is the position agreed with the Council. These measures are to of Tower Hamlets, we do not need to call you back include the 30-minute prohibition of Crossrail again. construction traYc when the school pupils are arriving at school and a 30-minute prohibition when the pupils are leaving. The exact hours would be 2119. MR DRABBLE: That is our position, my agreed on a case-by-case basis with each school. The Lord. It may be sensible for a full collection of the Promoter will work with the Council to develop a undertakings that relate to school management strategy for lorry routes and that takes into account issues, if I can put it like that, to provide them to Lord the nearby sensitive uses. The Promoter will consult James so he can see the whole picture. on the day-to-day management of lorry holding sites”. It very much reflects the response we made to 2120. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. the Committee in the other place which I showed your Lordships a moment ago. 2121. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: That would be appreciated. 2109. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, that is very good, 2122. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I but I think Lord James would like to have a copy of am seeking confirmation. As I understand, being a the text. governor of my local primary school, in fact there are not lots of exits and entrances on schools these days. 2110. MR MOULD: We will do that. Because of security, in my experience there are one or two entrances at the most to ensure we do not get the 2111. CHAIRMAN: Two of my colleagues have problems that Lord James has raised. That is one questions but I want to finish this one first. The thing. We had the advantage of looking at Swanlea schools’ working group plainly will include Tower School and seeing some of these lorry movements. Hamlets’ local education authority? My only doubt is, observing as I do because I live near my local primary school, in fact the traYc flow of children into the school is probably a bit longer 2112. MR MOULD: Yes. than 30 minutes in some cases, but I notice you have written in anyway, it is the subject of local 2113. CHAIRMAN: And in so far as they are only consultation. going to be here today, I would like to know if they would have any comment on this. We can raise these 2123. MR DRABBLE: It is to be subject to local matters with you again on another occasion but we consultation. As I understand the undertaking we may not see Tower Hamlets again and, therefore, I have been looking at, a guarantee of a minimum would quite like to know whether Mr Drabble has period of 30 minutes but the detail of how it works in anything further to say on this matter. relation to each school is a matter for local 7 consultation. Your Lordship will appreciate that, Schools lorry rerouting (SCN-20080304-004) quite apart from Tower Hamlets’ involvement in its Crossrail Register of Undertakings and Assurances, No.187— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
206 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets petition, there have been direct discussions between 2132. MR DRABBLE: My Lord, it is outside the the school and the Promoter because your Lordships limit of deviation. The Petitioner failed in the will have seen on site there are some very real issues Commons. The only point of making the comments about the relationship of the school to the work site that I have made, rather than submissions, is that if and matters of that sort, but there have been school an issue does come up in relation to anybody else’s to Promoter discussions in some detail. Petition we would very much wish to have borne in mind the sensitivity of this issue. I do not think I can 2124. BARONESS FOOKES: Will the take it any further than that. arrangements that are being made in a detailed way include the possibility that parts of the school may 2133. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any compulsory come out within the basic school hours, perhaps for purchase powers that you could use? I imagine swimming or for other reasons or for outings, probably not because it would fall within the Town because you could have a considerable movement of and Country Planning Act. children within the day as opposed to the opening and closing hours? 2134. MR DRABBLE: We would have the normal powers available for the compulsory acquisition for 2125. MR DRABBLE: The formal answer is that the proper planning of the area, but whether or not these matters are a matter for detailed discussion there is such a case is not a matter on which I can within the terms of the undertaking. I am being told comment. from behind that if we are talking about the specific example of Swanlea there are three school entrances 2135. CHAIRMAN: You have not discussed that? and those behind me anticipate that it will work by using one of the entrances that do not relate to the construction route if pupil movements are necessary 2136. MR DRABBLE: No. when the lorry movements are going on. As I understand the structure of the undertaking, it is that 2137. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: Lord sort of issue which is to be teased out at the local level Chairman, I was surprised to hear that you have not between the schools’ working group. entered into separately, even though it was a deviation outside of the Bill, to some form of 2126. BARONESS FOOKES: As long as it is I am development there, maybe in a PPP, maybe even with content. Crossrail or with other developers, that simultaneously could be developed alongside the erection of the new entrance to the station. 2127. MR DRABBLE: Yes.
2128. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: Mr 2138. MR DRABBLE: The debate in the other place Drabble, could I have a look again, please, at the was about whether or not it is properly to be seen as photograph of the Whitechapel Station? If I may just part of the station project because our case was that again say that I was aghast to learn on the visit that the construction of a modern station facility in this in fact that building is to remain standing when the location demands eVectively what your Lordship is new entrance is constructed, and I thought that if we putting, a visible entrance as part of proper station were doing this in Mayfair I am quite sure it would planning, and that was the case that was rejected and not remain. we have not renewed the Petition in this place, but we still regard the issue as a real issue, and I do not think I can take it any further than that. 2129. MR DRABBLE: I can only comment that I should have called you as a witness! 2139. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can either if it is not within the limits of deviation. 2130. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: There is not much snooker in Mayfair! 2140. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman, that brings me to the next question: why on earth was 2131. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: Not it not within the limits of deviation? many McDonald’s either! You are anxious to ensure that access is as visible as possible to the new station and particularly for people coming across from the 2141. MR DRABBLE: That is for Crossrail to hospital. You said you would like our support; would answer. you like to say a little bit more about that and elaborate and say in which way you think that this 2142. BARONESS FOOKES: I would like an Committee might give support? answer. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 207
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
2143. MR MOULD: The answer is that our primary in order to give the necessary land and flexibility as to objective is to build a railway, it is not to go land to enable the railway to be constructed. significantly further than that and to engage in urban regeneration. It may help the Committee if I ask for 2148. BARONESS FOOKES: But would it not page 29 to be put up because we have given8 an have been easier to have included this on the assurance in relation to this matter—not specifically understanding that maybe somebody else, not the as regards McDonald’s but in relation to undertaker, might put up a new part of a building regeneration in the area of Whitechapel Station. which looked to be part of the new station.
2144. This is a page from a letter which we wrote to 2149. MR MOULD: My Lady, I think our response the London Borough earlier on this year to set out in to that is this: that it would not ordinarily be some detail the full range of undertakings and considered appropriate to include within the limits of assurances that we had entered into in relation to deviation land that is not directly required for the them. If I read to you what we say from the top of purposes of constructing the railway, but might be that page, in relation to Whitechapel Station. “We said by others to merit redevelopment or are not prepared to give an open-ended assurance regeneration in order to improve the streetscape or that would oblige the nominated undertaker to whatever. facilitate your regeneration strategies at Whitechapel and the Isle of Dogs, especially as those strategies 2150. As Mr Drabble has acknowledged, and I may still be evolving, may well change over the course respectfully agree with him, there are powers vested of the Crossrail construction period and may well in the local planning authority to acquire land, contain aspirations that are at odds with the primary compulsorily if necessary, in order to carry out objective of the nominated undertaker, which is, after regeneration purposes; and no doubt there have been all, to deliver a safe and eYcient operational railway occasions—and in principle there clearly could be without undue delay. That said, we would be happy occasions—where those who are constructing an to oVer an assurance in the following terms: ‘The infrastructure project and who have obtained powers Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to to acquire land for that purpose can work with other work with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets authorities who have powers to acquire land for with a view to facilitating, so far as reasonably regeneration purposes, and work with them in order practicable, its urban regeneration strategies at to integrate those two purposes together. In terms of Whitechapel and the Isle of Dogs, whilst the assurance, it speaks for itself. acknowledging that the nominated undertaker’s primary objective is to deliver a safe and eYcient 2151. BARONESS FOOKES: But it is clear, is it operational railway without undue delay.’” not, that in order to make the station entrance clearly visible for all it would have been far better to have included that particular section and to that extent 2145. As I think Mr Drabble has acknowledged, as one can say that it vastly improves the actual station regards regeneration strategies within the Borough of and its entrance? Tower Hamlets, the Council, as the planning authority, has powers under the Planning Act to take 2152. MR MOULD: We did not take that view. action for that purpose, and that assurance eVectively says that we will be prepared, using the 2153. BARONESS FOOKES: No, I can see that. colloquial term, to work with them in relation to any such proposals that they bring forward themselves as regards the environs of Whitechapel Station. 2154. MR MOULD: It is not simply that we did not take that view, that debate was had before the Committee in the other place. 2146. BARONESS FOOKES: Lord Chairman, am I correct in asking Mr Mould this question? 2155. BARONESS FOOKES: I am not really Enclosing something within the line of deviation does interested in what happened there; it is what is not require the undertaker to do certain things which happening here. are not absolutely essential? 2156. MR MOULD: My Lady, I appreciate that, 2147. MR MOULD: That is right. The purpose of but it is not a matter on which my learned friend has the limits of deviation is to identify those areas of petitioned this House, as he has made clear, and it is land along the route which are judged to be required a matter which was the subject of the Tower Hamlets’
8 Petition in the other place, and was put fairly and Borough of Tower Hamlets—Eleanor Street Travellers Site squarely before the House of Commons’ Committee. (petition 218 and register entry No. 196) (TOWHLB-86 4-029) We gave our answer; we said that we were in the Crossrail Ref: P14, Correspondence from CLRL to the London Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
208 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets position, and we argued, that with signage and other 2167. MR MOULD: We certainly intend that there provisions we would expect to put in place in relation should be good signage to enable access, to improve to the construction of the new Crossrail station that it accessibility between Whitechapel Road and the would not be necessary to undertake the kind of more Royal London Hospital to the new station. expansive works that your Ladyship has in mind. 2168. I should of course point out, as your Ladyship 2157. So it is not simply a case of saying that the will have well in mind, that the new station is to be Select Committee in the other place did not require us fully accessible. to do this, that was having heard full argument on the point; and they having not required us to do that the 2169. BARONESS FOOKES: Indeed. matter has not been resuscitated by the London Borough in this House. 2170. MR MOULD: Which of course—as those who attended the site visit saw, and your Ladyship 2158. BARONESS FOOKES: Was that because the was there—will be a very marked improvement over London Borough was satisfied or because they felt the situation at the present time. that there was no earthly use— 2171. BARONESS FOOKES: It is just a pity that 2159. MR MOULD: I cannot speak for the London one is going to spoil the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar. Borough 2172. MR MOULD: I heard what your Ladyship 2160. BARONESS FOOKES: Perhaps they can said; I have just been handed a note, if you would say. allow me a moment. 2173. BARONESS FOOKES: It was just a 2161. CHAIRMAN: I think Lord Brookes has somewhat sarcastic observation! something to say on this. 2174. MR MOULD: I understood it as such! We do 2162. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: If in have a visual representation of the proposed new fact you are closing the entrance from Whitechapel Crossrail station at Tower Hamlets. Unfortunately Road, which is immediately opposite the hospital— we do not have a copy of that here now but we have gone post haste to get a copy of it and we will show 2163. MR MOULD: We are not. Perhaps I should that to the Committee, if we may, perhaps after the just make that clear now. Lest there be any short break. misunderstanding we have given an undertaking to keep the existing entrance open, so there will in fact 2175. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I be two entrances. The point about the existing want to get some sort of perspective. In terms of the entrance is that we are not willing to upgrade it distance from the Whitechapel Road, the new step- because we do not consider that that is justified. free Crossrail entrance and step-free station, how far Again, that is a point that was raised in the other is it from the Whitechapel Road? place, but our position on that is the subject of a clear undertaking which has been given to the London 2176. MR MOULD: I am told that from the north Borough. side of Whitechapel Road to the new station entrance is about 40 metres. 2164. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: It remains open, steps and all? 2177. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Having been there and looked at the heritage 2165. MR MOULD: Exactly so. Whitechapel Station, which, like many London underground stations, if you wanted to provide 2166. BARONESS FOOKES: Because it is not wheelchair access you would not have designed it being upgraded—and I understand the reasons for that way— that—it does mean that patients are going to the hospital who may have problems of mobility will still 2178. MR MOULD: No. have them at that most direct route, which leads me to say that I think the other section, which includes 2179. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: the McDonald’s we have been speaking about, . . . it is a moot point whether people with wheelchairs should be very, very clearly marked, and it will be would want to go through that station to gain access much easier if that building were subsumed within to Crossrail rather than take a journey 40 metres the main station entrance. away. Whilst in an ideal situation there might be all Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 209
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets sorts of things one could have done, my concern is 2189. Can I say this, first of all—and this will take a trying to get a balance with Crossrail, what you could very few minutes—that questions were raised as to reasonably expect the undertaking to do in terms of traYc management within the Whitechapel and within the agreed limits of deviation. So my concern Hanbury Street area. Your Lordships are to hear is how far is it from that Whitechapel Road, which petitions, as you know, from the Spitalfields’ obviously will generate a large amount of foot traYc residents next week, and one of the things that we to and from that hospital, that we have the signage expect to deal with in a little more detail in our right and that when they do get there it is a very presentation to your Lordships is to explain lorry accessible, step-free environment. routine, and so forth.
2180. MR MOULD: My Lord, yes. 2190. Just touching again on the question of schools, it may also help Lord James in particular to know by way of background that Swanlea School was a 2181. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that there is not Petitioner in the other place and it was in the context much more that can be done within the ambit of this of their Petition that a number of the matters that we Bill; but, on the other hand, Tower Hamlets have have already explained to the Committee as regards copious powers under the Planning Acts if they working groups and so on were established, and it is should choose to follow the line, for instance, that a matter of record that the school is, as I understand Lord Brooke has been putting forward. it, content with the processes that have been set up— they certainly have not petitioned your Lordships’ 2182. BARONESS FOOKES: And me! House in relation to those matters.
2183. CHAIRMAN: And indeed Lady Fookes. So it 2191. The next point is that Mr Drabble touched on is an entirely separate point but I do not know what he called Ham and Wick sewer diversion. Your whether you can take it any further, Mr Drabble? I Lordships have not heard anything about that and I imagine you cannot? do not think your Lordships will hear anything about that because it is not the subject of any particular Petition. But I thought it might be helpful just to say 2184. MR DRABBLE: I do not think I can take it this: that that relates to enabling works which are to any further before the Committee, no. You have our be carried out as part of the project to divert an present position as to whether we are happy or existing sewer to enable the running tunnels to be unhappy about the exclusion of McDonald’s and I constructed at a point to the east of Bow Road, up cannot say anything more about that. It is not in the towards Pudding Mill Lane. limits of deviation and we have not petitioned and I do not think I can sensibly take it any further. 2192. Mr Drabble touched on the question of the need for the Hanbury Street shaft, and, again, we will 2185. CHAIRMAN: But you have heard what is be dealing with that in a great deal of detail, I have said, and I do not know whether your planning no doubt, next week. SuYce to say that our present committee might be prepared to have another look position is that there remains a shaft at Hanbury, at it. both for emergency access and for ventilation purposes. We will explain that next week. 2186. MR DRABBLE: We have certainly heard what has been said, yes. 2193. As regards the question of compliance with published guidance for the design of gypsy and traveller sites, the project plan that you have been 2187. MR MOULD: My Lord, there are one or two looking at certain aspects of during the course of this points I would wish to make in response—very much morning’s proceedings, amongst other things, matters of detail, and bearing in mind that your provides a commitment that the reinstated gypsy and Lordships are not being asked to make any specific travellers’ site will be designed in such a way as to decisions by the London Borough on that petition. comply, so far as it is reasonably practicable, with current government guidance. There is some 2188. Of course the first thing I would say is that we emerging detailed guidance on the design of gypsy on our side are pleased that positive discussions have and travellers’ sites which was published by the continued with the London Borough and have led to Department for Communities and Local the position where, before your Lordships’ Government, I think, last year, and my expectation is Committee today, Mr Drabble has felt able simply to that by the time the work begins in earnest on the nuts make a statement explaining what the current and bolts of the design of the reinstated site that position is. guidance will have become published guidance—firm Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
210 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets guidance. As I say, the project plan makes provision 2202. My Lord, those are the very few points of for compliance, so far as reasonably practicable, with additional detail that I wish to draw to the that guidance. Committee’s attention. Unless there is anything else in relation to Mr Drabble’s statement, I shall stop 2194. There are two other points. Firstly, in relation there. to a number of assurances where we have undertaken to meet costs of certain things—the question of the 2203. CHAIRMAN: I do not see any further Stepping Stones Farm was mentioned earlier— questions from us. Mr Drabble, have you got clearly, where we have done that we have done so on anything further to say? the basis that we will meet such costs as are reasonable. I have been asked to make that clear. 2204. MR DRABBLE: My Lord, no.
2195. Another point which has, I think, been a source 2205. CHAIRMAN: Thank you all very much for of interest, both in this Committee and, indeed, in the that illumination. We may have taken a little bit Committee in the other place, concerns community longer than expected on this matter but Tower relations, and I thought it might be helpful, with one Hamlets raised some extremely important points, eye on next week as well, of course, just to draw your and some of them have general application. I do not Lordships’ attention to one of the9 matters that were think that in any way we have wasted our time this dealt with in that detailed letter that I drew attention morning; we have clarified a number of matters. We to earlier in the context of the Whitechapel issue. If I are all very grateful to both sides for what they have can ask for page 14 to be put up. been able to tell us. Thank you very much. Now we come to the question of coVee, which I suspect is not 2196. CHAIRMAN: Is this the one that is up on the ready. Nevertheless, we will break until a quarter-to- screen now? twelve and then we will listen to Mr Middleton.
2197. MR MOULD: It is a diVerent part of the same After a short break letter. Under the heading “Community Relations Strategy”, there are two points. First of all, we have 2206. MS LIEVEN: My Lords,11 we presented this been reviewing our approach to community photograph in the Commons, but unfortunately we relations, and the Construction Code now contains a had not ingested it, which is why we could not show fairly detailed exposition of the key features of the it before the coVee break. The point is not the proposed Community Relations Strategy. Those are painting of the McDonalds, which is, obviously, set out there. I will not read it all out, but your beyond our control, but just to show that with a Lordships can see the framework which is set out. At decent sign there is fairly good visibility down to a convenient moment, I will ask for the next page to Fulborne Street Station. We do have somewhere, but be put up. it seems to have disappeared into the Crossrail archives, an image of the plaza itself, which if we can 2198. CHAIRMAN: It obviously goes on a bit! find we will perhaps produce for the Committee tomorrow. 2199. MR MOULD: It does. 2207. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: 2200. CHAIRMAN: I am not suggesting it in any That is the new plaza? pejorative sense, but one must turn over the page. 10 2208. MS LIEVEN: That is the new plaza we will 2201. MR MOULD: I will just turn the page create outside the station itself. because there is one further point, just on timing. You will see that a revised community relations 2209. LORD SNAPE: Is that with the stalls or framework is intended to be put to a meeting of our without them? planning forum for discussion during the course of this month, and the London Borough, as one of the 2210. MS LIEVEN: We have not included the stalls, interested planning authorities, will no doubt at this stage. I think that would be for Tower Hamlets participate actively in those discussions. as to whether they will relocate the stalls. It is also, the
9 Committee will remember from last week, where the Borough of Tower Hamlets—Community Relations Strategy bicycles are going to go, in that plaza outside (TOWHLB-86 4-014) Fulborne Street. 10 Crossrail Ref: P14, Correspondence from CLRL to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets—Community Relations Strategy 11 (TOWHLB-86 4-015) and Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel (SCN-20080304-001). Crossrail Ref: P14, Correspondence from CLRL to the London Committee Ref: A14, View of the junction at Fulbourne Street Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 211
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton
2211. CHAIRMAN: Did it show the revamped 2215. BARONESS FOOKES: They saw no McDonalds at Tower Hamlets? disparity between the reality and the photograph?
2212. MS LIEVEN: This was produced in the 2216. MS LIEVEN: I have to say that I did this part Commons in response to Tower Hamlets’ Petition. of the Petition in the Commons and I do take Indeed, it has to be said, Mr Drabble is the only responsibility for this. There were comments about person who still has a copy. the fact that McDonalds had been painted in the image, but apart from that the Commons were happy 2213. BARONESS FOOKES: Is that all they saw? that our proposals were acceptable and that the Did they go and visit the site? McDonalds site did not fall, as it were, within our remit and was not necessary for the station. 2214. MS LIEVEN: The Committee? Yes, they did, my Lady. They went to the site. 2217. CHAIRMAN: Enough of McDonalds.
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition ofMrJamesMiddleton.
The Petitioner appeared in person.
2218. MS LIEVEN: My Lords, what we are dealing made that clear in our Petition response document to with now is the Petition of Mr Middleton. Mr Middleton. I do have Mr Berryman available to give evidence on route choices, service pattern—all 2219. CHAIRMAN: I am just going to explain to the issues raised in Mr Middleton’s Petition—but Mr Middleton. The situation that we have been given that it is, beyond any doubt, outside the adopting is that we have a very brief introduction principle of the Bill I leave it to the Committee to from the Promoters just to say what it is all about— decide how much of Mr Middleton’s evidence it factual—then it is over to you. I do not know whether wants to hear and whether or not it feels the need to you are prepared to answer questions—you may or hear from Mr Berryman at all. may not be.
2220. MR MIDDLETON: Yes, whatever. 2224. I am, I am afraid, leaving the matter entirely in the Committee’s hands. I do not think there is any 2221. CHAIRMAN: You decide. The Promoters benefit in saying any more about Mr Middleton’s will then comment on what your Petition says, and Petition because it does so plainly fall outside the you have the final word. I will ask Ms Lieven just to principle of the Bill. introduce it first.
2222. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, if I could introduce 2225. CHAIRMAN: Mr Middleton, I think you this by reference to Mr Middleton’s first exhibit, Mr have heard all this before. There is not anything that Middleton is a Petitioner who is fundamentally we can do if it does not fall within the principle of Bill arguing that we are promoting the wrong scheme; which was given a second reading in the House a little that Crossrail should not go to the locations that we while ago. Your Petition and your suggestions do not are taking it to and that it should be a regional fall within the principle of the Bill. I am not going to scheme that, amongst other locations, goes to Milton stop you in any way from saying what it is you wish Keynes (up here), possibly to Aylesbury (down here) to say, but if you stray too far afield I may have to and possibly to more far-flung spots around the East impose certain restrictions on you, because there is and South-East of England. He is also suggesting, in nothing we can do about it. So you go ahead. his Petition and in his speaking note, that we are promoting the wrong service pattern within the scheme. 2226. MR MIDDLETON: My name is James Middleton. I live at 5 Crab Tree Close, Olney in 2223. My Lord, your Lordships may have noted that, Bucks. I am retired but I have had many years of in the information papers, A1 deals with the transport planning experience in the past. Olney is a consideration of alternatives and why we chose the small town midway between Northampton, Milton scheme we did, and A2 deals with the service pattern. Keynes and Bedford. It is at the very centre of the It is the Promoter’s position that this Petition, Government’s Milton Keynes South Midlands plainly, falls outside the principle of the Bill, and we development area. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
212 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton
2227. I am a strong supporter of Crossrail but it rather than just ploughing on with the scheme as it should be a regional scheme serving the South-East stood. and East of England as well as London, and not the slow, stopping everywhere, London Underground- 2231. My Table 1, sheet 008, shows the present type operation currently proposed. I am amazed that pattern of peak-hour trains going13 into Liverpool the Promoters have not followed the Thameslink Street in the morning, and I just took an hour from 2000 strategy which is already under construction. I the timetable, so from Shenfield there is a train into have circulated my statement in advance and I have London about every two minutes. These are a range prepared three diagrams. Being a bit old-fashioned, of fast, semi-fast and stopping trains and, as you can my three diagrams are rolled up on the table here, but see, the services are finely tuned with trains Mr Hackett has kindly produced a computerised overtaking or being overtaken down the four-track version of my map and12 I have done the tables myself. line. Of the slow trains, six go from Shenfield into London and a further six from Gidea Park into 2228. To start, I started with the problems with the London and Gidea Park is seven miles nearer Promoter’s scheme. Taking my drawing, the Liverpool Street. Not one train currently starts at Promoter’s Crossrail scheme has got 35 stations, 48 Shenfield and calls at every station to Liverpool trains per hour going through the central tunnels, Street. The last few stations before Liverpool Street and that is a total of 1,308 miles—about 27 miles per are missed out on the Shenfield trains and are served train. Thameslink 2000, which is shown on my plan, by the Gidea Park trains, and the stopping trains stretches from Peterborough and King’s Lynn in the currently take 41 minutes compared with about 27 north right down to the south coast, which is minutes for the semi-fast trains. basically a north-south version of Crossrail but is very much the sort of scheme that Crossrail ought to 2232. The Crossrail Promoters are going to impose a be, in my view. So Thameslink 2000 has 168 stations slow, 12-trains-an-hour service into London and 48 trains per hour going through the central stopping at every station, annexing the slow lines tunnels; 4,226 miles; which is 88 miles per train. So entirely. With the extra stations, these will take about more travellers, longer distances and much greater 20 minutes longer than the semi-fast trains, so there fare contribution to the expense of central tunnels. is absolutely no incentive for passengers to change to Crossrail at Shenfield and they will all continue on to 2229. As I have shown on my plan, the catchment Liverpool Street. Some of the minor stations, like area of the Promoter’s Crossrail is largely limited to Harold Wood, Manor Park and Forest Gate, the London suburbs, which are generally mature presently have 12 trains stopping per hour in the two development and not rapidly expanding. More than directions and with Crossrail this would double to 24, half the trains, 28 out of 48, never get west of so Crossrail is going to impose a completely new Paddington, and this is an absolutely criminal waste service of slow, stop-everywhere trains, taking full of tunnelling under London, to just terminate trains control of the slow lines, and this is bound to have a at Paddington. There will be more trains terminating detrimental eVect on the other trains using the line. A at Paddington than Marylebone Station at the typical Crossrail train from Shenfield to Maidenhead moment, so it is a complete waste of the central will cover 48 miles and stop at 32 stations. In other tunnel that you get trains to Paddington and they words, it is going to stop every mile and a half, so have nowhere else to go. Crossrail trains will never get up any speed and they will take about two hours to get from Shenfield to 2230. Developing their schemes, the Promoters have Maidenhead, so it will certainly not attract anyone had to withdraw the trains to Kingston and Ebbsfleet who has got an alternative and people going down at the last minute. In the business case, 20,000 of the the Great Eastern Line from outside Shenfield will go 36,000 peak-period Crossrail passengers straight on to Liverpool Street. Therefore, to approaching Paddington from the West would have compare the two-hour Crossrail journey, from come from Kingston. So this change is hugely Paddington or Liverpool Street you would get to significant. All benefits to Waterloo, its approaches CardiV or Norwich in two hours. Crossrail hardly and Underground were lost, and a large proportion crosses the M25, so it is no interest at all to the wider of Crossrail’s ridership disappeared. At the other region and it certainly fails to serve the Government’s end, the removal of the line from Abbey Wood to development plans. Ebbsfleet cuts out the eight stations that would have served the Thames Gateway. So three or four years 2233. Giving priority to some trains can disrupt ago Crossrail removed 17 of the 50 stations then in everyone else. The only sensible way for busy lines to the scheme and this should have required a rethink operate is for Network Rail to signal the trains and
12 13 Regional Crossrail (LINEWD-1 05-001) Shenfield—0700-0800 weekdays (LINEWD-1 05-008) Committee Ref: A15, Proposed Route Plan of Alternative Committee Ref: A15, Table 1—Trains into London from Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 213
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton operate to the benefit of all based on a fair timetable. 2237. Some of the 28 trains per hour with nothing to We people who live in Milton Keynes and do at Paddington would serve Aylesbury. Now, Northampton have suVered this problem recently Aylesbury is one of the main towns in the where, on the West Coast Mainline, Virgin have been Government’s Milton Keynes South Midlands given priority on the fast lines, so people like me who development area and, if you look at the Promoters’ do not want to go to Birmingham, Manchester or assessment of the Aylesbury branch, their Scotland are forced onto the slow lines, along with conclusions were that it performed strongly on freight trains stopping everyone else. transport, economic eYciency and reliability. In other words, it attracted a lot of passengers, gave a significant economic return and would be reliable. It 2234. Looking at the details of Liverpool Street, was not selected for the rather vague reason, to me, about 60 per cent of the passengers currently arriving of adverse contractual impacts on the Chiltern Line at Liverpool Street in the rush hour go onward on franchise and the Metronet public-private foot to their destinations. Others interchange onto partnership for the Tube, and I think Metronet has the Underground, buses and so on. As Crossrail is now failed anyway, so virtually there is absolutely no only going to be used by local train passengers reason for not going to Aylesbury, and it seems a between Shenfield and Liverpool Street, the vast strange logic actually not to do something that would majority of these passengers are going to get oV be really good because of some contractual basis that Crossrail at Liverpool Street either to walk to their should be there to improve the railways, so Crossrail destinations or go on by bus or Underground, so the would be improved in every possible way if some of Promoters’ Crossrail will attract the minimum the trains went from Paddington to Aylesbury. number of users over the minimum distance and create diYculties for other passengers. It seems 2238. The remainder of the 28 trains doing nothing at ridiculous after Crossrail is built that someone going Paddington would serve the West Coast Mainline up from Southend to Reading would still go into to Watford, Tring, Milton Keynes and Liverpool Street. They would obviously catch the Northampton. The Promoters did examine a train from Paddington to Reading and they might connection to this line and Lord Bradshaw, in the use Crossrail for the four miles between Liverpool Lords’ Crossrail debate, said that a service to Milton Street and Paddington. Therefore, the relief to Keynes would be a simple connection and essential central London termini is minimal and the relief to for the Government’s growth proposals. The the Underground is minimal. Promoters say there will only be a small increase in demand from Milton Keynes, Northampton and the huge expansion thereof because the OYce of the 2235. The business case for Crossrail stresses the need Deputy Prime Minister’s plan says that the for eYcient, reliable travel across a wide geographical communities will be sustainable and not add area, but Crossrail covers a narrow area and creates significantly to commuting. It is hardly credible that problems for other users. Crossrail really is the biggest and fastest development in the country downgrading a mainline railway into a slow London will not increase rail demand into London, and the Underground-type operation, nothing like the sort of Government’s own assessment says there will be a 32 upgrade that Thameslink 2000 is doing in the north- per cent increase in Milton Keynes rail trips by 2016. south direction. 2239. At the other end, instead of just connecting to the slow lines to Shenfield, better connections would 2236. My drawing again shows a possible regional be made so that Crossrail would serve Cambridge, Crossrail scheme. It would use the same central Stansted, Ipswich, Southend as well as just Shenfield alignment, tunnels and stations, but it would and, although I have not shown it, the Abbey Wood integrate with the national rail system rather than to Ebbsfleet service would probably be reinstated, displace it. It would be of a similar order of cost to the giving a proper service to the Thames Gateway which Promoters’ scheme, using the same central tunnels has now been removed from the Promoters’ scheme. and stations, but making much better connections to the railway network west of Paddington and east of 2240. Therefore, my version of a regional Crossrail, Liverpool Street, and these connections have all been and there would be others with other possibilities, proved in earlier work. Just to go through it briefly would have 111 stations, 48 peak-hour trains, just the from the west side, one Crossrail line would same, 3,452 miles and 72 miles per train. Just looking terminate at Reading where the Government is about at the diagram, it shows how Thameslink 2000 and a to spend several hundred million pounds on Reading regional Crossrail would be an excellent match. Station and it makes absolutely no sense to terminate Regional Crossrail trains would be integrated into Crossrail two stops nearer London at Maidenhead. the national rail network. With more users travelling Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
214 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton longer distances, there would be much greater money, which is fairly obvious, and the trains would contributions to the costs, there would be maximum travel much further eVectively using the central relief to places like Paddington, Euston, Marylebone tunnels. The reasons for choosing the slow operation and Liverpool Street and much more of the London were that it was more robust due to segregation, long- Underground network. Passengers would have term sustainability and consistency with land-use everything to gain by using Crossrail for all, or a planning and social inclusion and consistency with significant part, of their journeys, maximising the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Now, that all totally revenue and relief to other parts of the rail and ignores the east and south-east of England and the Underground network. national railways system which should have a major interest in Crossrail. The project is a London project, 2241. The regions would have good access to parts of not a regional project and this is a huge mistake. London and good connections between their regional centres. Places like Northampton, Milton Keynes, 2244. Just dealing with the Promoters’ response to Aylesbury, Reading, Cambridge, Ipswich, my Petition, the Promoters say that, by limiting the Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend would be number of branches operating on segregated tracks, served directly. With Thameslink 2000 serving an eYcient and reliable service would be provided. Ashford, Dartford, Brighton, Guildford, Bedford Spreading the service over numerous routes would and Luton, all would be linked as well as all the increase the risk of importing delays from other lines, London airports. This is exactly what the regional and you would have to accept that that would be true assemblies want. London is just as well served as with at times, but, in my view, the Promoters have vastly the Promoters’ scheme. The Government’s big overestimated the importance of this single issue to priority development areas, the Thames Gateway, keep Crossrail as a London-only project. The Milton Keynes South Midlands, the Peterborough- Promoters’ response says that Thameslink is only a Cambridge-Stansted M11 corridor and Ashford success because it has one route to the north and two would all be in the regional Crossrail-Thameslink routes to the south, the same as Crossrail. The 2000 network, as are London priorities like the Promoters obviously totally ignore Thameslink 2000 Thames Gateway and the Lea Valley. Therefore, our currently under construction, three main routes to traveller from Southend to Reading would now hop the north and many branches to the south. The on Crossrail at Southend and either go straight Government and train operators are obviously through in a single journey or he might have to get oV convinced that Thameslink 2000 will be a sound and the train at Bond Street and get on the next train. For reliable operation. people like me who live in Milton Keynes, Northampton and Aylesbury, we would not have to 2245. The Government is now investing billions in go to Euston or Marylebone anymore; we would rail maintenance, signalling and new trains to deal have direct access to Central London, the West End, with the reliability problems the Promoters are the Docklands and so on. That would then be a concerned about, so in another few years, 2015, the scheme that is exactly what people in the south-east railway will be reliable and punctual and the and east of England want. Crossrail Promoters are wrong to say that they must base their project on a railway system so hopelessly 2242. Just to mention the private sector, they have unreliable that they have to completely segregate tabled two alternative Crossrail schemes; Superlink, their trains and cautiously stop at every station and which is a more expensive, extensive scheme, and the go to as few stations as possible. With Crossrail London Regional Metro. The Crossrail Promoters operating on a segregated basis on main lines into accept that the London Regional Metro is not London, the remaining services will suVer as significantly diVerent from their scheme, but the flexibility is lost. Trains are going to be barred from opportunity is there to take a regional scheme switching between lines, so problems will be straightaway, and you can have a look at magnified. We have all been on Underground ‘londonregionalmetro.com’. stations when a failed train brings a whole line to paralysis and this will happen with the Promoters’ 2243. Just comparing the regional with the scheme. A wider network and flexible operations will Promoters’ metro-type operation, when the minimise the eVect of these problems and maintain a Promoters looked at the regional express as opposed stream of trains through the central tunnels. Four- to their slow scheme, their results, briefly reported in track railways should be operated as four-track one of their documents, said that it generated higher railways and not as two parallel two-track railways. revenues and also performed better on mode transfer from private to public transport, so really a regional 2246. The Promoters say that, by creating numerous Crossrail scheme, as we have already discussed, opportunities for connection and interchange with connecting the major towns would generate more other services and other modes of transport, Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 215
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton
Crossrail will provide improved transport over a South-East and East of England regional assemblies wide area of the South-East. I have shown earlier that all want Crossrail, but not the Promoters’ scheme. Crossrail, as it is promoted, will attract minimal usage and is not attractive to many of those travelling 2250. Obviously I hope that the Committee will look from outside London itself. A regional Crossrail will carefully at a regional option for Crossrail. At little be infinitely better, giving better interchange, better extra cost and using existing lines into the east and connections, more relief to the London termini and south-east of England, many passengers travelling more relief to the congested Underground. far more miles would use Crossrail and contribute far more fare revenue to the costs. With the maximum 2247. The Promoters say that Crossrail will link the possible relief to the London rail network, central Thames Gateway, Docklands, the City, Stratford, termini and London Underground, the greatest the West End and Heathrow, but of course virtually possible support to the Government’s development all the Thames Gateway stations have been removed plans and aspirations to reduce greenhouse gases, it from the Promoters’ scheme. It will also serve the would really cross the capital and connect the UK. western and eastern suburbs, both of which are Just to illustrate this, my Table 2, supposing you turn expected to see major traYc growth, but of course a up at Farringdon in ten years’ time and look at the regional Crossrail would do all of this plus serve the train indicator board, this is what you will see: Government’s really big development areas of Thameslink 2000 northbound would be Bedford, Milton Keynes, South Midlands, Northampton and King’s Lynn, Luton, Peterborough, Bedford,14 Aylesbury, the Cambridge Stansted M11 Cambridge and southbound would be Wimbledon, development corridor, the Lea Valley, so a regional Brighton, Dartford, Ashford, Guildford, Horsham, Crossrail is infinitely better in dealing with the a really dynamic range of use of stations. After Government’s wider development aspirations. The spending £16 billion on Crossrail, your westbound regions around London are where rail travel is really station will go Paddington, Maidenhead, growing. There was a 50 per cent growth in the east Paddington, Paddington, Heathrow, Paddington, of England in a recent seven-year period. London’s and eastbound it will be Abbey Wood, Shenfield, inner suburbs served by the Promoters’ Crossrail are Abbey Wood, Shenfield, Abbey Wood, Shenfield. unlikely to grow at the rate of the areas outside This is not a dynamic addition to the national rail London. network. With a regional Crossrail, your westbound traveller would have Reading, Northampton, Aylesbury, Heathrow, Watford, Milton Keynes and 2248. The Promoters say that to change now would eastbound he would have Abbey Wood, Southend, mean major delays, but these can be limited as the Shenfield, Cambridge, Abbey Wood, Ipswich, and most diYcult part of the scheme is unchanged and one of the Abbey Woods would probably be there has already been a large amount of work done Ebbsfleet if we added it back in. That is the sort of in looking at alternatives. I do not really see regional thing people are going to expect from Crossrail. They Crossrail as an extension of the scheme, but a more do not expect it to be a London Underground-type eVective joining of Crossrail into the national rail operation. network. In some ways, it would simplify the project with trains terminating where they do now and 2251. I have gone to the trouble of petitioning the stabled and maintained rather than having to provide Committee myself as obviously getting Crossrail to expensive, new facilities where trains are going to be Milton Keynes and Northampton means a change of maintained, stored and turned. I think if billions of strategy. At my age I am probably too old to see pounds are going to be spent on Crossrail, it is vital to Crossrail finished, but I think it is vital to see that get it right and not just to plough on with the wrong Crossrail does go forward as a dynamic addition to scheme because this is where we are. the national rail network, not downgrading the national rail network to a London Underground- 2249. Just to conclude, Crossrail is a once-in-a- type operation. The more I looked into it, the more generation opportunity. The New Civil Engineer convinced I became that regional Crossrail is the way magazine says that it is the largest infrastructure forward and it meets all the Government’s objectives. project in the northern hemisphere. As it is, it is going to be a big disappointment for those expecting a 2252. I would like to conclude, thank you for world-class addition to the national rail system. listening to my petition. I would like to thank Sarah There must be something wrong if Network Rail, the Price and Darren Hackett for helping me with the custodian and operator of the national railway computerisation and making sure I presented it all network, is an objector rather than an enthusiastic properly. Thank you. promoter of Crossrail. The passenger and freight 14 train operators, British Airports Authority, the indicator boards for 15 mins in peak hours (LINEWD-1 05-009) Committee Ref: A15, Table 2—Farringdon 2015—typical train Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
216 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton
2253. CHAIRMAN: Mr Middleton, we are very 2260. MR MIDDLETON: Yes, but I felt really that happy to listen to your petition and we are glad you if you are going to bark up the wrong tree, as I think have been helped by the clerks. What is it you want this scheme is doing, it is misconceived, but you us to do? compare Thameslink with Crossrail, if you can have something north-south which is exactly what everyone wants, why can you not have east-west? I 2254. MR MIDDLETON: If I was on a committee appreciate the problems that the scheme has got, but and my scheme had spent four years in the Houses of there is no debate in these bills on the strategy. If you Parliament I would want the people that looked at read the debate, it does not compare regional with this to look at the strategy, not just the detail. local, like this minimal Crossrail scheme currently proposes, there is no debate as such about the 2255. CHAIRMAN: What do you want this strategy. I can understand the process, but it may well Committee to do? be better to start again and say, “Hang on, does this make a lot of sense having only a very slow Crossrail 2256. MR MIDDLETON: I would like you to operation?” If I were sitting on this, “Well, what are report that my views are correct, that as well as the options?” I can understand you are there to look looking at the details, which the Chairman of the at the details of the Bill, fine, but I would want other Committee said you were charged to look at the someone to say, “Is this the right approach? Should details of the scheme, not whether it was the right we ignore the regions outside London? Should it be a strategy or the right approach to Crossrail globally. I minimum London Underground-type operation?” I am sure in the introduction to your final report you can appreciate the Committee’s problems, but I could say what you like about Crossrail as a project. would have thought whatever you write in the I do not understand the nicety of this, but if you are introduction to your final report you can say someone like me out in the countryside I am not sure whatever you like about the strategy. if Crossrail is great like this. I think I made my point quite clear why I think regional Crossrail is right, but 2261. LORD SNAPE: Can I say, at the outset, Mr if you step back and say, “Well, we’re convinced Middleton, I would have thought that lots of people Crossrail must have the minimum number of stations in the railway industry would have had a great deal as it is, must operate slowly stop by stop, stop, stop, of sympathy for the view that you have expressed, but stop as it is, it must serve mature London suburbs you have heard from the Chairman, our powers are rather than the major developments”, but I think fairly limited. Let me ask you a direct question, if it people in the wider sense would expect committees to was a choice between Crossrail and nothing at all, look at the whole thing, the project, not just at the what would your view be? Crossrail as it presently details. I think this is what I would like the stands or nothing at all, what would your view be? Committee to do, to think about Crossrail as a project. 2262. MR MIDDLETON: I would park it and go back and start again. I think it is nonsensical to do what is going on at the moment. I think the diVerence 2257. CHAIRMAN: It is not what the public would is so huge. The Promoter’s approach would be a fair like, it is what we can do within the parliamentary enough approach if it was a near-miss Crossrail but, constraints and you will appreciate the principle is as it stands, it is nowhere, it is not a near miss, it is the this Bill has been given a second reading as it is and complete opposite of Thameslink 2000. it simply is not possible to graft on a whole collection of extensions that you think without starting again. You say that the Promoters—this is on page six—“to 2263. LORD SNAPE: Whilst accepting that, you change now would mean major delays”, that is an will be aware there is a strong body of opinion in understatement. It would mean completely starting London from the Mayor downwards that this all over again with the parliamentary process, which scheme ought to go ahead and their views have to be really has been going on since 2003, is it? listened to as well. Do you agree with that?
2264. MR MIDDLETON: Yes, I can understand 2258. MS LIEVEN: It is three years, my Lord, so the London view. You get people in Canary Wharf, 2005. the City, Bond Street and Heathrow and, as long as those four places are joined, life is solved, but a lot of 2259. CHAIRMAN: 2005, with a whole collection London, the Mayor, ignores the fact that the regions of other complications. Mr Middleton, it just is not around London is where the real growth is practicable within the parliamentary rules for us to happening, both in housing and a lot of employment. do anything to implement your suggestions. Did you He relies on getting people in and out of London as not understand that? well as shuZing them around London. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 217
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton
2265. LORD SNAPE: You would accept the 2277. MR MIDDLETON: It is a nonsensical way of Chairman’s point of view, that if this scheme is doing a £16 billion project, that we are going to build “parked”, to use your own words, we might be it and then we are really going to get the right coming back in a similar form in ten years’ time, we connections at each end in the year dot and it would have lost another decade so far as connecting becomes much more diYcult if they are not part of up parts of London’s railways are concerned? the original approach.
2266. MR MIDDLETON: I think you are losing 2278. CHAIRMAN: I think we may have diYculty this opportunity now in driving this minimal scheme in telling Parliament that is your view. forward rather than looking at the big picture for London and the wider World City region and you 2279. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I should go for a dynamic addition to the national rail would like to congratulate you in getting it all network and not a downgrading to London together and I must admit I am sort of tempted by Underground. If it is going to take two hours to get your integrated, holistic analysis but there is a couple from one end of Crossrail to the other, no-one is of points. Really what we are saying to you, is half a going to use it unless they have to. Okay, the central Crossrail cake better than none? Even you start to section, some people will hop on and oV. waiver a little bit at that point because there is nothing necessarily to say this could not be adapted/ 2267. LORD SNAPE: I am afraid not in this place extended in the future, that is one point made to you. nor in the other one do we do dynamism particularly Two key questions I did want to ask you, one is you well, whether in railway matters or others. I have a seem to be making light of the congestion that great deal of sympathy for your view, but I think, as currently exists on the central points of London the Chairman has made quite plain, our powers are Underground at the moment to the point where often extremely limited. stations are closed because they are full to overflowing, you are saying it is going to do little or 2268. CHAIRMAN: The strict answer to Lord nothing to relieve that. The other point that you Snape’s question is do nothing? make is that it will be a financial disaster anyway because it will not attract enough passenger fares. I might be paraphrasing you unfairly, I am not 2269. MR MIDDLETON: Sorry? meaning to do that, but there is a couple of key points I want to be sure you are saying because I also want 2270. CHAIRMAN: Is that right? to make sure that Crossrail, the Promoters, answer these points. 2271. MR MIDDLETON: No. 2280. MR MIDDLETON: I am not poopooing 2272. CHAIRMAN: Abandon it? what Crossrail would do, but I think if you do Crossrail as we are now doing it, it is not going to 2273. MR MIDDLETON: No, do a regional attract anyone from outside London, no-one is going Crossrail. to get on Crossrail at Shenfield when they can go into Liverpool Street, so the relief to Liverpool Street is minimal because all the local journeys are forced on 2274. LORD SNAPE: Forgive me, Lord Chairman, to Crossrail because they are the only trains. The vast I did put the point to you, if we did not have the majority of people on Crossrail will then get oV at option, and we do not in this Committee, of a Liverpool Street. The same thing from the other end, regional Crossrail, I put the specific question to you, the Paddington end, everyone from outside do we go ahead with this or abandon it? I think your Maidenhead will go into Paddington. Obviously view was we should abandon it. Crossrail will benefit the east-west central section of London Underground and one would not poopoo 2275. MR MIDDLETON: I would go ahead with that at all. If you have someone like me coming from the tunnels on the basis that we will get halfway there Milton Keynes going to Canary Wharf, at the in one go and then we will do the proper connections moment I go into Euston, I stroll around the corner at each end. to Euston Square, go around the line, get on a station at Bank and end up on the Docklands Light Railway, 2276. LORD SNAPE: You are beginning to get a I would go straight from Milton Keynes to Canary grip of parliamentary procedures now, Mr Wharf. That is what you would call relieving central Middleton. That is usually the way we do things. It London on the underground. Crossrail is a good might not be the right way, but it is usually the way thing, but the way it is proposed now would do the we do things. minimum and, of course, Crossrail again in its Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
218 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton minimal form, 35 stations or whatever it is, all view of how it should work. Thameslink is how it journeys, stop, stop, stop, stop, stop, that then is the should work. maximum number of people getting on it, whereas if Crossrail was regional you get someone from Ipswich 2288. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: You going to Aylesbury would go on Crossrail. Someone made the point that you do not expect to see the from Ipswich now going would go to Liverpool creation of this in your lifetime and you are, Street, go around the Metropolitan Line to therefore, in the business of trying to leave some sort Marylebone and then carry on. A regional scheme of inheritance for the future from your thinking. I am would capture a whole raft of more journeys that not a railway historian by any means but, as I could relieve both central stations and the understand it, the whole of the British railway underground. I think if you decide the best thing is to network was not created in one bound, it was not a plough on with Crossrail and then come back single concept from the beginning, it grew and because we have spent £16 billion and have not got it evolved. On the same spirit of that evolution which quite right, when we can step back and say, “Well, brought us to the network we have got, and which has yes, we plough on with Crossrail and do the central survived post-Beeching and everything else tunnels exactly as proposed but make better subsequently, where we are now, can you not connections at each end”, that is not a re-writing of conceive of this as a modular development which Crossrail, that is thinking about the project as a would be consistent or is it a complete wreck so far as better project for London and the wider region. the fact that you have got to build the infrastructure and the tunnels and everything now or you never 2281. CHAIRMAN: It is still not within the Bill have the chance again? however. 2289. MR MIDDLETON: I think you have to build 2282. MR MIDDLETON: Not within the Bill. the tunnels now and the central stations, but if you look how Crossrail could connect, all it means is the 2283. CHAIRMAN: I wonder whether, Ms Lieven, eastern end of the tunnel you connect properly to the you have any questions to ask Mr Middleton? Great Eastern Line, at the western end Paddington, Old Oak Common, Willesden area, all these three lines sit virtually next to one another, the West Coast 2284. MS LIEVEN: I was not going to ask Mr Mainline, the Great Western and the line to Middleton any questions, my Lord, no. Aylesbury. It is not a huge change but it is a change of philosophy. The philosophy of Crossrail 2285. CHAIRMAN: Lord James? Promoters is slow operation, stop at every station, do not join in with everyone else. Thameslink’s 2286. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: You philosophy is an addition to the national rail are clearly more than an enthusiast, you clearly have network, some journeys very long, some very short a very detailed and expert knowledge of your subject. and unless you can shift the Crossrail Promoters into You are recognising that you are going to hit the being willing to go the wider area, they are not going buVers, if that is not too bad a pun in this context to be interested in connecting to Aylesbury and with regard to us at the moment, but with all the Milton Keynes, they want to stick with the London energy and commitment you have to this, is there no Underground approach. way you can go away, rip up what you have got and try and work on the creation of a modular variation 2290. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Mr that would be capable of enticing the powers that be Middleton, you are definitely an enthusiast who has to do a modular development of what they have got got beyond the point of objectivity within the terms when they have done Crossrail? Do not waste your of what in reality can be done, there is no shame in thinking and your energy, but think of what they that, but you are very keen on leaving a legacy could do on a modular tack-on basis next time round. behind. I would have thought it is better for you to try and conceive of something to leave behind as a vision 2287. MR MIDDLETON: I think I lose this that can be worked on for the future within the argument solely on the one premise that the only way concepts you have developed and leave that as a to operate a reliable railway is to hive it oV and go developed idea rather than wreck the whole thing for very slowly, stopping at every station. My view is we the sake of not being able to live with the fact that the are going to spend billions of pounds and we add tunnels are not going to be there. something. The Crossrail Promoter’s view is the only way to have a reliable railway is this segregation and 2291. MR MIDDLETON: I do not think you avoidance of bringing more trains into the Crossrail should stop the whole project, but you can easily network and, to my mind, that is a very restrictive move. It is only connections, it not changing the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 219
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton project that much. The big expensive diYcult bit is whether you refute the two key points that are made exactly the same, it is a connection thing and this by Mr Middleton—for me they were key points theory that we are so far down the line we cannot anyway—that it will not do much to relieve look at diVerent connections— congestion on the London Underground; and passenger usage will be not much. 2292. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: You are not going to be able to stop the project, but that 2299. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I can answer those. should not be a reason to stop your thinking and that We completely refute those. Your Lordships will is the encouragement I am trying to give you. Go on remember from opening that we put up a table of from there and leave something behind that others massive decreases in congestion, in particular the can build on for the future. You may yet have a role Central Line but also the other lines. I cannot to play and have given some great thinking for the emphasise too much that those are based on years of future, but you are not going to stop the project now, detailed modelling about where people are going and so do not waste your energy trying to stop it, but their time savings in changing to Crossrail and why equally do not stop thinking about it is my last word Crossrail would have those eVects. You may also to you. remember—and I think this was evidence that was given in response to the Newham Petition—that the 2293. MR MIDDLETON: I think you have to ask evidence of the Jubilee Line extension was that the the Promoters are they absolutely rigid with this one kind of modelling work that is done by LUL, and in thing, the reliability of separate operations because this case was done by Crossrail, is actually very good that is what dictates everything they have done, the at predicting levels of passenger usage. So we are removal of various sections of line. absolutely confident that there will be a major, major benefit to London Underground congestion within 2294. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: As they the central area of London. My Lords, unless there have come as far as they are, I suspect the answer to be some utterly unpredictable situation in the next 15 that is, yes, they are rigid and you should be working years, on that the evidence is extremely robust. within the reality of their being rigid. 2300. Added to that your Lordships have to 2295. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, I suspect that you remember that the Mayor’s OYce predicts that by may wish to have some very brief comments to make 2016 there will be a 700,000 increase in population in at the end of this. You did consider a large number of London. So you have the existing situation and other schemes, I believe? anybody who travels on the tube, particularly the Central Line in the rush hour, will know just how 2296. MS LIEVEN: We did, my Lord. If I was going unbearable it is now and if you add another 700,000 to show your Lordships the reports on the large people to London and you try and think how will the number of screens it would be a great deal bigger than Central Line cope. So on that part of Mr Middleton’s this file. No, this is the information paper file. My case, in my submission, we are absolutely clear. Lord, there are two ways we can do this: I can very briefly take the Committee to IP, A1 and15 show you 2301. In terms of the other strand of his case, which what we did consider, or I can call Mr Berryman to is why are we not going to all these other places— answer whatever questions the Committee has, or I Milton Keynes, Cambridge, Peterborough, the can do neither, so there are three ways. As I said in South Coast, and whatever—a principal reason is opening, I am completely in the Committee’s hands that the more strands, the more limbs you put on to as to how we handle this. the network you have a material impact on the reliability of the service through the central tunnels. 2297. CHAIRMAN: I doubt if there is anything that So you only have to get one train coming from you can usefully do. If you take us through all the Peterborough which is delayed and you have a alternatives it may take a little while and I do not knock-on eVect in the central tunnels, which then think it is going to advance the matter in any way, means you get all the kind of congestion that, to use and I do not think that Mr Berryman is going to be an example which will be unpopular with London able to add anything very much, is he? Underground, you used to get on the Northern Line where because you had one problem you would end 2298. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: up getting that train delayed and then the trains could My Lord Chairman, I do not want Ms Lieven go not get through the signals at Camden Town or through the alternatives but I do want to know Euston, and then the whole service would be thrown
15 out and it would become a nightmare to travel, and Route: Appendix 1—Western Route Options (LINEWD- the last thing that we want to do is to repeat that kind IPA1-012) of problem but on a massive scale. So the more limbs Crossrail Information Paper A1—Development of the Crossrail Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
220 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton you have the more problems you have with those 2306. So far as some of Mr Middleton’s detailed kinds of reliability issues. points about why we are not going to Richmond and Kingston, for instance, and why we are not going to 2302. Also, the more limbs you have the more Aylesbury, they are dealt with in A1. If I can just problems you have fitting in with existing train expand a little bit on Aylesbury because the comment services. So we have gone to a great deal of eVort in in A1 is perhaps not terribly clear? We consulted modelling to ensure that the train services on the people in Aylesbury about whether they wanted three limbs can work with existing services on the Crossrail and what we found was that people were Great Western and the North Eastern lines, and that satisfied in the main with their existing service and all we can have a highly reliable service. that Crossrail would do, largely, is duplicate the Metropolitan Line service in any event, so it was not 2303. The two other reasons why going to these suYciently beneficial. That is not to say that there relatively far-flung spots is not a good idea—and Mr would not be a few people who would not like it and Berryman will tell me if I have this wrong—is that profit from it, but that is not suYcient to justify the first of all in order to have a reliable service through expenditure. the central tunnels you have to be able to get people in and out of the trains quickly—if you have a long 2307. So those kinds of issues were all dealt with and dwell time in the stations then it will not work. If you are touched upon in A1, and of course if the have people coming from as far afield as Committee is concerned and read A1 and they have Northampton and Milton Keynes then there will be any questions you will see Mr Berryman on many, really very little benefit for them getting on to many occasions and he can be asked questions, Crossrail and they will be on a service which is not perhaps with a bit of forewarning, in any of the designed for them—it is designed for a metro service Committee sessions that come up. with lots of seats but relatively few compared to, say, a commuter service coming from Northampton. So 2308. My Lords, those, I hope, deal with the principal you would have the people from Northampton being points. I do not know whether there is anything else on the service for a long time in circumstances where, that the Committee would like me to deal with? to be honest, they would be far better oV being on existing services. So there is no benefit to those people 2309. CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to ask Lady from the relatively far-flung spots. Fookes whether she wanted you to open up the big red book and look at some of the things that you have 2304. That ties in to another point that Mr Middleton considered. made, which is about Shenfield. We actually predict that relatively few people will get on the train at 2310. BARONESS FOOKES: I am not sure I do at Shenfield who want to go as far as Liverpool Street, this stage. for exactly the reason that Mr Middleton gives, which is that it will take longer than if they got on the 2311. MS LIEVEN: To help your Lordships, who I fast service. If we start at Shenfield, people will get on think all have the big red books, A1 at the back has at Shenfield who want to go to the intermediate a plan showing all the diVerent places we considered stations, places like Brentwood or Stratford, but then and why we rejected them. So if the Committee want it is going along the line picking people up where the to delve into this matter any further it is all in there. level of usage comes in. Equally, we do not think that Thank you, my Lords. many people will go from Shenfield to Maidenhead on Crossrail, for two reasons. One is that it would 2312. CHAIRMAN: Mr Middleton, the last word take a long time to do it on Crossrail and there are is yours. probably quicker ways; but the other is that it is not a route that lots of people want to do in any case, in 2313. MR MIDDLETON: Listening to that I think just the same way that going from Ipswich to actually she agrees with me to a large extent that Aylesbury will be of minimal benefit because how Crossrail is going to generate purely local journeys; many people want to go from Ipswich to Aylesbury? they are deliberately avoiding making a Thameslink- There might be a few modal shifters but it would not style operation in the east-west direction. begin to justify either the expense or the probable inconvenience to all the people who would rather go 2314. I appreciate being able to come and put my case from Ipswich to London on a fast train. to the Committee; I feel I have had a fair crack of the whip. I knew when I came that I was not quite in line 2305. So, you can think up all these strange journey with what was supposed to be discussed, but I do feel patterns but in reality there is relatively little benefit that it is absolutely vital if you are going to spend £16 to them. billion you think about the strategy as well as the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:17:27 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401320 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 221
4 March 2008 The Petition of Mr James Middleton detail of the thing, because if Thameslink can work 2319. MS LIEVEN: That is right, my Lord, and and Thameslink 2000, 24 trains per hour— then in the afternoon we have the Petition of Mr Peterborough, Brighton, as well as Luton and Saunderson, which really concerns compensation Croydon—someone is obviously doing exactly the issues. opposite with Crossrail, saying that it cannot work. So my ideal solution would be for the people 2320. CHAIRMAN: And are you going to have developing Thameslink to take over Crossrail. Thank your surveyor? you very much for listening. 2321. MS LIEVEN: I am going to have Mr Smith 2315. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Middleton. I tomorrow; Mr Berryman is having an afternoon oV, do not know whether you know that the government relatively speaking—I think he will be in another has safeguarded a route to Reading and they are meeting. proposing to safeguard a route from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet, so that goes, as far as you are concerned, in the right direction, does it not? 2322. CHAIRMAN: I did not think he ever had an afternoon oV! 2316. I think otherwise Lord James has really spoken for us all in encouraging you to go on with your 2323. MS LIEVEN: I do not think he does! So I will campaign. Thank you very much for coming. just have Mr Smith as my witness tomorrow.
2317. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, just to touch on 2324. CHAIRMAN: We will adjourn now until ten tomorrow. o’clock tomorrow morning. Thank you very much, Mr Middleton, for coming, and I am glad you did 2318. CHAIRMAN: We are starting at ten o’clock think that you got a fair crack of the whip because in Black Rod’s Garden, in the bus. that is what we wished to achieve. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [SE] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
222 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
DAY EIGHT WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Jones of Cheltenham, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Snape, L Fookes, B Young of Norwood Green, L James of Blackheath, L
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition ofMrDavidSaunderson
MrDavidSaunderson appeared in person
2325. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. Mr long and the trains are very long, Farringdon, like the Saunderson, the system we have adopted is that for other Central London stations, has two ticket halls, the beginning of a Petition I would ask the Promoters Farringdon West ticket hall, which is right next to the very briefly to explain to us what the problem is existing LUL Farringdon Hall, and a completely new factually, then it is over to you, you explain what it is ticket hall at Farringdon East, which is in the block in any terms you like, you call witnesses and they can of Lindsay Street to the west, Long Lane to the south be cross-examined and then the Promoters will do the and Hayne Street, which is this narrow little street same the other way around. They will have a chance which goes up here (indicating). 10 Hayne Street is to make comments on the Petition and you have the right next to the tracks. These tracks here that I am last say, is that all right? indicating are the LUL tracks and the Committee may recollect that Thameslink also at the moment 2326. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes. Thank you. comes down from Farringdon and has a spine that runs through Barbican into Moorgate. 2327. MS LIEVEN: Ms Lieven. Thank you, my Lords. Just before I turn to Mr Sanderson’s Petition, I have been asked to tell your Lordships about the 2330. That locates the property. Mr Saunderson has Register of Undertakings and Assurances, which I owned 10 Hayne Street back since 1982, and at one hope your Lordships now all have copies of. time with 10 Hayne Street—I need to give the Committee a little bit of the background to this 2328. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. because it is complicated and is likely to be raised by Mr Saunderson—Mr Saunderson was2 a director of a 2329. MS LIEVEN: Not at all. This afternoon we company called Saunderson Holdings Limited which are dealing with the Petition of Mr Saunderson and I owned a much larger number of properties in this have just one witness to call on this who is Mr Smith 1 location. If we can put up 002, please. This shows the who you will remember gave the compensation block of properties, 10 Hayne Street owned by Mr teach-in a couple of weeks ago. If we could have Saunderson and the other properties outlined in red Exhibit 1 up, please. Mr Saunderson is the part- owned by Saunderson Holdings Limited, SHL. Mr owner of a property called 10 Hayne Street, which I Saunderson and the company, as we understood it, am indicating on the board. This is a property which falls within the area of Farringdon East ticket hall, so hoped and intended to develop the entire site. The to try to locate the Committee, this is Smithfield properties were bought in the mid to late 1980s in Market (indicating) which the Committee is likely to mass and planning permission was sought for a hear more about in the future. This is Barbican comprehensive redevelopment in this area. Station on the LUL Circle Line and over here we have the Barbican (indicating). The underground station which some of the Committee will be familiar 2331. I should say, the planning permission had been with is Farringdon, which is over here on Cowcross granted on 10 Hayne Street for an oYce Street just oV Farringdon Road. Because the redevelopment in 1984 and that was renewed in 1990.
Committee will remember Crossrail stations are very 2 1 Lane, 8-10 Hayne Street and 3 Hayne Street (LONDLB- 38 04-001) 38 04-002) Crossrail Ref: P20, Location of 2 Lindsey Street, 20-23 Long Crossrail Ref: P20, Location of 10 Hayne Street (LONDLB- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 223
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2332. CHAIRMAN: Is it still valid? 2336.3 Turning to 10 Hayne Street, which is really the subject of today’s proceedings. Can we go on to the photograph of 10 Hayne Street, which is number 2333. MS LIEVEN: No, my Lord, it is not for 004. 10 Hayne Street is a vacant plot, the building reasons which I am about to come to. Soon after Mr has long since been demolished. Its only use at the Saunderson and the company had bought all these moment is as a car park. Mr Saunderson continued companies two things happened and I am not putting to own 10 Hayne Street, as I said. He petitioned the them in order, I am going to explain both of them to House of Commons in respect of it and appeared in the Committee. LUL and British Rail promoted the October 2006. original Crossrail scheme, which also involved a ticket hall at Lindsey Street, Hayne Street property in this block. The entire area covered by SHL and the 2337. The main issue before the House of Commons Hayne Street properties were safeguarded in 1990 for was the question of whether or not we would accept the original Crossrail scheme for the East Farringdon a blight notice on 10 Hayne Street if served by Mr ticket hall. The position becomes a tiny bit Saunderson. At that stage no blight notice had been complicated because in 1991, as I understand it, the served. We accepted in front of the Commons that as schemes changed slightly and the Long Lane long as Mr Saunderson served the blight notice and properties were excluded from the safeguarding, but could show six months’ occupation of the car park, I think that probably does not matter very much. which, as I explained to the House of Commons, was This is the first thing that happened, the original not an onerous requirement because it is only a car Crossrail scheme, albeit promoted by diVerent park, he did not have to be living in it, then we would parties, came along at Farringdon East. The other accept a blight notice. In fact, he served a blight thing that happened before the safeguarding was the notice on 18 December 2006 and on 16 February major property recession of the very early 90s which 2007 we accepted the blight notice. went on through much of it to the mid-90s. The Committee will be well aware that what that did was 2338. Since then, there have been discussions over the massively decrease the value of commercial property valuation between ourselves, various agents and Mr in London and also made locations such as this, Saunderson’s agents and those discussions are still which is what would be called in a market a city fridge going on and there is a dispute about the level of location, very diYcult to redevelop. Mr Smith can valuation, but we have made it quite clear that we are give evidence on that later. very happy for the matter to be referred to the Lands Tribunal and it is open under the Act for Mr 2334. The combination of those factors meant that Saunderson to refer it to Lands Tribunal at any stage the site as a whole very significantly fell in value. if he wants to in order to determine the valuation Planning permission was not achieved for the entirety amount so that he can gain his compensation. In my of the site because of the safeguarding order and submission, that is not in any sense a matter for this Committee. There is an independent specialist then, of course, there was a Bill in Parliament which adjudicative body in the Lands Tribunal who are ultimately did not get Royal Assent, so there was no there to determine levels of compensation including planning permission for the majority of the site. The compensation for this. company SHL got into diYculties. Mr Saunderson can tell you more about that if he wishes and ultimately the properties were sold, other than 10 2339. CHAIRMAN: There is a dispute about fees Hayne Street, from 1996 by receivers at a much too, is there not? reduced value from what they were bought for, let alone the value that Mr Saunderson thought they would have had at the height of the market. Since the 2340. MS LIEVEN: There is a dispute about fees, early 90s Mr Saunderson has had a long argument my Lord, both levels of fees, I believe, and also that it is the Crossrail project, in one of its guises, whether they should be paid in advance. There is no which led to his losses. provision, as I understand it, under the Act that requires us to pay fees in advance and, again, that is a matter for the Lands Tribunal. All those issues as to 2335. My lords, I have gone through all that because the amount of compensation are matters for the it is a matter which arises in Mr Saunderson’s exhibits Lands Tribunal. We have done what we said we which he may want to raise with you but, in my would do in the House of Commons and we have submission, none of that has anything to do with this done it promptly and, in my submission, that is the Committee, it is all very much in the past and it is not end of the matter. the scheme, the Bill, which is before your Lordships 3 now. 004) Crossrail Ref: P20, View of 10 Hayne Street (LONDLB-38 04- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
224 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2341. My Lords, I have given that slightly lengthier 2347. The paragraph in issue was 17296 and what it background so your Lordships understand says is: “Let me state three things. Firstly, and I something of the history. There is far, far more to the repeat what I said this morning, if Mr Saunderson history than I have just gone through and Mr Smith serves a blight notice and meets the criteria and the has a very comprehensive chronology if the terms I have described this morning, and I described Committee want it, but I think at this stage probably them very carefully and I do not want to describe it is more appropriate to hand over to Mr them again because they may be slightly diVerent and Saunderson, unless the Committee has any questions then there would be confusion, then there would be for me now. no ground for us to contest a blight4 notice and we would not do so. That gave him purchase now or 2342. CHAIRMAN: That is Smithfield in the within six months at open market value and I am background? struggling to see what the problem is”. It may be that that was not suYciently, despite what I said in the 2343. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord and there is quite first words, clear. The intention was as long as he a wide road there, Lindsey Street. I am trying to think could show the six months occupation, he could serve of a point that the Committee might be familiar with a blight notice and then we could get on with agreeing but we are probably thinking of it as the back of the the compensation. market. 2348. If I could explain to the Committee, normally 2344. CHAIRMAN: I think that is quite good the valuation date in compulsory purchase, as Mr enough. Mould explained to you the other day, is the day of entry, the date you take possession, but in a blight notice situation because you may not be taking 2345. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: In possession at that stage, it is the earlier of the date your response of 11 February, Ms Lieven, you that the compensation is agreed or the date that referred to some transcripts of exchanges which took possession is taken. Unless things go very slowly, it is place in the Commons and on the face of it there likely in the case of this blight notice that it would be appears to be diVerent interpretations on assurances the date that the compensation is agreed, so it is that were given or not given. Could you elucidate slightly diVerent from your normal compulsory because we have not got those transcripts in front of purchase compensation where the date is easy us and normally you are very good at ensuring that because it is the date that the purchaser entered the we see all the information. land. 2346. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, the position on the 2349. CHAIRMAN: That is a statutory provision, is transcript is and I think we have to put our hands up it not? at this point, the transcript was plainly not proof read with the acuity it should have been because with respect to myself, what the transcript says comes 2350. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord. close to being gobbledegook. There is no doubt at all, and I have a perfectly clear recollection of this, that 2351. CHAIRMAN: Is it in the compulsory the point about the six months was that in order to purchase legislation or is it in the Bill? accept the blight notice we had to be satisfied that there was six months’ occupation of the property and 2352. MS LIEVEN: It is in the national legislation, that is where the six months came in. Mr Saunderson, but where, I will have to get Mr Mould to find it for and I do not know whether he is going to pursue this me. point, in the Petition suggested that the reference to six months was that we would agree the 2353. CHAIRMAN: That is why I said to you this compensation within six months, but, of course, that morning that I thought we might need to have some is nonsensical because there is no time limit for legislation. agreement. The solution, if agreement is not reached expeditiously, is to refer the matter to the Lands 2354. MS LIEVEN: We will find it, my Lord, and Tribunal. We would be perfectly happy to agree it in when I come to call Mr Smith, if I can deal with it six months if our oVer, a reasonable oVer, was then. I have got it in front of me but— accepted by Mr Saunderson, but I certainly never had any intention to put a guillotine on six months and 2355. CHAIRMAN: It is not the most certainly nobody on our side—and we all pore back straightforward piece of text, is it? over the transcript—recollect any such suggestion in 4 the House of Commons. I can put up the relevant Special Report Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235-V, para paragraph if I could find a reference. 17296 (SCN-20080305-001) House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 225
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2356. MS LIEVEN: No, and I am getting slightly Petition? I think you have been given the bound diVerent advice from two sides, so rather than telling copies which I have prepared with this black spiral your Lordships the wrong thing, I will wait for a few binder. If it was possible for you to have that in front moments until we have sorted it out. of you, I can take you through that.
2357. CHAIRMAN: If it, in fact, is set by statute, 2369. On page four, it is a double-sided copy to presumably Crossrail is bound by that, is it not? reduce the environmental cost of the copying, you will find my handwritten number four at the top of 2358. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, my Lord. There is page four, which is the start of the Petition and about no doubt it is set by statute, we are just finding which two-thirds of the way down that, item four, “Your bit of which statute. Petitioner is the owner of a property, together with his cousin as to one-third share and another 2359. CHAIRMAN: Yes. individual as to one-sixth share”. My cousin is actually here. 2360. MS LIEVEN: It is nothing to do with the Crossrail Bill, this is part of the National 2370. CHAIRMAN: There is no dispute about that, Compensation Code, which is what we are is there? following here. 2371. MR SAUNDERSON: No, there is not, I am 2361. CHAIRMAN: You will find it in due time. just reading the Petition.
2362. MS LIEVEN: I do not know whether my 2372. CHAIRMAN: Do not read things that there is Lord, Lord Brooke has another question. no dispute about.
2363. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: It is 2373. MR SAUNDERSON: Thank you. My just to summarise then, you are saying that 17296 is concerns are then set out in paragraph 5. Ms Lieven not what you said and is not a correct record of what mentioned that I had acquired a number of you said? properties in the 1980s. In fact, they were bought in 1981, 1982, 1985, which is the early 1980s in my 2364. MS LIEVEN: The honest truth is I could not reading, and there were two bought in 1988 and 1989 swear it is not what I said, but as it does not make any so I dispute Ms Lieven’s record of the transactions sense, I hope it is not what I said. that were purchased. Indeed, I purchased 10 Hayne Street in 1982 which I think is about 25 years ago. I 2365. LORD SNAPE: It would not be in character, would like to draw your attention to a letter that I Ms Lieven! wrote to the Chairman of the parliamentary committee with whom I appeared on 12 October 2366. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much, my 2006, just to clarify comments that were made then5 Lord, I am very grateful for that. The point to by Ms Lieven. I would like to read that out, which is emphasise is that the six-month period reflects the at the back of your spiral bound folder, a letter to Mr legal requirement for six months’ owner occupation A Meale MP, Chairman of the Crossrail Committee. and I certainly have no recollection of saying Ms Lieven in her opening remarks stated that we anything that would suggest six months was relevant were in a similar position to other landowners such as to any other time and I am absolutely certain that I Grosvenor Estates. I beg to diVer. Grosvenor Estates never suggested that there would be a guillotine on has a vast portfolio of properties with billions of agreeing compensation because the consistent theme pounds of value; we have only one site, as you saw the in front of the Committee in the other place was to picture of it. The Grosvenor Estate property which is say compensation, if there was a dispute, can be safeguarded at Bond Street is, I believe, generating referred to the Lands Tribunal, so there was no income as oYces and shops; our site is not generating guillotine set and there would have been no guillotine any income because we have been prevented from set and it would make no sense to have one because building the oYces by the Department for Transport how would you determine within the guillotine who ordered the City Corporation to refuse permission. Ms Lieven failed to answer your 2367. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Very question, “Did the site have permission still?” The well, Mr Saunderson. site was going to have its permission renewed but the City Corporation received an order from Crossrail or 2368. MR SAUNDERSON: Good afternoon. I am 5 Saunderson to the Chairman of the House of Commons Select grateful to your Lordships and Lady for hearing my Committee on the Crossrail Bill, 13 October 2006 (LONLB- Petition this afternoon. May I take you through the Committee38 05-022) Ref: A17, Correspondence from Mr David Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
226 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson the Department for Transport, should I say, ordering cleared up by you and your colleagues in their them to refuse me permission for the oYce block appreciation of the Department for Transport planning permission renewal, so that is why it does involvement and the ultimate responsible body not have an extant permission today. throughout the last 16 years. There was some confusion over diVerent entities being involved in 2374. The Department for Transport/Crossrail has Crossrail which there have been, but ultimately the been in active negotiations with “the large Department for Transport has been the responsible landowners” throughout this year. They only rang body over this whole 16 year period since they me on 3 October in the week before the hearing to themselves introduced the Safeguarding Order in talk about “serving a blight notice”, so I was keen 1990. I felt that was helpful for you to hear. that Mr Meale realised that there had been inaccuracies in the representations given by Ms 2379. Just reverting back then to my Petition, I Lieven. I will confirm that the paragraph we looked requested compensation at the hearing in 2006 and at earlier was exactly what Ms Lieven said and I was the Committee were sympathetic to the issues and there listening to it and I will confirm that Gurneys really through their moving the blight notice issue took down what she said correctly. was resolved and the blight notice was accepted, as Ms Lieven has mentioned to you. However, two 2375. Point 2, I am not aware that there are any sites undertakings that were given to the House of safeguarded by Crossrail that have suVered in the Commons Select Committee, namely the paragraph way and over the time that we have suVered and, which we have just been referred to, paragraph therefore, the Select Committee is able to deal with 17296, there had been extensive discussions, I have to our unique situation in a unique manner. I submit say, about this blight notice and the acceptance and that Ms Lieven is incorrect in asserting that to grant the purchase date. Ms Lieven, after consultation with my request would lead to substantial extra costs her colleagues, clearly stated that there would be being incurred in public infrastructure projects. To purchase now or within six months and the purchase our site at open market value today is only Committee heard that and took that as an what would be required by law as it stands at present, undertaking. I heard it and took it as an undertaking so zero extra cost is incurred. To pay my costs for and I have to say my understanding of Parliament is working at the overstation development and ticket that undertakings given to Parliament are of a serious hall is only what is done by Crossrail in the ordinary nature and the implications of not fulfilling course of business as it pays out professional fees for undertakings must be serious. these services on a daily basis and, as mentioned, £300 million has already been spent on professional 2380. CHAIRMAN: Is it in the register? There is a fees by Crossrail according to press reports. register of undertakings.
2376. To make whole in the two instances requested 2381. MR SAUNDERSON: I do not— is only requesting that which would have been paid if Crossrail had purchased the properties when the Safeguarding Order was imposed on 5 November 2382. CHAIRMAN: You do not know? There is a 1990. Clearly, the interest thereon from that 1990 register. These are of formal undertakings. date is applicable but the Department has had this money in the interim or not incurred the funding 2383. MR SAUNDERSON: It was a formal costs of borrowing the same. In any event, it is only undertaking given to7 the Committee and on that right that this is passed on to the Petitioners. basis the process was carried on. The second undertaking, you will see on page 40 of my spiral bound folder, 17317. The other point to make on the 2377. Item 3 is an administrative6 matter which need not concern you. record, this is Ms Lieven, a very senior barrister, I would have to say, “if a blight notice is served we will 2378. Item 4 is significant. I am grateful that the pay reasonable surveyor and legal costs of that Committee accepted that the Department for process”. Jones Lang LaSalle at the recommendation Transport, whom earlier indicated are the Promoters of Crossrail have been working for me for now some of the Bill currently before the House, has been the 15 or 16 months and have applied for fees and been body involved at all stages from the Safeguarding refused payment of their fees. They have agreed Order date of 5 November 1990. The slight confusion professional rates of fees. Ms Lieven referred to a over the various government-owned entities was dispute over rates. I am not aware of any dispute over
6 rates, the rates were filed and there was no comment Saunderson to the Chairman of the House of Commons Select 7 Committee on the Crossrail Bill, 13 October 2006 (LONLB- Special Report Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235-V, paras Committee38 05-023) Ref: A17, Correspondence from Mr David 17317 (SCN-20080305-002) House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 227
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson or dispute. They have asked now to be paid, as indeed 2392. This is without prejudice, subject to contract, anybody on an hourly rate basis after 15 months subject to Crossrail board approval, subject to a would expect to be paid, and they have been refused. surveyor’s fee deduction, of which we have an In my humble submission, an undertaking was given unknown quantum. It is not an oVer in my opinion that they be paid reasonable fees. It is unreasonable, or in any reasonable opinion. He then concludes by in my humble opinion, to ask them to work for saying: “The total as above amounts to £575,085, nothing for 15 months or further. which will not be increased.
2384. CHAIRMAN: Have you made reference to 2393. “I look forward to your confirmation that the the Lands Tribunal? above is acceptable. It is put forward to resolve9 the matter forthwith. It is not put forward as 2385. MR SAUNDERSON: No, I have not. I will representing my view”. Jones Lang reply on page 10 come to that, because the Lands Tribunal hearings on the opposite side of the page, 19 February. “Dearth are in more than a year’s time and Jones Lang Nick”, to Kinney Green, this is from Jones Lang LaSalle have to be funded, other professionals have LaSalle, I believe one of the largest firms of surveyors to be funded, who is going to fund those? They have in the world, “I refer to your email dated the 16 refused to pay the fees. Why should I incur more fees January in response to my request that you make an in respect of a body that cannot keep their oVer to our client in respect of the above notice. undertakings? It is absolutely impossible to expect us Unfortunately, I regret to say that I consider that to keep on funding this situation, which has been your oVer is significantly below the current market going on, as you have heard, for 17 years. value of the site. As a result, our client has rejected your oVer out of hand. 2386. Just taking us on further through the Petition, page 5 in the middle, the blight notice was served, as 2394. “You will appreciate that our client is very has been mentioned, and accepted. Almost 12 disappointed with the oVer which appears to be a months later we are now into the thirteenth month final oVer. Our client is also disappointed that the after acceptance of the blight notice, no oVer has been oVer is still subject to your client’s Board approval. made. Ms Lieven says an oVer was made to us, no oVer has been made. An agent acting on behalf of Crossrail sent us an email which I will refer you8 to, if 2395. “We are of the view that were the Lands I may, which is on page 11. This is Mr Nick Eden on Tribunal to consider the valuation of the site under page 11 to Richard Asher, who is of my firm Jones the terms of the blight notice, in the current market, Lang LaSalle or acting for me, I should say. It is they would set a level which would be in excess of £1.2 headed up: “Blight notice. Without prejudice and million for the site plus additional fees, costs and loss subject to contract”. “Further to our discussions payments. On this basis our client is considering his before Christmas, I have received instructions on position, particularly with regards to a reference to without prejudice and subject to contract basis to the Lands Tribunal. oVer to settle on the following terms. 2396. “You are, I know, aware that our client has 2387. “1) The land to be acquired is the freehold petitioned the House of Lords on the basis that your interest”, and so on. clients are not acting reasonably and are simply making no real attempt to reach a settlement in 2388. “2) Compensation settlement will be £500,000, relation to the Blight notice which, in eVect, your inclusive of relevant fees and costs of surveyors and clients were directed to accept by the Crossrail Select lawyers. Committee in the House of Commons.
2389. “3) There will be an additional payment of 2397. “If your clients do feel able to break the SDLT”, and various odd amounts. st apparent impasse, I would be pleased to hear from you”. It just sets a picture for you of what we have 2390. “4) Completion must occur on or prior to been dealing with for the last 17 years. Monday, 31 March”.
2391. “5) All of the above is subject to Crossrail 2398. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: board approval”. How do you arrive at the figure of 1.2 million? I
8 presume there is some validation. Jones Lang LaSalle, 10 Hayne Street, London EC1—Blight 9 Notice. Without prejudice and subject to contract, 16 January to Kinney Green, 10 Hayne Street, London EC1, 19 February Committee2008 (LONLB-38 Ref: A17, 05-010) Correspondence from Kinney Green to 2008 (LONLB-38 05-009) Committee Ref: A17, Correspondence from Jones Lang LaSalle Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
228 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2399. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, there have been 2407. MR SAUNDERSON: Absolutely, that is three appraisals provided by Jones Lang LaSalle. right. We consider their oVer to be discourteous in You will see one of them in the papers I have given to the extreme and especially including the surveyors’ you in November which provided a higher value and fees when explicitly surveyors’ fees, for example, were there are details of the surveyors’ calculations as to to be paid on top. how they arrive at the value for the site. Would you like to turn to that? 2408. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Are Kinney Green lawyers or surveyors? 2400. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Page? 2409. MR SAUNDERSON: They are surveyors. It is a small firm of surveyors. If I may just take you on 10 just further through the Petition it is only just over 2401. MR SAUNDERSON: It is page 12, if you the page and then it will be finished with the Petition. would like to just refer to it. It starts on page 14, I beg My submission is that no practical oVer has been your pardon. “Development appraisal”, and it is a provided when they undertook that they would deal surveyor’s calculation of value with rents and square with the matter with the purchase now or within six footages and costs of construction and so on, months. Almost 12 months later no oVer has been providing a basis for their view of the value of the site. forthcoming and there have been unsatisfactory We had provided the first valuation back in April to discussions with a firm of surveyors called Kinney Crossrail and talked about the figures. There is some Green, acting for Crossrail. discussion over figures, rents and construction costs and so on. 2410. The barrister clearly indicated that the purchase would be: 2402. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: You will pardon this next question. It is probably in 2411. (a) Now or within six months, that is by 18 ignorance of the process, but you are basing this on, August 2007 and I presume, current market rents and things like that or the appropriate values of that? Do you also take 2412. (b) At full market value taking into account the into account any current decision of the Lands development potential of the site which had received Tribunal? planning permission for a six-storey oYce building
2403. MR SAUNDERSON: It is provided by Jones 2413. (c) The Petitioner’s costs of surveyors and Lang LaSalle so I do not know exactly what they do. lawyers would be paid by Crossrail. They take in evidence from whatever source— presumably the Lands Tribunal might well provide 2414. This has not been adhered to by Crossrail and evidence if there has been evidence—but they take in I humbly request that you: evidence from other surveyors who have done lettings and construction costs. They have various 2415. (a) Order Crossrail to purchase by 31 March sources of information that they look to provide the 2008 or within 30 days of this hearing, if later, at the material for the evidence. value advised to Crossrail by Jones Lang LaSalle as at either 2404. CHAIRMAN: Most surveyors and valuers have knowledge of the market, have they not? 2416. (i) the date of the Safeguarding Order in 1990 or
2405. MR SAUNDERSON: Absolutely yes, they 2417. (ii) the date of acceptance of the blight notice, have extensive research departments compiling such 19 February 2007, or evidence and such material. This would be common for either a developer or a valuer or anybody really in 2418. (iii) six months after that date, namely 18 the property world to work with such a valuation August 2007. type of basis. 2419. (b) Order Crossrail to pay interest at the 2406. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: statutory rate from the date appointed in (a) above to There is a slight discrepancy between this valuation the date of payment to Your Petitioner. and clearly a Crossrail valuation? 10 2420. (c) Order Crossrail to pay all costs of the Ltd, 19 February 2008 (LONLB-38 05-009) Petitioner. Committee Ref: A17, Appraisal Summary, Jones Lang LaSalle Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 229
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2421. (d) Order Crossrail to make whole Your and my petition is that you order them, request them, Petitioner in respect of the acknowledged blight since preferably order them, to meet their undertakings. 1990 throughout the payment of loss of income over the last 17 years. 2431. CHAIRMAN: There would have to be a legal discussion about this and I will invite Ms Lieven in 2422. (e) Order Crossrail to grant an interest in the due course to say something. overstation development in proportion to the land holding as it relates to the total land area utilised for the development which is what they are doing with 2432. MR SAUNDERSON: Could I just complete the other large land owners, as you will no doubt be the documents, there are two or three more aware. documents, just for completeness.
2423. (f) Cause the Bill to be altered to include the 2433. CHAIRMAN: Please do. above specific provisions to pay Your Petitioner the just sums due or the Bill be struck oV. 2434. MR SAUNDERSON: On page seven you will see the issue of the fee, just for your record. In the 2424. (g) Any other order which your Lordships see second email, which was actually the first one, fit. Richard Asher of Jones Lang writes to Kinney Green: “Thank you for your email. I am happy to let 2425. CHAIRMAN: Mr Saunderson, you are you have our latest appraisal and11 to meet with LUL saying we can step into the position of the Lands to discuss their costs. However, before I proceed with Tribunal, override statutory provisions of the Lands either, I would beth grateful if you could respond to the Tribunal in determining this sort of thing and impose attached letter regarding fees.” Over the page he our own solution but not without amending the Bill, writes a letter, again to Nick Eden: “Further to our is that right? meeting on 19 December 2007, your subsequent oVer to us to settle the claim . . . At our meeting I 2426. MR SAUNDERSON: I am suggesting that raised the issue of our fees and whether your clients you hold Crossrail to the undertakings that they gave would be wiling to make an interim payment in to the House of Commons. respect of our fees. You will recall that your clients have previously accepted responsibility for payment 2427. CHAIRMAN: No, you are suggesting that we of our fees and we have now been working on this take the place of the Lands Tribunal in assessing project for almost 12 months. Therefore it would compensation and awarding costs and make our own seem appropriate for your clients to agree to meet an assessment when the date of payment should be and interim account for our fees. I look forward to we do that by amending the Bill because we have not hearing from you . . . ” Kinney Green reply at the top got powers otherwise to do it, is that right? of page seven at ten o’clock, immediately replying, “Dear Richard, Thank you for your email, and it’s 2428. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, I am suggesting attached letter. I have previously raised this request that you consider amending the Bill in order to with my client, and do not have their instructions to address the injustice which has been meted out over make an interim payment. I am letting them know the last 17 years. that you have raised this again, but these are my instructions. I look forward to receiving your 2429. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand that but by appraisal . . . and arranging the LUL meeting.” means of substituting our powers for those of the Lands Tribunal to deal with this very thing? 2435. I think it might be helpful, just finally, to refer you to the transcript which you will find in the middle 2430. MR SAUNDERSON: The matter of of my papers on page 40 of the spiral binder. Mr valuation, I understand where you are coming from, Binley, one of the Members who sat through the that you are saying the Lands Tribunal is geared up parliamentary committee in the House of Commons, to deal with that. The matter of the date of the at 17315, says, and this is four paragraphs up from valuation is something that you are well able to make the end of the whole hearing— a provision on. I would ask that is something that you ought in some way to do. I am suggesting, and I 2436. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I understand the question is whether you order am sorry, which page? Crossrail to pay our surveyor’s fees, I am suggesting you do. I do not know exactly how that is to be done 11 Jones Lang LaSalle, 10 Hayne Street, London EC1—Blight but I am suggesting that the undertakings given to the Notice. Without prejudice, 25 February 2008 (LONLB-38 05- House of Commons have not been met by Crossrail 005)Committee Ref: A17, Correspondence from Kinney Green to Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
230 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The12 Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2437. MR SAUNDERSON: Page 40. 2446. You have obviously heard briefly what took a fair amount of time in the Commons. I have lived 2438. MS LIEVEN: The diYculty I have, my Lord, with this for a lot of time so am very familiar with it is we do not have this document. but I appreciate you are coming to this very, very cold. The overall position is that I have had an asset 2439. MR SAUNDERSON: We have provided it to frozen since 5 November 1990 which I have been you already. Mr Walker had it on Monday morning. unable to do anything with. It is unable to provide any income. The State which froze the asset has not 2440. MS LIEVEN: I am sure we can get round that. provided a way out, it has just continued to We will put up the page of the transcript but we have obfuscate, if you like. It has taken me up various not got the same page numbers. times in discussions and it has dropped me down again; it has taken me up again and dropped me down. It has really been an unacceptable way, in my 2441. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: humble opinion, for the State to operate and, 40 is something diVerent in my pack. therefore, in my submission the Bill ought to provide for advance purchase of land at a satisfactory 2442. CHAIRMAN: 40 is the transcript in my one. valuation ahead of construction. That is my prayer. When I come to summing up I have a summary of my 2443. MR SAUNDERSON: It is paragraph 17315. arguments.
2444. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 2447. CHAIRMAN: Has 10 Hayne Street been in There are two page 40s, that is what threw me. My the same ownership ever since 1990? apologies. 2448. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, since 1982. 2445. MR SAUNDERSON: Mr Binley says: “I just wanted to leave an aide-memoire on the record for 2449. CHAIRMAN: I see. It is your own personal my own use and hopefully for consideration by the ownership, is it? Committee when they come to consider this more fully. I would like to make the point that this is at this 2450. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, correct, and my stage without any prejudice whatsoever because it is cousin as I mentioned earlier. my initial feelings, but I have no doubt that property prices fell and that is part of a business risk that 2451. CHAIRMAN: Not a company? anybody would take in these circumstances, but I have equally no doubt that it is almost impossible to 2452. MR SAUNDERSON: Not a company, no. consider as a proper financial risk the sort of hurdles, Thank you for listening to me. the sort of diYculties, that had to be faced in this matter. I understand that the machinery of State is 2453. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to call any heavy, often impersonal and seeming uncaring, but evidence? that is the nature of the machinery of State. That does not, however, mean that our job is not to improve that and to change it so that this unacceptable risk be 2454. MR SAUNDERSON: No, I have no further removed because I do believe your final words, that evidence. the impact upon the business and commercial community is an important one. Often I think 2455. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Ms government, in its unthinking way, not because it Lieven, what have you got to say about this? May I means to be malicious, but in its unthinking way, just say I am concerned that the Select Committee is often creates situations that, if it had a chance to being invited to replace its own procedures instead think about in their entirety, it would not do, so I with those of the Lands Tribunals in many respects in think we need to take that into account and that is terms of valuation, in terms of timing of the date of why I think those remarks were important.” He payment and in terms of fees. I wonder if there is any referred to my comments a couple of paragraphs precedent for this? previously that there were lessons to be learned and the land should have been bought, the project should 2456. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, certainly not so far as have gone ahead when it was safeguarded or it should I am aware, no. If I try and answer the import of your have been unfrozen, but it should not have been left Lordship’s comment, in my submission it would be frozen for 16 years in my submission. wholly unjustified to do so here. What we have here
12 is a classic valuation dispute. My understanding on Special Report Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235-V, paras instructions is that Mr Saunderson’s original claim 17315 (SCN-20080305-002) for 10 Hayne Street was for £3 million and it has House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:28 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 231
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson come down now. The disputes, so far as I understand 2467. MS LIEVEN: Yes. them, between Jones Lang Lasalle and Mr Eden, and I should say that Mr Eden is an extremely 2468. CHAIRMAN: Is there one? experienced city valuer and the implication, “Well, it’s only a little firm”, he is extremely experienced in 2469. MS LIEVEN: There is not at the present this field, there are two strands to the valuation time, no. dispute. One is about the rental value to be applied to the commercial floor space at 10 Hayne Street, and 2470. CHAIRMAN: That would solve that that is an absolutely classic valuation issue where one problem. would to look at comparables to try to work out what the rental value of commercial floor space in this kind 2471. MS LIEVEN: What I am trying to say to the of location would be. That is the point my Lord, Lord Committee is all these are classic problems that the Young, touched upon. Mr Eden has emailed back to Lands Tribunal has to grapple with in deciding a Jones Lang saying, “Please set out your reasons valuation if a matter is referred to it and, with great behind the 1.2 million claim”. It is the kind of issue respect to this Committee, the Lands Tribunal is a where there will be to-ing and fro-ing over much more appropriate body to make that comparables, if Jones Lang ever give us any, and then determination because it has the relevant expertise ultimately some figure will be reached. and it is set up to hear precisely that type of evidence in that type of dispute. 2457. The other area of dispute— 2472. CHAIRMAN: And it is also the statutory 2458. CHAIRMAN: Just one moment. If we are body required to do so. supposed to reach a decision on a figure we would have to hear substantial professional evidence from 2473. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, my Lord. both parties, would we not? 2474. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I presume you could come to an out of Lands Tribunal 2459. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, my Lord. settlement because figures are being exchanged?
2460. CHAIRMAN: As would the Lands Tribunal. 2475. MS LIEVEN: Yes.
2461. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely. 2476. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: What you are saying to us is if you fail to agree between you in what I would paraphrase as an out of 2462. CHAIRMAN: We would have to know on court settlement the matter would then be referred to what date the valuation is to be based. the Lands Tribunal.
2463. MS LIEVEN: Yes. 2477. MS LIEVEN: It goes a little further than that, my Lord, because the matter could be referred to the 2464. CHAIRMAN: And we would have to go into Lands Tribunal now and, indeed, we have written to the question of fees in some considerable detail. Mr Saunderson and Jones Lang, or emailed them, saying, “Let’s just refer this to the Lands Tribunal”. Because we are so far apart but also because of Mr 2465. MS LIEVEN: Yes. And there is another Saunderson’s concern to get the money, it seemed to matter you would have to go into, which is the other us the most sensible thing was refer it to the Lands area of dispute is the amount of net lettable space that Tribunal. That does not stop the parties negotiating would be available in this assumed building, and that behind the scenes. There are always delays in goes into planning evidence as to what planning litigation and while it is waiting to get on at the Lands permission would be likely to be granted absent Tribunal at least it has gone and got in the queue. We Crossrail. To put it very crudely for the Committee: is have suggested that and for reasons I do not know so it likely that the City, who are the planning authority far that suggestion has not been taken up. there, would grant a five storey building or a twenty storey building. 2478. LORD SNAPE: One of the points Mr Saunderson made was that he would be involved in 2466. CHAIRMAN: There is a perfectly good considerable extra expense in going to the Lands procedure for this, is there not, Ms Lieven, you could Tribunal. As a layman, my Lord Chairman, forgive get a certificate of alternative development from the me for asking this particular question, but what sort City Council, could you not? of expense are we talking about for someone like Mr Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
232 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson13
Saunderson to take a case like this to the Lands put it up. This is the provision that fixes the date for Tribunal? Are we talking hundreds, thousands, tens valuation: “If the value of the land is to be assessed in of thousands of pounds? accordance with rule 2 in section 5, a valuation must be made as at the relevant valuation date. No 2479. MS LIEVEN: I do not think there is an easy adjustment is to be made to the valuation in respect answer to that, my Lord, because, as always, with any of anything which happens after the relevant date. If kind of litigation it terribly much depends who you the land is the subject of a notice to treat the relevant get and how long it goes on. We are certainly not valuation date is the earlier of (a) the date when the talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds. Let acquiring authority enters on and takes possession of me check with Mr Mould who is more experienced in the land, and (b) the date when the assessment is the Lands Tribunal. My Lord, first of all, Mr Mould made.” and I think that you would probably be talking about something in the region of £20,000, perhaps £30,000 2486. Section 154 of the Town and Country Planning in fees, but the critical point to bear in mind is, as I Act deems the land where a blight notice has been said in the House of Commons, we will pay accepted to be subject to a notice to treat. So we get reasonable fees, it is just we will not pay them in into section 5(a), this is the 1961 Land Compensation advance. There is no provision in the statute for Act. We get into subsection (3) here by reason of the advance payment of fees and, as I understand it, it is deemed notice to treat and then the valuation date is not normally done. I do not know whether it is ever either (a) or (b). Because we have not entered the land done but it is certainly not normally done. There is no and are unlikely to enter the land—I am not sure issue, we will pay the fees, but we are not going to what the precise date we are likely to enter land in write a blank cheque for whatever surveyors in Hayne Street is but it certainly will not be until after advance. Royal Assent, and it may be some time after that— the important date is likely to be (b), the date when 2480. CHAIRMAN: I think if there is a proper the assessment is made. Unlike a compulsory compulsory purchase there is now provision in purchase, where everything is triggered by the date of statute for a small amount to be paid upfront. entry, with a blight notice the trigger point is likely to Whether that applies to a blight notice I do not now be only the date when the assessment is made. remember.
2481. MS LIEVEN: What there is, and I will be 2487. CHAIRMAN: Is that right, it is not when the clutched by Mr Mould or Mr Smith if I get this notice is accepted? wrong, is in a compulsory purchase situation a significant amount of compensation is paid right at 2488. MS LIEVEN: It is not when the notice is the beginning. I think it is actually a large percentage, accepted, my Lord, no. not a small percentage. What I do not know is whether that includes fees. My Lord, the figure I had in mind is correct, it is 90 per cent paid in advance but 2489. CHAIRMAN: Well, how do you get any it is on entry. The diYculty one has with a blight further about making an assessment? notice is there is no entry on the land.
2482. BARONESS FOOKES: That is what makes 2490. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I understand the way it blight. it works is that the parties who are negotiating eVectively take a realistic view of the date when the 2483. MS LIEVEN: Precisely, my Lady, that is what assessment is going to be agreed is likely to be. Unless makes it blight. So the 90 per cent payment figure one was in a very, very rapidly changing market the does not apply. What I do not know is whether that precise date probably would not matter very much. I 90 per cent covers fees or not. It can include partly can see that there could be problems in a market fees. which was falling or rising by 20 per cent a year or something like that. Mr Mould is making the point that in practice the negotiations will take place at 2484. CHAIRMAN: But there is no provision in the current values. blight notice procedures, even if the blight notice is accepted by the public authority, for an upfront payment. 2491. CHAIRMAN: My diYculty about this is if we are being asked to step into the shoes of the Lands 2485. MS LIEVEN: That is right. If I put up the Tribunal we have got to choose a date, have we not? relevant provision, and I am afraid Mr Mould has 13 scribbled over it, he did not realise that I was going to Valuation Date (SCN-20080305-003) Land Compensation Act 1961 (c. 33), Section 5(a) Relevant Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 233
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2492. MS LIEVEN: If your Lordships were 2502. MS LIEVEN: Yes, and there are scales. There seriously considering stepping into the shoes of the are whole books about fees, as I understand it, and it Lands Tribunal you would have to do a lot more. is all fairly standard stuV. I should say there was Choosing the date, as it were, would be the least of originally a dispute about the level of fees. I think the the problems. current position is that there probably is not a dispute about the level of fees; the dispute is entirely about 2493. CHAIRMAN: I quite agree, but we could not whether they are paid in advance. even contemplate valuation evidence until we knew the date of the valuation evidence. 2503. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: In a sense this relates back to the dates which eventually 2494. MS LIEVEN: I think what you would find will be determined on which the settlement should be both sides’ valuers did was assume the date they made. I wonder if you could respond to the allegation wrote their evidence as the valuation date. That is made that in 1996 the City Corporation were ordered how it would work in practice. Say you are writing to refuse planning permission. Do you know your proof of evidence and you know the Lands anything about that? Tribunal is not going to be for another three months, you will write your evidence for today’s date. As I 2504. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord, I do know about say, it would only be if you were in a rapidly that. That is because the site fell within the depreciating or appreciating market that that safeguarded area. Mr Smith can give you more detail diVerence would be material. on this if you want it. There were long negotiations between Mr Saunderson, the company and London Underground as to whether or not it would be 2495. BARONESS FOOKES: On a factual point, I possible to grant planning permission allowing the am not clear whether both parties have to agree to go Farringdon East ticket hall to be subsumed within to a Lands Tribunal or whether it can be unilateral. the permitted scheme because by 1996 the first Crossrail Bill had been rejected by Parliament, so the 2496. MS LIEVEN: It can be unilateral, my Lady. scheme was safeguarded but not about to go ahead. We did contemplate referring the matter ourselves to There were negotiations about whether or not Mr the Lands Tribunal but we felt, perhaps wrongly, that Saunderson could build out a scheme but, as it were, Mr Saunderson would feel that was a gun being put keep what we described the other day as passive to his head and it was more appropriate either that he provision within it for the ticket hall if and when referred it or that we did so jointly. We have made it Crossrail came along. Those negotiations ultimately absolutely clear to Mr Saunderson that we are wholly did not get anywhere because the engineering supportive of a reference to the Lands Tribunal just problems, to put it in a nutshell, were just too great. to break what is an impasse at the moment. In order to safeguard the Farringdon East ticket hall the Department for Transport—I am not sure 2497. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: whether it was technically the Department for If you referred it to the Lands Tribunal tomorrow, Transport or London Regional Transport—directed when would it likely get a hearing? the City to refuse planning permission, so it was a safeguarding. 2498. MS LIEVEN: Let me ask Mr Bailey, who is behind me, because he is most likely to know that. We 2505. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Am think, my Lord, and Mr Bailey is Head of Group I right in assuming as a layman that the value of the Property at Transport for London so he is very property went down once planning permission was experienced in this matter, a two day hearing, which lost? is what this realistically would be, six to nine months. It would probably be heard in the autumn. 2506. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, that is a tricky question. There were two things going on here at the 2499. CHAIRMAN: And they would then have a same time. One was the property recession and the date on the basis upon which to fix a valuation? other was the impact of Crossrail. There is no doubt that the value of the property went down very substantially. I think it would be foolish to deny that 2500. MS LIEVEN: They would assume a date. some part of that was Crossrail, but certainly Mr Smith’s evidence would be that this scheme would 2501. CHAIRMAN: Yes, they would assume a date. not have been capable of being developed even There would be interest payable as from that date without Crossrail at that time in the property market and fees would be assessed in accordance with because of its location and the very, very severe whatever the fees are in the Lands Tribunal OYce. property recession at the time. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
234 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2507. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Am properties, because they would have been above the I right in assuming that normally a property, even if value allowed for blight notices, because they were there are problems in developing it, is worth more owned by the company, and he owned 10 Hayne with planning permission than without? Street privately he could have served a blight notice on 10 Hayne Street and then, my Lord, triggered the 2508. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I am not sure you process that your Lordship has just referred to if could make that as an absolutely generalised there was a dispute. statement because if there is no prospect of the planning permission --- I am not trying to be diYcult 2521. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and he has got a certificate but if there is no realistic prospect of that planning of alternative development . permission being implemented because there is no demand for commercial property at that location 2522. MS LIEVEN: Yes. There is no dispute, there then the fact you have got planning permission might was a planning permission on 10 Hayne Street and actually make very little, if no diVerence. In most there is absolutely no dispute that absent Crossrail cases your Lordship is entirely right, but I think I there would be a planning permission on 10 Hayne would have to bow to Mr Smith as to whether on the Street. The only dispute which is now live is what the facts of this case it would have made much diVerence. scale of that planning permission would have been, or would be. 2509. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, I see in the Petitioner’s bundle that full planning permission was 2523. CHAIRMAN: If we are going to assess, as we granted in February 1990. have been invited to do, all the various compensation items that would be decided by the Lands Tribunal, 2510. MS LIEVEN: That was for Hayne Street, we have also got to make an assumption about the my Lord. certificate of alternative development , have we not? 2511. CHAIRMAN: And it had a condition that it had to be started within five years in the normal way. 2524. MS LIEVEN: Yes, you have, my Lord.
2512. MS LIEVEN: Yes. 2525. CHAIRMAN: And how are we to do that?
2513. CHAIRMAN: Therefore, by 1996 there was 2526. MS LIEVEN: Well, your Lordships would no planning permission. have to do that on evidence. We would have to each call planning experts to give evidence as to what 2514. MS LIEVEN: That is right. planning permission would be likely to be granted by the City Corporation absent Crossrail. 2515. CHAIRMAN: What one would normally do in those circumstances if you had a compulsory 2527. BARONESS FOOKES: I presume that the purchase or a blight notice is you would apply for a Lands Tribunal would have to do the same? certificate of alternative development which would deal with the point that has just been raised by my 2528. MS LIEVEN: Yes. The Lands Tribunal is colleague, Lord Brooke, what would have been able quite used to having to do those kinds of slightly to have been built on it if it had not been for the fact strange exercises. that it was being taken away by a public authority. Is that not the way in which it works? 2529. CHAIRMAN: Evidence would inevitably be brought before the Lands Tribunal for that very 2516. MS LIEVEN: That is right, my Lord. purpose. 2517. CHAIRMAN: It would then be valued on the basis of the certificate of alternative development . 2530. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely. There would clearly be eVorts at agreeing it but it is very common 2518. MS LIEVEN: Yes, absolutely. to call that kind of evidence. I am in your Lordship’s hands as to whether you want to hear from Mr Smith. 2519. CHAIRMAN: At whatever date. 2531. CHAIRMAN: Would Mr Smith be proposing 2520. MS LIEVEN: Yes. Mr Saunderson could, as to tell us about valuation? I understand it, have served a blight notice at any point on 10 Hayne Street after 1990 because although 2532. MS LIEVEN: Well, he could if your Lordship he could not serve a blight notice on the other asked but, no, I do not think so. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 235
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2533. CHAIRMAN: Would he be proposing to tell ten square feet to the square metre. It is 7,500 square us about the Certificate of alternative development ? feet roughly.
2534. MS LIEVEN: No, my Lord, save in the most 2545. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you see, this was generalised terms. He can tell your Lordships about granted in February 1990. the history; he can tell your Lordships about the normal processes of compulsory purchase 2546. MR SAUNDERSON: Correct. compensation and blight notices; and he can give your Lordships the kind of background which to 2547. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to call evidence to some degree I have done but he could do far more show whether that is still a valid basis for a expertly and with more knowledge. valuation today?
2535. CHAIRMAN: And he could give his views 2548. MR SAUNDERSON: There has not been a about fees? particular dispute on that. The only dispute on the area of the building was that we suggested we could 2536. MS LIEVEN: And he could give his views get a slightly higher gross to net ratio today than we about fees, my Lord. Not about, I suspect, the level could have got in 1990 for various reasons, but there of fees, but he can certainly tell your Lordships about is not very much between the surveyors as regards the normal practice. area of the building.
2537. CHAIRMAN: Mr Saunderson, having heard 2549. CHAIRMAN: The only definitive thing is the that, I am hesitant about asking Mr Smith to give Certificate of alternative development , is it not? evidence because I am not sure that it is going to assist us. Do you want to go into this process in order 2550. MR SAUNDERSON: In my humble to try and get us to determine the value, the date, the submission, the planning permission that was Certificate of alternative development and the fees in granted is a— place of the Lands Tribunal? 2551. CHAIRMAN: No, it is not, it is out of date, it 2538. MR SAUNDERSON: If I may pick up one is invalid, it has expired. The current situation would question which I think I can answer straightaway on be guarded by a Certificate of alternative the Certificate of alternative development . development , would it not? 2552. MR SAUNDERSON: I bow to your greater 2539. CHAIRMAN: Please do. knowledge. I have never heard of a Certificate of alternative development. I am so sorry for not having 2540. MR SAUNDERSON: We have just purely known about that. I have been advised by surveyors used the planning permission which we did obtain in for the last 15 years on this and I was not advised to the valuations, so we had planning permission and apply for one but, interestingly, Crossrail is not there is no dispute between the valuers on the fact particularly disputing the basis of the planning that we had planning permission for a six-storey permission already granted. oYce building of a certain size and that is what we have used for the valuation and you will see that. 2553. CHAIRMAN: Let me now go back to the beginning of my question. What do you want us to 2541. CHAIRMAN: I have seen it, but I have just do? Do you want us to step into the shoes of the been talking about it, it is on page five, is it not? Lands Tribunal and carry out the entire exercise?
2542. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, correct, in the 2554. MR SAUNDERSON: I feel that you can second bundle. Forgive me, but there are two sets of suggest the valuation date or order a valuation date papers within this. There are the papers that have with ease. The acceptance of the blight notice would been given to the House of Commons, which are be a perfectly valid basis for the valuation date. numbered 1 to 86. 2555. CHAIRMAN: And carry out the valuation on 2543. CHAIRMAN: It is after the extracts from the that date? Commons Committee proceedings. 2556. MR SAUNDERSON: As at February 2007. 2544. MR SAUNDERSON: It is about in the middle of the bundle. There is a planning permission 2557. CHAIRMAN: And carry out the evaluation for a building of 714 square metres taking just over on that date? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
236 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2558. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes. 2571. MR SAUNDERSON: Thank you, yes. I was informed by Jones Lang that it would be more than 2559. CHAIRMAN: And apply the necessary a year before a hearing date was given, so that was the interest? first reason, that fixing a valuation date more than a year ahead, it would be a lottery as to whether the market was lower or higher. It is very hard to say, 2560. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, from that. “Yes, I’m going to say March 2009, I want the valuation of that property”, which is what I would be 2561. CHAIRMAN: And also adjudicate upon doing if I referred it to the Lands Tribunal, so there costs? was a long period of time before the Lands Tribunal, much longer than had been referred to by Ms Lieven 2562. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, cost. I have to say, just now, over 12 months to get a hearing. I do not think it is a very diYcult thing. Jones Lang will supply the number of hours they have worked 2572. Secondly, I understand the costs would be and they have agreed the hourly rate. substantial, much higher than has been indicated to your Lordships and, again, we have had this rather 2563. CHAIRMAN: If we are going to be asked to diYcult period of Ms Lieven making representations, step into the shoes of the Lands Tribunal, we have got as she did to the House of Commons Committee, to do it properly, have we not? saying, “Oh, yes, I’l pay costs”, and then we come along with the Bill and they say “No, we won’t not pay”. I am reluctant to incur an open-ended 2564. MR SAUNDERSON: I would not want to do commitment to fund what is, in eVect, like a legal case anything other than what you say, Sir, but I have to more than a year away with substantial work take it back one step to the overview. I have been required by— sitting on an asset frozen for 17 years and I would like you to order them to pay an amount of money now 2573. CHAIRMAN: That is what the Lands that Jones Lang have suggested. In some respects Tribunal was set up to assess as part of the general that may be rough justice to both sides but it overall solution to the problem. If you have had to answers the— incur extra costs, it is done according to a scale and the Lands Tribunal can order the costs to be paid. 2565. CHAIRMAN: I think it is also unlawful. I do not think we have got the powers to do it, so it would 2574. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, well Jones Lang be very diYcult for us. In order that we should do not have been working for 15 months without payment even rough justice, but any justice at all, we would and I would be surprised if they want to work for have to have evidence. Are you proposing to call another 12 to 15 months without payment. That is evidence? the problem of your Ladyship’s question. It sounds easy and Ms Lieven says it is very easy, the fact is it 2566. MR SAUNDERSON: I would be most happy actually very diYcult. to call evidence, yes. 2575. LORD SNAPE: With respect, Mr 2567. CHAIRMAN: About all the things I have Saunderson, forgive me, Lady Fookes, but further to been talking about? Lady Fookes’ question, you have already heard from Counsel for the Promoters that they did not want to refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal and I 2568. MR SAUNDERSON: Absolutely. I do not paraphrase what Ms Lieven said, “want to appear as see a problem on the area or the fees, they are very to be bullying you”. If they refer the matter to the straightforward. I do not think there is a dispute Lands Tribunal, I gathered from what Ms Lieven particularly between Crossrail and ourselves and I said that they would meet those costs to which you think Ms Lieven even said she has not got a dispute object and I cannot quite see why you are not on the fees, so she has already agreed. prepared to have a valuation based on a hearing in six, nine or 12 months hence, but you are happy 2569. CHAIRMAN: I am delighted to hear that but evidently for this Committee to decide a valuation on there does seem to be a dispute about price. today’s prices. There is some inconsistency there, I put it to you. 2570. BARONESS FOOKES: Could I ask you, Mr Saunderson, why you have not made application to 2576. MR SAUNDERSON: I do not think it is the Lands Tribunal which seems, to a layman like inconsistent at all. How would the costs be funded myself, the obvious course of action? from here until 15 months’ time? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 237
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2577. LORD SNAPE: I think we heard from Ms assessment of all these various payments that need to Lieven earlier on that it is only fair that if the be made as if we were the Lands Tribunal? Promoter refers the matter to the Tribunal, they would meet some of the costs? Perhaps I can catch her 2593. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes. attention so she could confirm that. 2594. CHAIRMAN: When are you going to call the 2578. MS LIEVEN: I am so sorry my Lord. evidence? 2579. MR SAUNDERSON: Perhaps they would give an undertaking to you that they will pay 2595. MR SAUNDERSON: I can do that when you quarterly accounts to Jones Lang— are sitting.
2580. CHAIRMAN: But, Mr Saunderson, you are 2596. CHAIRMAN: You are not going to do it asking us to adjudicate on this, are you not? You are today, are you? asking us to adjudicate upon the question of costs and the amount of costs, are you not? 2597. MR SAUNDERSON: Not today, no, Sir.
2581. MR SAUNDERSON: I am asking you to 2598. CHAIRMAN: Have you got any idea what fulfil the undertaking they gave to the— sort of evidence you are going to have to call? 2582. CHAIRMAN: Are you asking us to adjudicate upon the amount of costs? 2599. MR SAUNDERSON: I would imagine I have to provide you with a letter that Jones Lang have 2583. MR SAUNDERSON: Not on the amount, provided to Crossrail. no, Sir, on the payment of the cost, yes. 2600. CHAIRMAN: No, you have to call evidence, 2584. CHAIRMAN: Before we can make an order not letters, you have to call people who are experts to about payment we have got to adjudicate on the come and give evidence to this Select Committee. Is amount, have we not? that what you want to do? You will have to have a Certificate of alternative development which would 2585. MR SAUNDERSON: Ms Lieven has already be the basis of the valuation of 10 Hayne Street, replied that she has no dispute about the amount of which you have not got. You would have to have the fees. evidence about the valuation of the property on the basis of that supposed development. You would have 2586. CHAIRMAN: Mr Saunderson, please, will to have figures for the costs that have been incurred you answer my question. Do you want us to because that would allow it to be awarded, but when adjudicate on the amount of costs? are you going to call this evidence?
2587. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, I do. 2601. MR SAUNDERSON: I am happy for a date to be fixed in accordance with your Lordships’ 2588. CHAIRMAN: How are we to do that without sittings. evidence? 2602. CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately the City of 2589. MR SAUNDERSON: I am sure Jones Lang London have got to issue the Certificate of can provide the evidence you require. alternative development and you have not applied for one, have you? 2590. CHAIRMAN: It would have to be as part of Committee proceedings. 2603. MR SAUNDERSON: No. 2591. MR SAUNDERSON: I bow to your greater knowledge. 2604. CHAIRMAN: How long do you think it would take before we could get that document from 2592. CHAIRMAN: If you want us to step into the them? shoes of the Lands Tribunal we have to decide on the whole list of things that I put to you a little while ago. 2605. MR SAUNDERSON: I have no idea, but in In order to do that we would have to have evidence. my submission I would provide the planning Is that what you want to do? Do you want to bring permission which has been accepted as the basis of evidence before us so that we can make a valid that. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
238 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2606. CHAIRMAN: This Select Committee has got normal rule, as I am sure my Lord Colville knows, is to go back to the House and say what the conclusions that the promoting authority, the compulsory are as a result of our deliberations and the Petitions. acquirer pays the person being acquired fees unless We cannot wait forever for you to acquire a the authority makes an oVer which is in excess of Certificate of alternative development and then start what the Lands Tribunal awards. calling evidence in order to value the land. There is clearly a real diYculty with this. I will leave it in your 2617. CHAIRMAN: A sealed oVer. hands. Ms Lieven, we do not need to hear Mr Smith. 2618. MS LIEVEN: Yes, it is called in the trade a 2607. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, my Lord. sealed oVer. If we beat the sealed oVer, so we oVer more— 2608. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I have just ploughed my way through the Register of 2619. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Undertakings and I cannot see this one listed. Sorry, who is the authority, I have got a bit lost? 2609. MS LIEVEN: It is not, my Lord, no. 2620. MS LIEVEN: We are the authority. If we oVer Mr Saunderson £10 million and the Lands 2610. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I Tribunal only gives him £5 million, then from the just wanted to confirm that. date of the sealed oVer, or I think it is a few days thereafter, we would not have to pay his fees. 2611. MS LIEVEN: It was one of the points I was going to deal with in my closing, but if I touch on it now. It is not listed as an undertaking because so far 2621. CHAIRMAN: Anymore fees? as the assurance I gave that if a blight notice was served in accordance with what I said in the House of 2622. MS LIEVEN: Anymore fees after that date. Commons, we would not serve a counter-notice, in Indeed, the normal rule in the Lands Tribunal is that other words, we would accept the blight notice. That he would have to pay our fees. The very obvious was discharged by the time the Register was drawn reason, my Lord, is it would be unfair if we oVered up and there was no other undertaking given to Mr the person we were buying from a very generous sum, Saunderson. We gave no undertaking relevant to they insisted on fighting on with the Lands Tribunal valuation. for a wholly inflated sum and then they lost because they would have acted unreasonably. EVectively, it is 2612. CHAIRMAN: There is still a valid acceptance the same as in most forms of litigation. As long as he of the blight notice? acts reasonably, eVectively we pay his fees, but you do have these particular rules in the Lands Tribunal. 2613. MS LIEVEN: The blight notice was accepted Given that I have been accused of misleading one in February 2007, that is what we told the Commons Parliamentary Committee, I do not want there to be we would do and that is what we did. any danger of misleading this one. Again, it is not a blank cheque that we will pay all reasonable fees, it is subject in the Lands Tribunal to the normal Lands 2614. CHAIRMAN: And that stands? Tribunal rules. 2615. MS LIEVEN: And that stands, but as it is discharged, it did not get on to the Register. That is 2623. CHAIRMAN: There are scales and there are why that is not on the Register. We gave no other also discretions. assurance. However you interpret my words or the transcript of what was said before the Commons, 2624. MS LIEVEN: There is a discretion, my what it plainly is not is any undertaking about the Lord, yes. level of valuation, so even if we said we would buy the property within X months, which we did not, but 2625. BARONESS FOOKES: If I have understood even if that is what we meant to say, that was not Mr Saunderson correctly, he has two concerns about saying what level of valuation we would accept, so reference to the Lands Tribunal. First of all, the that was a dispute which was plainly still length of time it might take before the case is heard outstanding. and, secondly, the fact that he would need, as it were, money in advance to help with the cost prior to the 2616. There is one other matter of clarification I think case being heard and the cost awarded. I hope I have I should deal with which is the question of fees. We heard that correctly. Can you oVer any assistance, will pay, as I said in the Commons, his reasonable perhaps not on the length of time but on the matter fees. When it comes to the Lands Tribunal, the of the payment upfront of a certain of fees? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 239
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
2626. MS LIEVEN: I can deal briefly with both, my 2631. BARONESS FOOKES: Yes, I understand Lady. In terms of the timing, Mr Saunderson could the legal position, but it is always possible to go have referred this case to the Lands Tribunal from beyond the legal position if one so chose. about May 2007. There were various time periods but Mr Mould and I have worked it out, but it is about 2632. MS LIEVEN: Of course it is, my Lady. Yes, May 2007 he could have referred it. In fact on time, it is possible. my Lady, he could probably have been in the Lands Tribunal by now and got the issue dealt with. 2633. CHAIRMAN: Anything else you want to say to us? 2627. BARONESS FOOKES: It is hypothetical, is it not, because he did not? 2634. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, just to stress very strongly that in terms of the valuation this is appropriately a matter for the Lands Tribunal and 2628. MS LIEVEN: He did not, but that was a very inappropriately a matter for a parliamentary matter of choice for him, my Lady. My instructions committee. There would have to be significant from Mr Bailey, Mr Smith and Mr Mould are that it amounts of evidence in order to determine a value would be about nine months to the Lands Tribunal. here. Two things are obvious, one is that there would So far as fees are concerned, him having to pay in have to be comparable evidence about letting values advance, two points, my Lady. First of all, it is for this type of property and this type of location and certainly very normal in many areas of litigation now the other is the issue that has been touched on which to pay fees on a contingency basis so you only pay is there is a dispute about the net developable space once the litigation is completed. Given that in this which gets into such gripping subjects as the width of type of litigation there will undoubtedly be a large the corridors, the size of the toilets, the area of the cheque at the end of it, I cannot speak for Jones Lang, staircase. This is the kind of thing the Lands Tribunal I do not know the terms of their instructions and it has to battle with in order to come out with a net would be inappropriate to ask, but I struggle to developable space that can be multiplied by the other believe that it is not possible to find a reputable variable, which is the value per square foot. I would surveyor who is prepared to accept their fees at the strongly urge the Committee not to get into that. It end rather than the beginning because unlike some would be a very poor use of Committee time and, kind of litigation, they know in compulsory purchase indeed, Committee expertise. compensation that the money is going to be there at the end because there will be compensation for the 2635. CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that we have any land. expertise. The great advantage to the Lands Tribunal is it is made up of a number of people from diVerent disciplines, all of whom have considerable experience 2629. That is the first point. The other point is that we in dealing with exactly these sorts of things. would be very concerned about the precedent eVect of being required to pay fees in advance because 2636. MS LIEVEN: I would not want to say the although few people will be in Mr Saunderson’s Committee had no expertise, I felt that might be a precise factual situation, there will be many people little rude. who have suVered from blight who will say, “I’m in financial need and I don’t want to go to the Lands Tribunal until I’ve got the money in my pocket for 2637. LORD SNAPE: It is more the time factor. fees”, so we would be concerned that it would have a very wide precedent eVect in respect of blight 2638. BARONESS FOOKES: Possibly, my Lord compensation. Chairman, you are the only one. 2639. MS LIEVEN: I would suggest that the Lands 2630. Your Lordships will be conscious of the Tribunal for a host of reasons is a much more compensation teach-in that Mr Smith and Mr Mould appropriate forum for this type of dispute, and gave you a couple of weeks ago where issues about, dispute there would be, there is little doubt about for example, generalised blight and the impact of that. The other point to stress, my Lords and my blight on people were closely considered both by the Lady, is that Mr Saunderson will get compensation Law Commission and by Parliament in recent through this process and there is no doubt about that, legislation. Parliament has not made a provision that that is what the whole scheme is set up for. would require fees to be paid in advance. I suspect for Ultimately, he will get that redress and he will get it exactly the reasons I have just given, which is it in an objective manner through an expert tribunal if normally could be arranged through the agreement it cannot be agreed and that should give the with the relevant witnesses and legal advisers. Committee the reassurance that perhaps it needs. My Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
240 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson
Lords, I think your Lordships probably have my 2647. MR SAUNDERSON: We had the answer in other points unless there are any other questions. Mr Eden’s email where he says I am oVering you 575 which will not be increased, so there is no 2640. CHAIRMAN: Mr Sanderson, the last word is negotiation. yours, but I think you will have gathered that we are not really the right people to do the job that you want 2648. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: us to do. We do not have the expertise, we have not What would you have lost? got the evidence and I do not think we will be able to wait for the evidence to be produced and, even then, 2649. CHAIRMAN: That is not an answer to Lord I am not sure we will be able properly to evaluate it. Young’s question. He said there can be a parallel Are you really wanting to pursue this Petition, process. One half of it seems to have come to a because I do not think we can do anything to help grinding halt but, nevertheless, in those you? The Lands Tribunal is there and it does all this circumstances why not take the other track? sort of thing all the time, but I am not sure that a select committee of the House of Lords is the sort of 2650. MR SAUNDERSON: That is certainly body that ought to try to do it. correct. The second point which Baroness Fookes mentioned, of course, was the question of costs and 2641. MR SAUNDERSON: If I may just correct Ms Lieven said she does not know the basis of Jones one or two things that have been said. Lang’s fees. She does know the basis of Jones Lang’s fees because they have been agreed with Crossrail 2642. CHAIRMAN: Of course you can. and they are on an hourly rate basis, they are not on a contingent basis so they require to be funded as they go along or they will not do the work. 2643. MR SAUNDERSON: Baroness Fookes mentioned the question or it was mentioned about 2651. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: May I why I had not applied in May 2007 to the Lands ask a very small question, it is niggling at my Tribunal— curiosity. Please, I hope it is not oVensive, but I am trying to establish whether you are standing here in 2644. BARONESS FOOKES: I did not mention a respect of you and your co-owners only or whether specific date, that was Ms Lieven. there is some hidden presence behind this as a result of you having granted at some stage a lien or a charge 2645. MR SAUNDERSON: . . . sorry, or could on this property? have replied earlier. Ms Lieven, rather, said in answer to you, I could have applied in May 2007. From April 2652. MR SAUNDERSON: No, there is no lien or 2007 to January 2008 there were supposedly charge on the property. negotiations or valuations evidence being exchanged between Jones Lang LaSalle and Kinney Green and 2653. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: That is it became obvious towards the end of 2007 that we all I wanted to know. Thank you. provided valuations and all they did was just attack them and there was nothing forthcoming. In the end I said to Jones Lang, “You must have a meeting with 2654. CHAIRMAN: Please, say anything to us that Kinney Green and ask them to make an oVer because you like. You have heard the dilemma that we are in. there is no desire on their part to ever reach anything, a settlement, or to negotiate”, but that resulted in 2655. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, I appreciate the— entirely your point and I am in your hands to the extent that— 2646. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I am sorry to interrupt, but what I do not understand is 2656. CHAIRMAN: That is very true, but I still you can do this as a parallel process, so we have been want to hear from you. I still want to hear from you informed, unless we have been misinformed. You can by way of persuading us to do something rather. refer to the Lands Tribunal at the same time as your negotiations are continuing and I do not 2657. MR SAUNDERSON: When I say, “I am in understand—it might be me—there must be a subtle your hands”, what I mean is that there are eight reason why you did not seek to take advantage, highly competent, highly talented people who may be because if ever there was a case where you could, if able to consider a way in which, having heard what I you pardon the vernacular, have your cake and have said, there can be some mitigation of the poor ha’penny, this looks like one. situation which we are placed in. I have suggested Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 241
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson 14 ways and I do have a summary paper to hand out of the City Corporation. We have a policy on the my final points. circumstances in which owners of land which is acquired for the purposes of the Bill but then is 2658. CHAIRMAN: By all means. available for overstation development have the right to buy back that land in particular circumstances. It 2659. MR SAUNDERSON: This is my prayer to is true to say that in a number of the central London your Lordships. sites we have entered into agreements with large property developers for them to take forward 2660. 1. The fees of the Petitioner’s surveyors be overstation development with us. ordered to be a paid on quarterly basis by Crossrail. 2668. CHAIRMAN: It is not a Crichel Down 2661. 2. The valuation date for the valuation of the principle? Petitioner’s land be ordered to be either (a) the date of the Safeguarding Order in 1990 or (b) the date of 2669. MS LIEVEN: It is an expansion of the Crichel the deposit of the Bill or (c) the date of acceptance of Down rules, my Lord, yes, precisely. Colin Smith can the Petitioner’s blight notice. give evidence on the detail of that if necessary and that policy will be applied in respect of 10 Hayne 2662. 3. The land of the Petitioner be acquired at Street to Mr Saunderson as it would to any other minimum estimate of value provided by Jones Lang owner of land in that situation. I am not giving any LaSalle in their letter of 19 February 2008 on or guarantees as to whether or not Mr Saunderson before 4 April 2008. would fall within the terms of that policy but it will be applied to him as it would be to anyone else. 2663. 4. The Petitioner be granted a carried interest in the overstation development on a proportionate 2670. CHAIRMAN: What do you want to say basis to his land in relation to the whole development about 5? less any sum paid in advance to the Petitioner in relation to the acquisition of the said land. 2671. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord, I should say Mr Mould has reminded me that it is the land disposal 2664. 5. Compensation be paid to the Petitioner for policy and Mr Smith did refer to it—I had forgotten his time expended over 17 years as filed in his claim this—in the teach-in, so your Lordships could refer to Crossrail on 28 January 1997. back to that if you want to know, and if I pick up a very large red file it is paper C 10 in the information 2665. 6. Such other compensation be awarded as papers. Five, my Lord, relates back to the issue of the your Lordships in your absolute discretion shall other properties, the Long Lane properties where I deem fit. did not refer to this because Mr Saunderson was, I thought, concerned that we did not, but where Mr 2666. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask you one question Saunderson filed a claim to, I think, London about this, Mr Saunderson, on your point 4, Regional Transport in January 1997 in respect of Crossrail almost certainly will not be carrying out the compensation there is no statutory right to overstation development, at least I am right in saying compensation in respect of those properties and that that. I do not see how we can tell them that you are is the end of the matter. It would be quite wrong for to have any particular part in it. Am I right in the Committee to order compensation in respect of thinking that Crossrail are not likely to be carrying those properties or, indeed, to order compensation to out the overstation development? be paid on 10 Hayne Street for time expanded over 17 years. There is simply no basis for such a claim. 2667. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I was going to rise about paragraphs 4 and 5 here because they are not 2672. CHAIRMAN: If there is anybody who is issues that the Petitioner has dealt with in the liable to pay it, it is not you? submissions he has made to your Lordships at all, therefore I have not dealt with them in response. Mr 2673. MS LIEVEN: There is nobody, my Lord. Smith can do so, if necessary. As far as overstation development is concerned, in all likelihood there will 2674. CHAIRMAN: It certainly is not Crossrail? be an overstation development at Lindsey Street. The form of that overstation development falls outside 2675. MS LIEVEN: It certainly is not the Secretary the remit of the Bill or of this Committee. It will be of State, the Promoter of this Bill, but I would not for taken forward in a normal planning application to one moment wish to go on the record as suggesting 14 that Mr Saunderson should be pursuing a claim 20080305-004) against somebody else because there is no statutory Committee Ref: A18, Petitioner’s closing submission (scn- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:18:29 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401323 Unit: PAG1
242 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
5 March 2008 The Petition of Mr David Saunderson right to compensation in respect of those other 2679. MR SAUNDERSON: The timing was now, properties or that time. My Lords, I think that deals, though, she gave the undertaking that the purchase albeit briefly, with 4 and 5. was now, that was what the Commons accepted, not in 12 months or whenever a Lands Tribunal hearing 2676. CHAIRMAN: Mr Saunderson, you have put happens, it was purchased now or within six months us in a very diYcult position, I am afraid. I perfectly and she goes on to say, “I struggle to see what the well understand what it is you are saying but I think problem is”. She even emphasised what is Mr by this time you may also understand it is extremely Saunderson’s problem, he is going to get the money diYcult for us to do what it is that you want. now or within six months, that is what we all understood perfectly clearly. She is attempting to 2677. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, I would like, if I explain that is not the case. We all heard it, we all may, to refer again to the undertakings that Ms understood what she was saying and we took it as an Lieven gave to the House of Commons Select undertaking and paying reasonable surveyors’ costs Committee and on the basis which the House of one takes as paying reasonable surveyors’ costs Commons Select Committee acted and I acted that which means paying them monthly or quarterly. they would purchase 10 Hayne Street now or within six months and they would pay the reasonable cost of the surveyors and lawyers of the process. 2680. CHAIRMAN: No, it does not in these circumstances. Thank you very much. We must 2678. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but you do that by going consider this. There is nothing else this afternoon. I to the Lands Tribunal. You have got all the necessary think we had better discuss this amongst ourselves if framework, the blight notice has been accepted, you you would be very kind and leave us in solitary can refer it to the Lands Tribunal any time you like. confinement and turn oV the microphones. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 243
DAY NINE MONDAY 10 MARCH 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) James of Blackheath, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Snape, L Fookes, B Young of Norwood Green, L
Ordered that Counsel and Parties be called in.
2681. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, everybody. I 2689. CHAIRMAN: Can I say that I think all my think we might as well start. Mr Elvin, I have seen a colleagues very much appreciate the eVorts which lot of umbrellas blown away today, so I am sorry have been made by the Petitioners to be able to get your glasses went too! here and be ready to go ahead, only Mr Carpenter, you have got a problem. 2682. MR ELVIN: Yes. I am afraid I am in the interesting position, I cannot see the Committee at 2690. MR CARPENTER: Yes, I did not realise that all. I am extremely short-sighted. I would be making a statement today. I was informed that I would be awaiting upon a decision from you.
2683. CHAIRMAN: We can see you! 2691. CHAIRMAN: You have not told us what we have got to decide on yet. 2684. MR ELVIN: I can tell my Lady, Baroness Fookes is here because she is the only one who has a 2692. MR ELVIN: I have written several letters to colourful jacket, but other than that, I am afraid I you and I assumed you had them. cannot even see your faces, so I do apologise. I will be able to at least read out factual opening remarks in due course, but I am going to ask Mr Mould to do the 2693. CHAIRMAN: Let me hear what the rest, if that is convenient. problem is.
2694. MR CARPENTER: I have written it in letter, 2685. CHAIRMAN: That is fine. Perhaps before we so I could read out the letters if you would like. do this, I believe that all the Petitioners from the Spitalfields area are now able to proceed, is that right, except for Mr Carpenter. 2695. CHAIRMAN: Why can you not just tell us what the problem is?
2686. MR ELVIN: That is correct. We have had a 2696. MR CARPENTER: In short, there are some revised timetable revised yet again this morning, but documents that we have requested from Crossrail I think we can cope with that if the Committee finds and we have waited months and we have not that acceptable. received them.
2687. CHAIRMAN: I am not sure, let us find out 2697. CHAIRMAN: What documents? what the revisions are. I have got a list of when people are proposing to appear. 2698. MR CARPENTER: They are revisions, A1, B1, C1 and C2 of one of their documents. I will have 2688. MR ELVIN: Yes. Today, short of Mr to read it out to you. Carpenter making submissions to you, you are due to hear from the Spitalfields Community Association. 2699. CHAIRMAN: No, I want to know in a Tomorrow, Selina Mifsud and others presented by nutshell, is this about alternative routes? Mr Wheeler. Nicholas Morse and others presented by Mr Adams, that is tomorrow. Then Wednesday, Spitalfields Small Business Association and 2700. MR CARPENTER: It is, yes. Khoodeelaar and Thursday, Patricia Jones on her own account and then the Spitalfields Society. That 2701. CHAIRMAN: What have you already got was the latest intelligence we have had this morning. because you have some information from Crossrail . Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
244 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008
2702. MR CARPENTER: I believe that we have a 2720. MR MOULD: Would it be helpful if I final document from Crossrail, a version of the explain this? document and we want the previous versions of that report. 2721. CHAIRMAN: It would be very helpful indeed. Mr Carpenter, can you see that? 2703. CHAIRMAN: I dare say you do, but what have you got at the moment? 2722. MR CARPENTER: Yes, thank you. 1 2704. MR CARPENTER: We have one report of 2723. MR MOULD: What we have here is a plan which we want the previous revisions of. showing the alignment of the railway under the current Bill proposals. The Committee can see 2705. CHAIRMAN: Mr Carpenter, let us take it one Liverpool Street Station here (indicating) and then stage at a time. What have you got at the moment? the running tunnels follow the alignment passing into Tower Hamlets administrative boundary at about 2706. MR CARPENTER: The name, the actual this point (indicating) taking a broadly north- description of the document? easterly alignment and then a gentle curve passing into the Spitalfields area. This is the area here around 2707. CHAIRMAN: No, what is it about? Wilkes Street and Hanbury Street where the majority of your Lordships’ Petitioners this week live or work. 2708. MR CARPENTER: I wish I had the name of There is the Hanbury Street shaft side. The alignment it. Do you have the name of the document? I was not then passes on in an easterly direction and arrives at prepared so I did not bring the plan and all the Whitechapel Station here (indicating). Here is documentation today. Whitechapel Road, here is the existing underground station. Your Lordships recall the entrance from 2709. CHAIRMAN: Is it about the route? Whitechapel Road into the station at that point. Here is the proposed Crossrail station building that we 2710. MR CARPENTER: Yes, it is about looked at a little last week in the context of Tower alternatives. Hamlets’ Petition and here is the area of the Crossrail underground station construction. That is the 2711. CHAIRMAN: Have you got papers which alignment. suggest to you that you wish to put an alternative route in front of us? 2724. CHAIRMAN: Can you work one of those pointers, Mr Carpenter? 2712. MR CARPENTER: What I want is the versions of the document. 2725. MR CARPENTER: I can give it a go.
2713. CHAIRMAN: That is not what I asked you. 2726. CHAIRMAN: Where do you say that the Have you got, at the moment, papers which indicate route ought to go? to you that you would like to put an alternative route to us? 2727. MR CARPENTER: Unfortunately I cannot.
2714. MR CARPENTER: Yes. 2728. CHAIRMAN: No, can you just point it to us?
2715. CHAIRMAN: You have? 2729. MR CARPENTER: I cannot because I can hardly see the detail of the map and, too, it is much 2716. MR CARPENTER: As the Spitalfields more detailed. The documents that arrived today Group, yes. from Crossrail have got the copy of that map of which I presume this is part of it. 2717. CHAIRMAN: You think that if you get further documents this will reinforce what it is that 2730. CHAIRMAN: That is the deposited plan. you wish to tell us? 2731. MR CARPENTER: It is not simply the plan, 2718. MR CARPENTER: I think it will, I think it it is the report, it is the reasons. It is not simply a will inform it. drawing on the map, it is actually the reasons behind that that are included in the whole report that we 2719. CHAIRMAN: Why do we not see what the were concerned about. existing route looks like because presumably it is on 1 the deposited plans? Can we get those on the screen? Station (TOWHLB-XR5B-040) Crossrail Ref: P22, Liverpool Street Station to Whitechapel Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 245
10 March 2008
2732. CHAIRMAN: I am sure it is, but that which the endlessly going back, the regressive earlier drafts is up on the screen at the moment is the deposited of the report and he has been refused that. His plan in this area. complaint under FOI has been rejected and he has appealed to the FOI Commissioner against the loss of 2733. MR CARPENTER: That is right. his appeal and our position is simply one cannot go to endlessly regressive drafts of these matters: he has 2734. CHAIRMAN: What I think would be very had the final report, he has had the draft of the report. helpful for us to know at this stage is where you say the tracks ought to go instead, I mean roughly. 2745. CHAIRMAN: I do not want to go into these arguments because eVectively that is for the 2735. MR CARPENTER: I think you might have Information Commissioner. that. Do you have the 2001 Plan Option B, because Crossrail have produced a plan of that? 2746. MR ELVIN: Yes, but what Mr Carpenter is after is the earlier draft reports of the report he has 2736. CHAIRMAN: They may have done but we already received, both in final form and in the form have not seen it. of the June 2007 draft and that is the essence of his complaint. 2737. MR CARPENTER: They cannot do that, they do a much more direct route to Whitechapel to 2747. CHAIRMAN: Is there a plan which shows in there, it is kind of along that way (indicating) some shape or form what it is that is the route that Mr Carpenter wants the train route to take? 2738. CHAIRMAN:EVectively, you want to cut the corner? 2748. MR ELVIN: If you allow Mr Berryman, he will point broadly to the alignment that Mr 2739. MR CARPENTER: Well. Carpenter is referring to. It is not even one that is dealt with on this plan, it is in an earlier report which 2740. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I wonder, would it be he has already had disclosed. There were some 19 or helpful if I explain how we understood Mr 20 earlier alignment reports disclosed to this Carpenter’s position? association two or three years ago and we have various documentation showing what they disclosed, 2741. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that would be very if the Committee needs to see it but, broadly helpful indeed. speaking, there were a number of southern alignments considered and rejected. As far as we are aware, My Lord, Mr Carpenter has not at any stage 2742. MR ELVIN: The position is2 this. Mr Carpenter and the Residents’ Association wish to see indicated any particular alignment which he wishes a diVerent alignment and they are interested in what to see. He wishes to see simply an alignment other has been called the southern alignments. than the current one.
2743. CHAIRMAN: I am very well aware of that, I 2749. MR CARPENTER: Could I just answer that? want to know what the southern alignment is. 2750. CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course. I want to get 2744. MR ELVIN: There were three options this sorted out at this stage. considered and if someone could find it while I am on my feet. A report was produced which was disclosed 2751. MR CARPENTER: Because the Spitalfields’ to Mr Carpenter and his association and others in Petition is going this week it was suggested that we October of last year which was a new report which each dealt with a diVerent part of the common simply went again through the various alignments concerns. and compared them and came to the same conclusion that had been reached earlier, namely that the Bill 2752. CHAIRMAN: That is a very good idea. scheme was the preferable alignment without prejudice to our view about the principle of the Bill. 2753. MR CARPENTER: Which we are doing. What Mr Carpenter wanted was the earlier drafts of There will be a detailed presentation on the southern that report, he having had the final report in route which another group has been working on. October—it was only produced in October. He was Although I am requesting those documents, because given the final draft of that report, so he has had one we have been receiving previous documents, we have draft of it already in January, and what he wants is divided it up and apportioned it up so that through 2 the week you will deal with diVerent impacts and RTS C8(iv) (LINEWD-SES3RTS-007) diVerent concerns. I am a bit flustered because we Crossrail Ref: P23, Southern Alignment Route Options, Map Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
246 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 have already apportioned who will deal with each 2764. CHAIRMAN: The problem is going to be section. that, as they do not conform to the route which has been approved for the second reading of the Bill, they 2754. CHAIRMAN:Who is dealing with the go against the principle of the Bill. alternative alignment? 2765. MR CARPENTER: Our view is that they do not do that. The principle of the bill is that there is a 2755. MR CARPENTER: That will be the route and stations, is it not? Spitalfields Society and the SSBA. 2766. CHAIRMAN: The deposited plans are part of 2756. CHAIRMAN: Not you? the Bill. The deposited plans, which are up on the board at the moment, do not show a southerly route 2757. MR CARPENTER: I was not going to bring and, therefore, a southerly route is not part of the you plans. That will be done by someone else, who principle of the Bill. This is going to be your problem. can bring you plans and explain them, so that we do If you want to spend a lot of your time appealing to not all do the same thing. the Information Commissioner for more information about southerly routes, that is a matter for you, but I do not think we are going to be able to consider it. 2758. CHAIRMAN: You are the one who is not ready because you do not have the material under the 2767. MR CARPENTER: I would like to carry on FOI procedures. with that because I feel that unless we have the full information we are not able to respond. That is how 2759. MR CARPENTER: That is right. We have we feel about it. started out dealing with that. We received originally the 2001 reports. I think we were the only ones who 2768. CHAIRMAN: You must handle this in any received those. We have looked at the alternatives. way that you think fit. We do not want to stop you The 2001 reports were the main alternatives studied doing that. If it does not follow the track that has by the LUL Crossrail incarnation. We have followed been laid down in the Bill then it is not within the that trail for many years. I have been dealing with this principle of the Bill and it is not within our powers to for over four years now. We obviously work together do anything about it. That is the problem. That is with other groups in Spitalfields and other people. why I asked for the deposited plan to be put up. You When it comes to committee, I believe Kate Jordan would like to depart substantially from it, would will present that. She is a qualified architecture so is you not? someone who can deal much better with the nitty- gritty of maps and the technical details rather than, 2769. MR CARPENTER: We have been making the say, me. We have tried to follow the instructions of argument that Crossrail studied three main the Committee in apportioning diVerent sections, but alternatives from Liverpool Street Station and in it is not because we are not all concerned about the front of us here are the three main alternatives. same things. We most definitely are all concerned about the same things. 2770. CHAIRMAN: As part of your petition you say that the thing ought to go a diVerent way, do 2760. CHAIRMAN:I have spent the entire weekend you not? reading all the petitions from Spitalfields. I have tabulated them. I know exactly what you are 2771. MR CARPENTER: To Whitechapel, yes. concerned with, all of you. I entirely appreciate what That includes Whitechapel Station, so it includes the these points are and I look forward to hearing about route to Whitechapel and Whitechapel Station. It is that. At the moment, I am asking you about the lack not a complete departure from the Bill. of material under the FOI. 2772. CHAIRMAN: As between the left-hand side 2761. MR CARPENTER: There are four previous of the deposited plan and Whitechapel Station you revisions that we were asking for. are asking us to recommend a route which does not follow the deposited plan which is part of the Bill. Is that not right? 2762. CHAIRMAN: Are they all part of the southerly route? 2773. MR CARPENTER: I presume that would be correct, yes. The plan we were shown is the deposited 2763. MR CARPENTER: Yes, they show the plan, yes. It is diVerent from the benchmark scheme southerly routes. in this respect. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 247
10 March 2008
2774. CHAIRMAN: It is in your hands, but, as you of the Bill you may not think it worth your while know, the Bill has been given a second reading in the proceeding with that. There are plenty of other things form it is, with the deposited plans, with the to proceed with. I am sorry. It is a fact of life. This is description in the first schedule, and we cannot do the way parliamentary procedure works. I will leave anything about it—whatever you say. If you want to you to think about it. go on searching for further information which will produce routes that do not comply with the principle 2779. MR CARPENTER: I would say that we still of the Bill, we are not going to stop you, but I am would want these documents. afraid at the end of it we are not going to be able to do anything to help you either. 2780. CHAIRMAN: As far as I am concerned, you can use any documents you like. We do not want 2775. MR CARPENTER: I was hoping that you anything at the moment. might be able to ask Crossrail for this information for us, so that we could have that and therefore we would 2781. MR CARPENTER: So far we are in a be able, after we had looked at it, to present our case. situation where we are going to have to wait until we have heard from the Information Commissioner. 2776. CHAIRMAN: We cannot depart from the Until that point when either we receive the principle of the Bill. This is a parliamentary documentation from Crossrail or the Information proceeding. It is one of the rules that a select Commissioner comes back to us or— committee, in so far as it deals with the part of a Bill like this, is bound by the principle of the Bill. The 2782. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we will be principle of the Bill includes the route, it includes the waiting for you. We will be dealing with the works on the route, it includes the deposited plans Spitalfields’ Petitions. and it includes, for instance, the Hanbury Street shaft. We cannot depart from that. We cannot make 2783. MR CARPENTER: Our residents’ rights will recommendations that it should go a completely be breached if we are not heard. We have a right to diVerent way. Did you not know that? be heard and we have a right to full disclosure of information and we are not getting that. We are 2777. MR CARPENTER: I understand what you coming to you because we do not receive much are saying. I do not disagree with that. There have information from Crossrail and it takes months and been modifications. I know that the CTRL months and months. It is not a question of us Committee also made modifications to the route as suddenly saying we want something; this is an part of the refining of the route. I do understand that ongoing problem of not receiving information or you cannot depart completely from the route. I am receiving it at the last minute. suggesting that there is a case for refining the route. Just as with all aspects of the scheme, when you look 2784. CHAIRMAN: It may be, Mr Carpenter, but at it there is a possible refinement, with purely the the truth of the matter is that there are rules for what objective of ultimately improving the scheme and Parliament can do and what this Select Committee taking into consideration the petitioners’ concerns. If can do and we have to abide by those rules. We there could be absolutely no change, the petitioning cannot break the rules simply because you would like process therefore would be completely invalid us to. because we would not be able to make any material changes to the benchmark scheme, in which case I 2785. MR CARPENTER: I am sorry; I was not in would say that we have no rights in which to object any way asking you to break the rules. But I would to this at all. like, one, the information, and also the Petitioners would like the chance to argue the case with the full 2778. CHAIRMAN: You can say what you like, but information. We have done our best to divide this is the parliamentary situation: at the moment, the everything up in a way that would make it most Bill is given a second reading, it contains in it some meaningful for you. description of the route, it also contains a reference to the deposited plans. That is what is called the 2786. CHAIRMAN: All the other issues in the “principle of the Bill”. We cannot depart from that— petitions are going to be perfectly easy to handle and whatever you say. This is why I wanted to bring you to present. They are quite clear cut. I know exactly on first, so that we could clarify this. If you are going what they are and we look forward to hearing from to take an enormous amount of trouble to go to the all of you about them. But, as to an alternative route Information Commissioner, to get a lot of drafts of for the track, it may be within our powers to hear it other routes, then if we are not able to take them into but it is certainly not within our powers to give any account because they do not accord with the principle eVect to it. I will leave it to you. The Spitalfields’ Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
248 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008
Petitions are going ahead this week. If you do not is, in fact, in the deposited plans, which is what you have any information which you would like to have have done. If there was an alternative route which had in order to present them, I fear that is just too was open to us all the people whose properties might bad. Mr Elvin, have I missed anything out? be aVected by that alternative route would also have to have the opportunity of petitioning. You must 2787. MR ELVIN: Perhaps I could add two points see that. which Mr Carpenter should hear. Firstly, the alignment in which he is interested—which you can 2789. MR CARPENTER: Yes, I do. see on that plan is marked “Alignment3 B”—was not the subject of the report which was produced in October of last year in respect of which Mr Carpenter 2790. CHAIRMAN: That is the alternative seeks disclosure of the draft. The draft and the provisions arrangements which happened in the report simply do not deal with that alignment. That House of Commons very considerably and it led to a was an alignment discarded five or six years ago. It further petitioning period and, indeed, further was dealt with in a report in March 2001 which was petitions. If you want to promote an alternative route disclosed to Mr Carpenter at least a year ago. A letter it would have to be done by the Promoters and they would have then to open that route to petitions from dated 5 July4 from Mr Neate at the Department of Transport lists the documents that had been provided anybody who might be aVected by it. That is the to Mr Carpenter and his Association—a letter to situation. As they have not presented it and as there them both. You will see on the second page “Issued has been no opportunity to petition against it, there to Spitalfields Small Business Association and is nothing we can do about it. It may be that you are WHRA by CLRL (25 January 2007)” and, below not the person who is going to present this and if it is that, “Issued to Spitalfields Small Business somebody else they may or may not have heard what Association and WHRA by CLRL (29 January I have had to say. I am terribly sorry, the fact of the 2007)” and associated with those headings there is a matter is these are the rules. series of groups. In the second group there is a report dated March 2001. That has been with Mr Carpenter 2791. MR CARPENTER: I understand that. On the and his Association since January of last year. That two points that Mr Elvin made, as I explained we are is the report dealing with the alignment in which he is all working together so there is no repetition, hence interested. The alignment in which he is interested is whether it comes to my organisation but someone not dealt with in the drafts of the reports he wishes to else presents it, that is more of a technical thing. The have disclosed. Even were the Information other part is what is being withheld, it is true it is not Commissioner to give him everything he wanted, it what we had on screen a moment ago, the main was dealing with other versions of the southern option alternatives from 2001, but they are alignment. Waiting for that is going to get him Crossrail’s more recent reports on the southern nowhere at all. The second point is, since Mr route. For Petitioners of Spitalfields, and the Carpenter is not the person from Spitalfields mitigation of problems in Spitalfields, one of the presenting the case one the alignments, I am not sure solutions is to modify the route so we want to look at how his case is prejudiced at all because he is Crossrail’s reasoning for the benchmark scheme and presenting on other issues and others, as he has said, want to look at their previous incarnation’s report to are presenting on alignments. I do not understand Mr see how that has developed. I did not consider that to Carpenter to be saying that the presentation of his be an unreasonable request. part of the Spitalfields’ case is prejudiced by not having this report because he is not dealing with it. 2792. CHAIRMAN: It may not be an unreasonable request, but the fact of the matter is the Promoters 2788. CHAIRMAN: No, I dare say it is not. Mr have not asked Parliament to consider an alternative Carpenter has been making representations about southern route; they have asked Parliament to this alternative southern route for some time and I consider the one that is on the deposited plans, which think we need to listen to him and we need to deal you have seen, and that is the agenda for this Select with it. One of the reasons, Mr Carpenter, why we are Committee and not anything else. not allowed to deal with alternative routes, at any rate major alternatives, is because, as is in your case, the possibility of petitioning is against the route that 2793. MR CARPENTER: I understand. I do not want to say too much more but our concerns have 3 Station—Alternative Alignments A, B and C and existing always been about information from Crossrail and alignment, Mott MacDonald (SCN-20080310-001) their EIA compliance and looking at that kind of 4 Crossrail Ref: P24, Tunnel Alignment—Liverpool Street information. We consider that the EIA is not going Hanbury Residents Association, List of Documents Provided on Alternative Alignments, 5 July 2007 (TOWHLB-XR5B-001 to be compliant because, in layman’s terms, they have Crossrailand -002) Ref: P23, Correspondence from DfT to Woodseer and not looked at alternatives enough and shown that in Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 249
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields the Environmental Statement, so we believe the Crossrail , the Underground and the East London Environmental Statement will be aVected. Line, which the Committee has seen on its site visit as well as already considering last week. Thirdly, there 2794. CHAIRMAN: That is another point. is the construction of a new shaft for emerging and ventilation purposes on the corner of Hanbury Street 2795. MR CARPENTER: Exactly. My point is it is and Spelman Street. all related because we have barrister’s opinion that agrees with that and we are simply trying to find out 2802. CHAIRMAN: That is an example, is it not, more information from Crossrail about these Mr Elvin, of where the Promoters themselves have alternative southern alignments and the decided to change what used to be in the draft incarnation’s previous report. So it all ties together legislation? and makes sense we would like these things before we come and appear before you. 2803. MR ELVIN: Indeed. The next point I was going to make was just to give your Lordships very 2796. CHAIRMAN: Except from the point of view briefly a little bit of the history. As your Lordship well of the Select Committee, because we are not knows, the original Bill scheme had a larger shaft and empowered to deal with something that is not being wide eVects in that at the time of the deposit of the promoted. If Crossrail and the rest of the Promoters original Bill the Hanbury Street shaft was proposed are not going to promote a southerly route then there to be one of the sites for the launch of the tunnel is nothing for us to consider. You go and discuss this boring machine, and there was a need, therefore, for with your colleagues because it is very obvious that an additional tunnel going up to the Pedley Street you have had huge discussions about all these things, area from which spoil would be removed and very helpfully so too, but frankly that is the underground. So the extent of the works were bigger situation we are all in. You go ahead and try and find in physical terms of the shaft size and in terms of the out anything you want, but we cannot put oV the underground works. As Mr Mould pointed out, you consideration of the Spitalfields’ amendments until will see the size of the worksite at Hanbury Street such time as the Information Commissioner has encompassed not only the current worksite but to the decided your appeal because even if he decides in west, Britannia House—the oYce or industrial block your favour, it is not within our powers to do just to the west—which is retained under the current anything about it. scheme but was not retained under the original Bill scheme. Indeed, at an earlier stage a number of other 2797. MR CARPENTER: Okay, thank you very shaft locations had been considered5 before alighting much. on Hanbury Street at the time of the Bill and they are shown on that particular plan and considered in the 2798. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed. Environmental Assessment. As I said, the original Now, Mr Elvin, you are going to make the initial proposals involved the demolition of Britannia statement about this group of Petitions. House but the new shaft site now is considerably smaller and I will come back to that when I deal with 2799. MR ELVIN: Indeed. My Lords, my Lady, I the shaft issues. hope the Committee does not mind, this is a little longer than normal because we are presenting, as it 2804. The main issues which we identify from the were, an introduction to all of the Petitions for this Petitions, and no doubt the Committee will tell us if week. I was proposing just to go through each of the there are some we have omitted, are firstly the need issues in outline explaining what the issues are and for the proposals, which includes issues relating to what our position is on them, if that is convenient to the alignment of the tunnels, as you have just heard— the Committee. whether, therefore, Crossrail should go under the Spitalfields area at all; the need for the shaft in 2800. CHAIRMAN: I have got a list of the issues Hanbury Street; concerns with regard to the eVects of too. settlement from the running tunnels on buildings within the area; concerns with regard to the 2801. MR ELVIN: I hope they match up. As the movements of lorries, heavy goods vehicles going to Select Committee is aware, the key aspects of and from the site; concerns with regard to noise from Crossrail in this particular area are in three parts. construction and the operation of the shaft once it is Firstly, there are the twin running tunnels of constructed; concerns with regard to the Community Crossrail at a depth of approximately 30 metres Liaison Panel, which the House of Commons Select under the area linking Liverpool Street with Committee requested us to enable and facilitate; and Whitechapel. There is the construction of the new 5 Whitechapel Station with the interchange between Options (TOWHLB-XR5C-011) Crossrail Ref: P23, Figure 6.1, Hanbury Street Shaft Location Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
250 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields certain legal issues, as again you have just heard from 2820. MR ELVIN: Yes. Mr Carpenter, arising with regard to Environmental Impact Assessment. 2821. CHAIRMAN: Articles 6, 8, 14 and Protocol 1, paragraph 1. 2805. CHAIRMAN: Not just those, there is the ECD Directive, the Environmental something. 2822. MR ELVIN: It is fair to say, my Lord, on the issue of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2806. MR ELVIN: That was my last point, my our position remains the broad position as set out at Lord, the Environmental Impact Assessment the end of our opening speech on 19 February and, Directive. again, I am happy to expand on that when we have heard a little more from the Petitioners as to their 2807. CHAIRMAN: No. There is the specific points, but I am quite happy, if your Environmental Impact Directive, there is the Lordships require it, to recap on the matters on Environmental Noise Directive, there is the human rights that I gave in opening. Environmental, I have forgotten what the C stands for. 2823. CHAIRMAN: It is the European Community Directive on the Assessment on the Environment. 2808. LORD SNAPE: ECHR. 2824. MR ELVIN: That is the EIA Directive, my 2809. CHAIRMAN: No, that is the European Lord. Convention on Human Rights, that is another point. 2825. CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is the EIA 2810. MR ELVIN: Noise certainly is on my list. one.
2811. CHAIRMAN: The Environmental something 2826. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I promise. Directive, ECD it is referred to in the Petitions. 2827. CHAIRMAN: Very well. It has been 2812. MR ELVIN: We will check that, my Lord. separately listed by the Petitioners.
2813. CHAIRMAN: The thing about those is the 2828. MR ELVIN: Would your Lordships give me directives themselves are one thing but they have no a moment? immediate eVect in this country, they have been implemented by regulations which transpose them, 2829. CHAIRMAN: The eVect on the environment. therefore if we are going to be asked to look at that we will have to know what these regulations say. 2830. MR ELVIN: My Lord, it has got a very long title. 2814. MR ELVIN: I am going to deal with the noise issues in particular on a very general basis now. We 2831. CHAIRMAN: They always do. will be calling Mr Thornely-Taylor in due course and if specific issues are raised before the Committee on 2832. MR ELVIN: And I think that is what is those matters we will then make more detailed causing the confusion. The EIA Directive, that is submissions on them. simply what those of us who know and love it call it for short, is actually called Council Directive on the 2815. CHAIRMAN: It has been said that here is a Assessment of the EVects of Certain Public and directive about environmental noise. Private Projects on the Environment. That may be where the confusion has arisen. That is the full title to 2816. MR ELVIN: Yes, there is the Noise Directive. the Directive but it is the EIA Directive.
2817. CHAIRMAN: Presumably that has been 2833. CHAIRMAN: Very well. What we need, of implemented by regulations. course, are the regulations, not the Directive.
2818. MR ELVIN: It has, and Mr Thornely-Taylor 2834. MR ELVIN: Actually, my Lord, that is not will be giving evidence on the extent to which it the case because the regulations do not apply to impinges in reality. Parliament.
2819. CHAIRMAN: Then there are the points 2835. CHAIRMAN: They do not apply to about the European Convention on Human Rights. Parliament, no. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 251
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields
2836. MR ELVIN: In order for the EIA Directive to 2845. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but I think it would be a be satisfied, and we set this out in the first chapter of very good thing if you were to write down on a piece the Environmental Statement right back at the of paper, because they are not all here but they are beginning, what you have to do is to satisfy the coming over the next week or so, exactly where they legislative exemption because obviously this is a find what you have done to comply with these various legislative forum and what you have to show to requirements. exempt the project from normal Environmental Impact Assessment is that the Bill process has 2846. MR ELVIN: I am sure the Petitioner broadly complied with the requirements of Response Documents refer them to the correct IPs Environmental Impact Assessment itself. In fact, but we will remind them again if the Committee think what you are looking at is broad compliance with the that would be helpful. Directive. 2847. CHAIRMAN: I have only been reading the 2837. CHAIRMAN: I think what the normal Petitions and there does not seem to be any reference situation would be is if you were putting in a planning whatever to any of your notes. application for development which falls within the categories covered by that Directive you would have 2848. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I have to say I have to satisfy the local planning authority before you had made these submissions at least twice to these any hope of getting planning permission. Petitioners in the other place, and there is in the Environmental Report, which was put before the 2838. MR ELVIN: Yes. House of Commons at Third Reading, Command Paper Cm 7250, correspondence between the Department, myself and the Petitioners, where I set 2839. CHAIRMAN: If you do it by means of a Bill out in writing—and it has been reproduced in the the only people who need to be satisfied is Command Paper—the submissions which appear in Parliament, is that right? B8 and various other places. It is fair to say we have made our position clear I hope in writing on three or 2840. MR ELVIN: Yes, but the regulations do not four occasions at least to these Petitioners. My Lord, apply to Parliament so we have to apply the I am not seeking to avoid trying to make it clear to Directive. They amount to exactly the same thing in them again if that would help. terms of the substance of the matter. 2849. CHAIRMAN: All I am concerned about is 2841. CHAIRMAN: Very well. that Mr Carpenter and his colleagues, some of whom are not here today, should know where to look in order to find what is your case on a lot of the issues 2842. MR ELVIN: Can I assist further? If the they have raised. It is not in the Register of Committee wants more on this we have set out the Undertakings or Agreements, of course it is not, but position rather more fully in Information Paper B8 it is in other documents and I think it would be which deals with how the legislative aspect of helpful if I was assured they all knew where to look Environment Impact Assessment applies to this for them. Hybrid Bill. Secondly, we also set out in B8 our considerations on the European Convention on Human Rights. My Lords, I am certainly happy to 2850. LORD SNAPE: I am sorry, we are drowning expand on that at greater length, perhaps in closing under a welter of documents, but could someone or at some other stage, if the Committee would find assist me in finding where we could find document that helpful. B8?
2851. CHAIRMAN: I was not precluding ourselves. 2843. CHAIRMAN: No, I am setting the scene at the moment. I want to make sure that the Petitioners all know where to look in the big bundle of 2852. MR ELVIN: It is in the bundle of Information documents for the various information papers for the Papers, my Lord. information relevant to the points they make. 2853. CHAIRMAN: We have a very big bundle. 2844. MR ELVIN: Therefore, as far as the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Human 2854. LORD SNAPE: Indeed, it would take us until Rights aspects are concerned, it is Information 5 o’clock to find it on that basis, Mr Elvin, with Paper B8. respect. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
252 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields
2855. MR MOULD: My Lord, unless you have a 2862. CHAIRMAN: I am raising it at this stage, Mr diVerent red bible from the one we have, you should Elvin, because I do not want the Petitioners to come find it after Tab B, the last Information Paper before along and say that they have never heard of this. Tab C, which is about a six-page document entitled B8 “Compliance with the EIA Directive and the 2863. MR ELVIN: Well, in that case, you Lordships ECHR”. also will need to look at the House of Commons Select Committee because this is an issue we have been over several times with the same Petitioners. 2856. LORD SNAPE: That might be true, Mr Mould, with respect, but it is not in the index which ends at B7. 2864. CHAIRMAN: I agree that you have said in your Response Document that it has been set out. I just do not want Petitioners to come here and say 2857. MR MOULD: In that case, we must produce they are lost amongst all this paperwork. I hope they a new index post haste. I did not appreciate that had will not be. happened. I do apologise for that. 2865. MR ELVIN: So do I, my Lord. 2858. LORD SNAPE: It could be in here. We are 2866. CHAIRMAN: I interrupted you, I am so assured it is in here. sorry.
2859. MR MOULD: It is, yes. Whilst I am on my 2867. MR ELVIN: No, my Lord, the purpose of this feet, if Mr Elvin will allow me, just a factual matter. is for me to assist the Committee with the issues. My I think this is right, as soon as we received petitions Lord, if it is convenient, I will briefly run through the our parliamentary agents, Messrs Winckworth various issues which have been identified. Sherwood, wrote to the Petitioners drawing their attention to the existence of the Information Papers. 2868. My Lord, on the “need” question, the location I am told it was Crossrail who wrote, I do apologise. of the alignment, clearly as the Committee will be So the Petitioners will have had a letter of that date aware there is a need to link Liverpool Street and drawing attention to the existence of the Information Whitechapel Station with an alignment which retains Papers which of course include this document we and allows improvements to Liverpool Street, in the have referred to. They are available on the Crossrail form of a new ticket hall, and to Whitechapel Station, website, there is a specific page which deals with and the Committee will be well aware of the need for them, a link, and then they are referred to in the improvements to Whitechapel Station. The documents, my Lord, which I think you have not alignment we propose lies within the Bill’s limits of seen but we must make sure you do see them, that is deviation and we say, as the Committee has already to say the Petition Response papers. put to Mr Carpenter, that suggestions with regard to alignments which lie significantly away from the Bill alignment fall outside the principle of the Bill and 2860. CHAIRMAN: I am merely concerned that all therefore are not matters properly for the subject of the Petitioners should know where to look for your petitioning. Indeed, it is fair to say that the Select case. Committee in the other place took a similar view. In any event, so there is no doubt about our position on 2861. MR ELVIN: My Lord, while Mr Mould was the alignment, let me make these points clear. on his feet, the Petition Response documents which, as the Committee knows, are sent out two to three 2869. Many alignments were considered at the stage weeks in advance of any hearings, refer to the of designing and considering the project along the relevant Information Papers. Certainly as an whole route of Crossrail , including this area, and the example I am looking at a Petition Response preferred option, which was eventually costed and document to Spitalfields Small Business Association, became the Bill scheme, was the final result of an Kay Jordan, and it specifically refers to Paper B8 in exercise which was carried out across the whole answering issues with regard to environmental route. Alternative alignments in this area were assessment and to human rights. So, as far as I can considered prior to the selection of the Bill scheme see, their attention has been drawn specifically to and the other alignments were rejected in favour of them but if the Committee wishes to send a further the Bill alignment. The southern routes which are reminder, we can do that this evening, but it has mentioned by the Petitioners particularly in already been sent out to them in the form of the Spitalfields are not considered, whatever view one Petition Response document. That is part of the takes, as an appropriate choice because an alignment function of the PRDs. to the south would pass through an area which Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 253
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields comprises a large number of multi-storey buildings 2874. Although there was an initial with deep pile foundations, often 20 to 30 metres misunderstanding with the London Borough of deep, which expose the project and the building Tower Hamlets about the continuing need for the owners and occupiers to considerable risk from shaft, the position which has been made clear to the ground movement and from damage should the London Borough of Tower Hamlets that we are tunnel boring machines pass under them. continuing to work on the issue of the shaft and are in discussion with the safety regulators. Should it 2870. The route which has been selected is a become possible to remove the need for the shaft, relatively pile-free alignment and you can see from because the safety regulators are satisfied a shaft is no this document here we have projected downwards in longer required, then of course there will be no need a graphical way the depth of the piles which are to proceed with the shaft. However, we are in the anticipated for the buildings along the southern hands of the safety regulators as to what their alignment, and to these buildings are now added requirements are, and we have given an undertaking projects such as the Heron Tower at 110 Broadgate to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which I which is now under construction. The issue is not hope can be put up—it is Undertaking 394—and that only one of increased risk of instability but, as the is an undertaking which6 eVectively commits us to Committee knows, the tunnel boring machines are continue to work on the options for the shaft in the constantly at work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, hope that further work will lead to the need for the and there is a real risk because the absolute and shaft being removed. However, I have to make it precise depth of the piles and their location are not absolutely clear, so no one is under any precisely plotted on any plans. There is a risk of misapprehension, that we do not have the sign oV of course that the tunnel boring machines would collide the safety regulators at the moment, and at the with the piles. So, as the Committee can imagine, a moment therefore the modified Bill scheme which is route was sought to be selected which would be before this Committee is still that which we have to satisfactory in engineering terms and would not pursue. generate the risks which the southern alignment generate. 2875. On the issue of settlement, Petitioners raised concern about potential ground settlement in 2871. If you require any information further on this connection with the construction of the running issue—and I appreciate what my lord, Lord Colville tunnels through the Spitalfields area, particularly in said to Mr Carpenter a few minutes ago about the the light of the presence of a number of historic principle of the Bill—however if there are any buildings in the middle of the petitioner zone in and questions which the Committee has, Mr Berryman in around the area beneath which the running tunnels due course will be able to answer those and answer for Crossrail are to be constructed. There are a series how the process went about looking at the alternative of plans which we will be able to deploy to show your alignments. Lordships the location of the Petitioners’ respective properties in relation to the running tunnels and to 2872. Turning now to the shaft at Hanbury Street, the shaft, and some are being put up now. at the moment the requirements of ventilation and emergency intervention are requirements imposed on 2876. CHAIRMAN: And it is a conservation area us by the safety regulators, Her Majesty’s Road too, is it not? Inspectorate and the Fire Service. They are required at roughly one kilometre spacings and, on the 2877. MR ELVIN: It is indeed. One of the reasons alignment between Liverpool Street and for this alignment is that it avoids the running tunnels Whitechapel, the Hanbury Street location is the going underneath Christ Church Spitalfields, which general area in which the shaft has to be located and the Committee may well be aware of—I think it is indeed it is the least damaging location because other being pointed out—which is a Grade I listed building locations would include in the middle of the and of considerable architectural and historical residential properties further to the west, or Brick importance and it seemed appropriate the tunnel Lane, or indeed Spitalfields Market, and this site was should at least avoid the risk of going directly chosen as being on the alignment and most underneath that church. appropriate in terms of its lessened impact on its surroundings than other locations would generate. 2878. The Promoter has done a considerable amount of work, as the Committee will have already 2873. The general position on the selection of heard from Professor Mair on the second day of the ventilation and emergency shafts is found in hearings, to ensure that the settlement impact on all Information Paper A4 which I hope is properly 6 indexed because it is an earlier paper than B8. and Assurances, No. 394 (TOWHLB-XR5C-012) Crossrail Ref: P23, Extract from the Register of Undertakings Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
254 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields buildings, including listed and historic buildings, has regards listed buildings, the selection of mitigation been adequately assessed and appropriate mitigation measures has been and will be guided by the measures put in place. Professor Mair explained to sensitivity of particular features which are of historic the Committee the methodology which the Promoter or architectural interest and the sensitivity of the has applied to the assessment of settlement, and structure of the building to ground movement. settlement assessment reports which have been Assessments will continue to be reviewed as produced which consider every individual structure appropriate as the design process continues. The within the permitted zone of influence along the Promoter will also undertake an internal inspection route, that is within the 10 metre contour. of buildings on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register to ensure that any particularly sensitive 2879. The results of the assessment process are aspects of these properties are considered as part of reported in one of two ways. Firstly, there is the the assessment process. reporting process for listed buildings, these are the subject of individual reports, such a report as been 2884. Internal inspections will be undertaken for all produced for all listed buildings within the permitted buildings within the 10 millimetres contours as part zone of influence within the Spitalfields area, and we of the production of schedules of defects prior to have included copies of those reports in the exhibit commencement of the works. The Promoter has packet. The individual reports include a heritage agreed, subject to securing the necessary consent, to appraisal which, amongst other things, identifies any continue to undertake settlement monitoring in feature of particular architectural or historical Spitalfields, not only during construction of Crossrail importance or matters of sensitivity. but also for an extended period of seven years following the completion of tunnelling excavation 2880. We are just putting up the example of 3-5 works, so that monitoring will continue for a Princelet Street, the report there, and your Lordships significant period beyond the finishing of the tunnels. may be interested to see it covers not only matters of sensitivity and importance but also matters which 2885. None of the Spitalfields Petitioners’ properties appear in the interior of the building, because some is assessed as being at greater than a negotiable risk Petitioners have suggested, or at least suggested in the of damage from settlement arising from the past, that the reports have not looked at interior7 construction of Crossrail . Nevertheless under the features of importance, because as you can see I settlement policy, which is found in Information hope—as I cannot—the report for Princelet Street Paper D12, “In the event that material or physical which does deal with decorative features as well. damage to buildings in Spitalfields does arise from ground settlement associated with the nominated 2881. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the Petition certainly talks undertakers’ tunnelling work, it will be remedied, of about various decorative work inside the buildings. course, at no expense to those owning or occupying the buildings. Any repairs required will be carried out 2882. MR ELVIN: Other buildings which are not to a standard and quality commensurate with the age listed buildings have been considered in a series of and fabric of the building”. settlement reports which calculate potential settlement and building impacts in the same way as 2886. The Committee will also be hearing from the individual reports do for listed buildings. The Professor Mair on Wednesday, we hope, to assist the settlement reports underpin the Environmental Committee with any of the issues which the Statement as technical reports and relevant extracts Committee would like to hear evidence from can be made available as required. It is fair to say that ourselves and for any further explanation of these the technical reports that do the more general issues following Professor Mair’s initial general settlement appraisal of the non-listed buildings have presentation on day two. been part of the technical reports which have been available publicly as the background to the ES, both 2887. On the issue of lorries, lorries will access the on the website and in paper copy form since Bill worksite from Whitechapel Road via Greatorex deposit, so they have been available for some three Street and Hanbury8 Street and I think a plan is being years. put up now to show you that and they will return to Whitechapel Road by Spital Street, Buxton Street 2883. Proposed mitigation in the Spitalfields area and Vallance Road. Overall there will be a reduction consists of monitoring and following best practice in the number of lorries over those originally during tunnelling works to minimise the generation reported in the first Environmental Statement as a of ground movements at source. In particular as result, as I explained to the Committee earlier, of the
7 8 Assessments, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-XR5A-003) (TOWHLB-XR5E-001) Crossrail Ref: P23, 3 and 5 Princelet Street, Listed Building Crossrail Ref: P23, Hanbury Street—Proposed Lorry Routes Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 255
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields revised tunnelling strategy which meant that the school can pass on its concerns and these issues can worksite at Hanbury Street for the new shaft could be9 be discussed and agreed between the schools and reduced. Lorry numbers will vary over the Tower Hamlets and ourselves. Turning briefly to the construction period, so the Committee has the issues of noise. numbers. What is being assessed is as follows. During peak construction period, which is the nine 2893. CHAIRMAN: Sorry to interrupt, but this is months required for sinking the shaft, what is another European directive which has been referred expected is on average 16 lorries entering and leaving to by the Residents’ Association, 2002/49. the worksite each day, working hours being approximately 8.00 in morning to 6.00 in the evening 2894. MR ELVIN: That has gone into regulation weekdays and until 1.00 in the afternoon on form and our view is that it does not significantly Saturdays. The remainder of the work period, the alter the position with regard to Hanbury Street. We number is expected to fall to something of the order can give a little more information on this in due to six lorries per day. course, but what the noise directive does, and what the new regulations do, is to place an obligation on 2888. CHAIRMAN: But they are not going to run the United Kingdom to measure ambient noise levels during the period when the school children are on throughout the country and to produce a noise their way home? contour map which is a basis for judging impacts. That does not impact on this particular proposal 2889. MR ELVIN: There is a separate arrangement because the issue is not a concern about the contours regarding the schools and I am going to show your to be placed on a new ambient noise map but what Lordships the undertaking in a moment. the actual impact of the proposals will be.
2890. CHAIRMAN: I think one of the things people 2895. Our position on this is as follows: there is not want to know is whether the lorries are going to be any basis, we say, for considering that any noise or backing up waiting for the deadline to pass. vibration issues will arise with regard to the operation 10 of the tunnels once they have been constructed. It is 2891. MR ELVIN: Can we turn to undertaking 187, predicted that the level of groundborne noise that which is the undertaking regarding schools and would be experienced within any of the residential lorries. There is an undertaking which has been properties listed in the Spitalfields Petitions will be given to restrict the hours in which traYc will operate less than 30 dB L . Mr Thornely-Taylor will assist and allows for the introduction of traYc the Committee andAma givex evidence with regard to those management measures, which, of course, should deal issues to the extent that the Committee wishes to ask also with the issue of lorries which are pulled up on detailed questions and just to remind the Committee the side of the road—measures to be agreed with the at this stage, of course, the tunnels are deep under the Council. In fact, the issue of routing is specifically a Spitalfields area, as I said, on average some 30 metres matter which requires or allows the Council’s down. So far as the construction noise is concerned, intervention under Schedule 7, paragraph 7 of the the residential properties listed in the Spitalfields— Bill, so in addition to the undertaking there will be statutory controls in Schedule 7 of the Bill which will 2896. CHAIRMAN: I am so sorry, the point that is allow lorries to be controlled, both in terms of timing being made is that the directive provides noise and in terms of the management of their movement. requirements. I also should say, and Mr Berryman can explain this to you when he gives evidence and he can explain in 2897. MR ELVIN: Well it does, it requires mapping a little bit more detail the position with regards to of ambient noise levels, but that does not actually lorries, a lorry holding area is proposed at Burdett impact—and clearly that has to be done on a national Road, which is suYciently far away from the schools basis—on the assessment of the specific noise eVects to ensure that the lorries are being held in a location of the proposal. which should not conflict with school children either going to or coming from the school. 2898. CHAIRMAN: I think Mr Thornely-Taylor will be able to tell us about that. 2892. I should also say in this context that a Schools’ Liaison Panel has been set up and has been running 2899. MR ELVIN: I am quite happy to produce a for over a year now and it appears to be working short note to the Committee to explain the basis of smoothly and provides a proper forum in which the the directive and regulations, but our understanding, 9 and we looked at this some weeks ago, was that Local Roads (LINEWD-SES308-006) 10 although there is a national obligation to produce Crossrailand Assurances, Ref: P23, No. Table 187(TOWHLB-XR5C-013) 8.1—Estimated Lorry Movements on noise contour maps, that does not impinge on the Crossrail Ref: P23, Extract from the Register of Undertakings Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
256 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields issues which the Committee has to consider, that is to community liaison and we are putting up the first say individual impacts on the community and specific interim decision of the Select Committee in the residential properties of the proposals. House of Commons and you will see in particular the last two sentences: “We want the Promoters to set up 2900. With regard to the construction noise, our a monitoring body with Tower Hamlets Borough position is that the residential properties referred to Council and representatives within the community, in the Petitions are not going to be significantly especially those from11 local schools aVected by the impacted on by construction noise carried in an works. This body must meet monthly in order to airborne fashion. The latest noise and vibration provide up-to-date information to local residents assessment for the Hanbury Street works required as about the project”. The Promoter agreed with those a result of the revised tunnelling strategy set out in requirements and sought to establish a local body to SES3 came to the conclusion that 12 residential perform the role described by the Select Committee properties in Princelet Street would be significantly consistent with our Community Relations Strategy. aVected by construction noise and those are likely to As the Committee will be aware from the London qualify therefore for noise insulation. The number of Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Petition last week, the traYc movements which is generated by the Community Relations Strategy is in progress, the construction site at Hanbury Street is unlikely to framework document comes before the project’s have a significant impact upon those noise levels. planning forum later this month. Again, Mr Thornely-Taylor can give further details as to those assessments and what they mean in due 2907. The Promoter arranged for a meeting in course. October 2006 in Whitechapel Art Gallery for the purposes of enabling the establishment of the panel 2901. It is also worth noting in this context that as a and invitations went out to a number of Petitioners, result of the actions by the Select Committee in the local schools and community groups and other place, we have been required to purchase representatives of the community and of course to the residential properties to the southeast boundary of Council. It was suggested that the meeting should the Hanbury Street shaft site, 61 Princelet Street and decide membership, terms of reference and how the its neighbours. That will have a beneficial eVect of panel might operate and a broad range of the subject shielding other properties in the area, as indeed will matter, the panel’s discussions and how future the retention of Britannia House, as Mr Thornely- meetings were to take place. As the Select Committee Taylor will explain those buildings provide made clear in making their decision, they were significant noise attenuation for those further away. focusing particularly upon local schools. As I have already made clear to the Committee, the local 2902. I turn now to a rather more diYcult issue, as Schools Panel has been set up and indeed it has the Committee will have seen from the Petitions and operated separately since then from the main the response documents, which is the question of Community Liaison Panel. To our knowledge it has community liaison. The Petitioners raised concerns operated successfully and is not the subject of any about the quality and eVectiveness of consultation Petitions. It is fair to say there have been a number of and information given to the local community in diYculties establishing the wider community liaison Spitalfields about the project of the pre-Bill stages panel and we reported back to the House of and during the course of the Bill. We have set out the Commons Select Committee about this time last details of consultation in the Petition response year. A progress report was received, in fact it was 30 documents which have been circulated to the January last year in the Select Committee below. Petitioners.
2903. CHAIRMAN: There was due to be a meeting 2908. Having had our report and heard further on 26 February, did that happen? information from the Petitioners, including those Petitioners who will be appearing this week, in their further interim decisions on 12 July the House of 2904. MR ELVIN: Yes. Commons noted that Crossrail had been taking action to engage Planning Aid. We engaged an 2905. CHAIRMAN: It did. independent body to set up and facilitate the meetings because part of the diYculty seemed to be 2906. MR ELVIN: Yes. The Select Committee’s Crossrail having any input into running the meetings. concern, as my Lords will be familiar, was that in That seemed to generate diYculties within the order to overcome misconceptions amongst the local community. We agreed, therefore, simply to facilitate community and lack of information on the true scale 11 and extent of the proposed Crossrail work in Special Report Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235-IV, paras Spitalfields, that we should eVectively facilitate 16575 (SCN-20080310-002) House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 257
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields 13 and pay for the setting up of the meetings and leave February and 29 February this year. The Cooper’s it to the independent body, Planning Aid, to set it up Lane Working Group was eVectively an informal and to allow it to run itself. consultation group established for liaison and consultation purposes and improving 2909. That approach was endorsed by the House of communications between the CTRL project, the Commons Committee. They said: “We are grateful to local community and the local authority. It was Crossrail for the action taken to comply with our tripartite: it would consist of members of the local recommendation and we are glad that the local community, the local authority and CTRL. It had no Liaison Panel is to have an ongoing relationship with decision-making function with regard to the works Crossrail using the facilitation of the local authority. but it was a means in which concerns could be We note that it is now for the Panel to consider how discussed, information could be passed backwards it wishes to operate and take this forward.” and forwards from the parties involved and it generally met on a monthly basis. It was chaired, we are told, by an oYcer of Camden Council. Let me 2910. Meetings were facilitated on several occasions make it absolutely clear, if that is the model which the in October 2007. Again, it is fair to say that matters Community Liaison Panel wishes to have at have not run smoothly. The committee of the Panel Spitalfields, it is a model which is perfectly consistent is still in disagreement with Crossrail about its terms not only with the House of Commons’ of reference, although as far as Crossrail is concerned recommendations but with our own community the terms of reference are those required of us by the strategy. If the model is of a tripartite group, formed House of Commons Select Committee. of community members chosen by the community themselves, chaired by the local authority, with 2911. When we were setting up the facilitation of the representatives from Crossrail to attend to give planning dates, we wrote a letter to each of the information and hear views, that is one which we are Petitioners. On the second page of the letter of 2 May, more than happy to facilitate. Planning Aid set out in a series of bullet points,12 having read the requirements of the House of 2913. The last issue is the Environmental Impact Commons and our community relations strategy, Assessment. As I have already mentioned, this has what it considered the remit of the Panel should be. been the subject of detail set out in Information Paper The Panel, it is fair to say, are still raising questions B8. The specific issue which is raised and which the about what their remit is, even though the Committee Committee may remember I touched on in opening, below said it was a consultation and monitoring the rather dry issue but the issue of alignments, which body, and various questions are being asked. We I understand of course is important to those putting replied on 24 January and sent out a more detailed forward these issues, as I said to the Committee in response last week which could be made available opening, the simple position is this: the Directive should it be necessary. requires us as a matter of law to give an outline of the main options studied and essentially a brief account 2912. Perhaps I could deal with two of the of the reasons for selecting the project as it is. That we significant, controversial areas which seem to be have done. The Environmental Impact Assessment exercising the panel. Firstly, it is suggested by the sets out the main alternatives studied in chapter 6 of Panel that it should have a decision-making role. For the main ES. There are further details given with reasons which I hope the Select Committee will regard to Hanbury Street and the southern understand, we are not willing or indeed able to alignments but it is not a freestanding obligation confer on the Panel any decision-making powers in simply to study alternatives. There is no obligation in relation to the project. This would not be consistent the Directive that says “You must study with the view of the Select Committee in the House alternatives”; the obligation is simply give outlines of of Commons as to the Panel’s role. It is essentially a “the alternatives which you have studied”. Our consultative community role. The second point they perception of that and our submission is that is raised, which is something we do feel we are able to looking at the project as a whole. As the Committee accept, is the Petitioners urged that we should set up a can imagine, the number of alternatives which are working group on the model used in the King’s Cross being considered for the whole of the route of area on CTRL, the members of the Cooper’s Lane Crossrail have run into very many indeed and, since Working Group. That was set up in connection with we are only obliged to give an outline of the main the CTRL works in St Pancras. We investigated the alternatives studied, this does not require micro- Cooper’s Lane Working Group with the London attention to detail for each and every section of the
Borough of Camden and there are letters of 22 13 12 Camden to CLRL, Channel Tunnel Rail Link—Coopers Lane Petitioners, 2 May 2007 (TOWHLB-XR5F-103) Working Group, 29 February 2008 (TOWHLB-XR5F-002) Crossrail Ref: P23, Correspondence from London Borough of Crossrail Ref: P23, Correspondence from CLRL to Spitalfields Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
258 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 Promoter’s opening remarks on Spitalfields route. That is why you will find there is a broad 2919. MR ELVIN: In a reasonable manner, yes. consideration of the main alternatives in chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement. Our position, 2920. CHAIRMAN: In a reasonable manner. therefore, is that we have done what the Directive requires us to do. We have gone further as a matter 2921. MR ELVIN: Absolutely, my Lord. of fact and, as I mentioned when dealing with Mr Carpenter’s request, we have sent a large number of 2922. CHAIRMAN: Is that something we ought to reports to those in Spitalfields so that they have, in consider? fact, all the earlier reports looking at the alternative alignments before the Bill scheme was settled on. 2923. MR ELVIN: We say that Parliament has had Even though we have not been required as a matter the Environmental Statement. We have certainly laid of law under the Environmental Impact Assessment before the House of Commons, both at second Directive to provide them with vast amounts of reading and at third reading, the correspondence in information concerning the alternatives, they have in the form of command papers which had been fact received in the order of 20 or 21 reports, received by those objecting to it. Certainly to date the including the latest referred to, that of October 2007, Committee below has not considered it necessary to and the final draft of that which was provided a little criticise the statement. I suppose technically it is later. I showed your Lordships the letter that was sent within the remit of this Committee to express its to Mr Carpenter a year or so ago which listed all the dissatisfaction with the Environmental Statement. reports he had. 2924. CHAIRMAN: Not the details but the methodology. 2914. CHAIRMAN: But there is no remedy, even if you failed. 2925. MR ELVIN: You would be entitled to say that there is a flaw in the Environmental Statement which is so serious that it cannot be regarded as a proper 2915. MR ELVIN: Parliament is the judge of Environmental Statement, in which case the Bill whether the Environmental Statement is satisfactory. process must come to a halt.
2926. CHAIRMAN: Just to take you back to one 2916. CHAIRMAN: Is it we who are the judge? moment, on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link this is referred to in the Petition of the Residents’ Association at paragraph 33. 2917. MR ELVIN: Parliament as a whole. Applying the analogy that the courts have advised in 2927. MR ELVIN: Yes. environmental cases, it is the decision-maker who has the primary judgment as to whether the 2928. CHAIRMAN: It may well be that you can give Environmental Assessment is adequate and some comfort to the Residents’ Association about satisfactory. The mere fact that there is disagreement this. between the objectors and the Promoter and somebody does not like one aspect of the 2929. MR ELVIN: The structure that was used on Environmental Statement—if someone disagrees CTRL is a perfectly acceptable one in general terms with the judgment on noise impact or something of and in terms of meeting the recommendation of the that description—does not make it any less an Select Committee in the House of Commons. The Environmental Statement. Of course, that does not diYculty that may exist in practice is the relations mean to say it could not be fundamentally flawed, but between the community and the London Borough of to mere disagreements over specific assessments the Tower Hamlets. Certainly the Cooper’s Lane courts have taken a robust approach. That judgment Working Group was chaired by an oYcer of Camden of whether this can reasonably be considered to be an Council. I make the position clear as I made it in the Environmental Statement is a matter for the place below: we are happy to facilitate any decision-maker and we take that to mean Parliament constitution of the Panel which the community finds as a whole. best represents its ability to communicate and liaise with us over the project. Whether that is in the Cooper’s Lane model or some other model, if we can 2918. CHAIRMAN: It is not, therefore, a matter of facilitate it we will but it is not really within our the detail; it is a matter of whether the Directive and hands. We can provide the means, but unless the the regulations which enforce it have been complied community takes the opportunities we are rather in with in principle. their hands as to whether it achieves anything. We are Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 259
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association certainly willing to give the comfort of setting up the 2940. CHAIRMAN: Yes, very well. CTRL-type working party if that is thought to be appropriate. 2941. MR ELVIN: Before I sit down, could I raise the question of order? The original idea was that we 2930. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. would call our witnesses as a group when we had heard all the Petitions, and I understand the 2931. MR ELVIN: My Lord Chairman, that is all I Committee was content with that. Matters have been was going to say by way of introduction. It is a little made a little diYcult by the need to re-jig the longer than normal simply because we are dealing timetable to accommodate individual Petitioners, with a whole week’s Petitioners. and whilst ideally I would have preferred our witnesses to be called to deal with all the evidence in 2932. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to say anything one go, I wonder if the Committee would mind if we about health? interpose witnesses as and when time becomes available so that we use time in the best way possible. 2933. MR ELVIN: The Health Assessment is For example, Professor Mair, if he needs to assist the something which is being taken forward. It does need Committee on some of the settlement issues, can only the input of the Community Panel to help us refine it be here on Wednesday, so if the Committee finds it further. As I made clear to the Commons in January acceptable I propose that we call Professor Mair after last year, it is not something that the Panel has at this hearing the Petitioners on Wednesday. stage been able to assist with, but it is something that will be taken forward. 2942. CHAIRMAN: A lot of the Petitioners, of course, have raised this point and as long as they 2934. CHAIRMAN: I am told we are going to hear know that he will be here on Wednesday, and they evidence from Dr Safir. now do, in that case they can address the point then. 2935. MR ELVIN: We see the role of the local GPs 2943. MR ELVIN: In addition, in direct response to and the local community as critical to monitoring the Petition this afternoon we were proposing to have health issues and health impacts. It does require co- Mr Leekes available if there was time, which I cannot operation as well. see, or whenever, and possibly Mr Thornely-Taylor if there is time tomorrow. Unless the Committee 2936. CHAIRMAN: Lord Brooke was asking for a wanted me to take a diVerent course, I was proposing copy of what you have just stated to us. to call Mr Berryman right at the end to sweep up any additional points that were raised and to deal with 2937. MR ELVIN: Perhaps I could let your the general issues regarding need, location, lorries Lordships have a copy tomorrow. Whilst the and the like. transcript will be available, it is fair to say that your Lordships will get a lot more detail cross-referencing to the documents from my note. I have not read all of 2944. CHAIRMAN: I think we have got to ask the them out and you may find that helpful. Petitioners, they have already done a great deal to co- ordinate their presentations, and they ought, I think, 2938. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, thank you very to realise there will be witnesses saying things of great much. There are many other points which you raised interest to them who may not always coincide with in your Petitions. I do not expect you to deal with any their own attendance at this Select Committee. If they more of them than you wish to at the moment. The know that this is so they can make arrangements to rest will have to arise when the Petitioners put them be here. forward. 2945. MR ELVIN: Thank you, my Lord. 2939. MR ELVIN: We took the view that the Committee would be helped by an overview of the 2946. CHAIRMAN: I think the first of the main points because it is likely there will be smaller Petitioners is due to be the Community Association, points raised and we will deal with those, if it is is that right? Please make sure you have got all the convenient to the Committee, as matters proceed. things that you need. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
260 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association
The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association.
MsJilCove, appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
2947. MS COVE: Good afternoon, my Lords. My 2956. CHAIRMAN: Why do you not call Dr Safir name is Jil Cove and I am Secretary of the Spitalfields now? Community Association. Before starting on my presentation I would like to seek some guidance from 2957. MS COVE: I would like to call Dr Safir to give the Committee regarding timing. I understand that his evidence. you are intending to sit until 4.30 this afternoon. DrJeffreySafir, Sworn 2948. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Examined byMsCove
2949. MS COVE: My evidence is certainly to take 2958. MS COVE: Could I ask you to introduce us past that time. I do have here Dr JeV Safir, who is yourself and describe how long you have been a GP our local GP, who is only able to be here this in Spitalfields? afternoon to give evidence to your Lordships with (Dr Safir) Yes. My name is JeVrey Safir. I have been regard to the issues relating to Crossrail and the a GP in Spitalfields entirely for 35 years since 1973 impacts that will have. I was planning on calling him and I think I really know the health implications of first in any case but wanted to do a bit of an the area more than probably anybody else. introduction. 2959. Thank you. Can you then describe the general 2950. CHAIRMAN: If he can only be here today, state and social conditions of Spitalfields and how and I knew he was going to come and mispronounced you see the impact on the health of the residents? his name, I am afraid, I think it would be much better (Dr Safir) The Spitalfields ward is one of the most if he gave his evidence straight away. deprived areas in the whole of Great Britain. Under the old Jarman Index, which was an indicator of health and social needs, the Spitalfields ward was 2951. MS COVE: Okay. I cannot come back joint top in the whole of the UK. Things have not tomorrow morning but could come back tomorrow really improved very much since that time. We still afternoon to complete my presentation but it will not have a massive amount of illness, massive amount of be finished by 4.30. poverty, massive amount of social deprivation. My own practice has 13,500 people, mainly from the 2952. CHAIRMAN: You have divided up the Spitalfields area. We have 40% Bengali population material between the various parts of the community, who are an extremely ill part of the community, not have you? only because of the social deprivation and the overcrowding and high birth rate and everything else 2953. MS COVE: I hope you will be relieved to hear that goes with deprivation, they are a very ill that I am not going to be dealing with any of the population. We have massive amounts of every technicalities that you have heard both Mr Carpenter disease going. We have massive amounts of heart and Mr Elvin refer to this afternoon. My plan, on disease, lung disease, asthma, diabetes, you name it behalf of the Community Association, was to deal we have it, we have it the most. 40% of our with specific issues relating to the health impact of the population are Bengali but they take up 80% of all Crossrail project on Spitalfields’ residents, the matter our disease registers, with the exception of epilepsy. of lorry movements and schools and the Community We have a very poor population. The area we are Liaison Panel. I will not be referring to any of those dealing with is known as Banglatown and it really is technical details. a ghetto area. We have very poor housing. We have several families living together in very squalid conditions. It is very common to have five people 2954. CHAIRMAN: I am sure we can accommodate sharing a bedroom and three families living in it if you cannot come back until tomorrow afternoon separate bedrooms sharing one kitchen, one toilet. but I do not know that we will necessarily have You go into the houses and there is just bed after bed finished with whoever it is who is going to go after bed and if one of them gets ill, they all get ill. tomorrow morning. I cannot interpose people There are genetic reasons and mental health reasons continually. why the area is high on the deprivation list. Hearing Mr Elvin talk, I do not think he has taken into any 2955. MS COVE: I understand. I will finish account that we are dealing with people here, all I tomorrow afternoon, do you think? have heard today is European rules and digging and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 261
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association rulings. We are dealing with an area that is lived in by 2961. Dr Safir, thank you for that. You have said very, very poor people who really do not have the that you had no contact from Crossrail with regard ability to look after themselves with their own health to health matters at all. Do you know anything about issues and certainly do not have the ability to look the Primary Care Trust and whether they have had after themselves with social issues or major issues any contact? like this. (Dr Safir) I have had nothing at all. I know the Select Committee in the Commons did suggest that I should be contacted if there were going to be any local impact schemes to find out the eVect of the building 2960. Thank you. Can you describe to the in the community but to date I have heard absolutely Committee, please, the potential impact that you see nothing from anybody. of this construction site in Hanbury Street on the health of the current residents in Spitalfields, and particularly in regard to the lorry routes and lorry 2962. Have you got any comments that you would movements. like to make about the proposed routing of the tunnel (Dr Safir) One of the things that has worried me so which the Committee have already discussed this far is nobody has mentioned health. There has been afternoon? (Dr Safir) I was asked right at the end of my no contact from Crossrail about a local health statement in the Commons what I would like and I assessment for the local needs. In 2006 my practice said I would not like a dirty great hole in the middle had the highest number of emergency admissions and of Spitalfields and I would still say that. I appreciate acute bed occupancy of the whole of Tower Hamlets what my Lord has said, that it is not their job to with asthma, COPD, which is one form of chronic suggest alternative routes, but I do feel building this lung disease, and we have massive amounts of heart shaft, no matter what the size, in the middle of the disease. It is not uncommon to see 35-40 year old Spitalfields area, with its unique health problems, Bengali males drop dead of heart attacks. I am not an and I would like to stress this is not an ordinary expert on pollution but I have done some research community, this is a very poor community, a very and I have spoken to one or two of the chest suVering community, and anything that can be done physicians and they have told me there are two types to avoid the shaft in Banglatown would be high on of major impact generally of digging holes and the agenda for helping people, would have a very pollution of locally long-acting holes in the ground. detrimental eVect on the community itself. One is obviously what is coming out of the ground, the particles have been proven to have a detrimental health eVect on people’s lungs, and our Bengali 2963. I know you have been included in invitations population already have pretty bad lungs. I will not to the Community Liaison Panel and I appreciate go into technical details but I was also told that they you were not able to attend the one on 26 February, have a low lung volume and the low lung volume is but are there any comments you would like to make about the Community Liaison Panel? a high indicator of premature death, and our Bengali (Dr Safir) I have been to most of the meetings that population have that so are particularly sensitive to Crossrail have set up since the meeting at the pollution. The other impact is obviously from the Commons and I know there has been a lot of distrust spoil coming from the ground and how it is from the whole community about Crossrail ’s transported from the ground to wider areas and also intentions and there have been lots of boycotts of that has an impact on everyday pollution, not just meetings and lots of feelings that Crossrail are going from what is on the lorries but also the emissions to do everything no matter what we say, and this has from the lorries themselves. Evidently a constant been put forward very strongly by the community, turnover of diesel lorries would have a likely impact. that there is very little trust that Crossrail would be As I say, I am not an expert on particulate emissions listening to what we said. I went to the first two but I think the evidence is out there to say that if you meetings that Planning Aid for London set up and have got a very confined area, and I will stress we are again the feeling was that Planning Aid for London dealing with a very confined area, the streets are very had an agenda. A lot of the people at these initial narrow, and it is almost impossible to drive down the meetings felt that because they were resourced by streets anyway because of the roads, my feeling is the Crossrail they did not come in with a neutral agenda shaft, no matter what size it is, would have some and when people were raising matters that may have detrimental health eVect on the population as a been technically not what Planning Aid could deal whole. We are also dealing not only with the chronic with about objecting to things, there was a lot of lung disease but we have massive amounts of asthma. feeling that Planning Aid were not completely neutral I am sure the Committee are well aware that air and were not on out side, if you like, and hearing pollution is a very sensitive guide to the amount of what the Petitioners or the community liaison groups asthma that people suVer from. wanted. I know there were several episodes where Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
262 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association people said, “You are not listening to what we are (Dr Safir) Yes, Sir. saying; you are not listening”, and I think this came across very strongly and there is a lot of distrust. 2968. And indeed you raised a number of concerns, Perhaps there are technical and legal reasons that some of which you have reiterated today. As you Planning Aid have done things the way they felt but know, and Mr Elvin touched on this earlier, one of I do feel that a lot of the people who wanted to join the things which the House of Commons Committee the Committee felt we were not being listened to in did was to require the Promoter to establish the the initial objections. Therefore, although at every monitoring body which has come to be known as the meeting things have taken a step forward—and I will Spitalfields Community Liaison Panel, you are aware grant that somebody mentioned, “Let’s have the of that recommendation, and indeed it is right to say Camden Tripartite Way Ahead” and that seems to be that you, as you say, as a local general practitioner of what will happen—people generally felt we are being very long standing within the Spitalfields area were bulldozed into doing what Crossrail felt. I think that invited to attend the first meeting of that body in was very sad but I think it was a very genuine feeling October 2006. That is right, is it not? that the objections of the community were not being (Dr Safir) Yes. listened to even at source and it was going to go ahead anyway no matter what you say. 2969. I believe you did attend. (Dr Safir) Yes, Sir. 2964. I will be dealing in more detail with the 2970. Again forgive me as I simply do not know Community Liaison Panel. Dr Safir, is there anything whether it is right or not, have you attended more you would like to tell the Committee today with subsequent meetings of that body which have taken regards to the impact of Crossrail ? place from time to time since that date? (Dr Safir) I really do feel there will be a big impact (Dr Safir) The only meeting I have not attended, to on people. Nobody has mentioned people today. I the best of my knowledge, was the last meeting. The deal with people, I have to listen to what people say, reason for that was because I did not actually get the and I think unfortunately when you have a big plan invite in time but I have attended every other meeting like this people’s voices are not listened to. There are that whole time. several issues, you have mentioned the lorries coming in at certain times and going out at certain times, it 2971. As a general practitioner of very long standing does not mention what happens at lunch break when who obviously has, as you have said, an intimate all the kids pile out from school. I just think there is understanding of the particular health problems just so much more that Crossrail need to listen to— which are experienced by members of the local listen to the parents, listen to the teachers, listen to community particularly those from the Bangladeshi the professionals at times. One thing I did note was community, are you in principle quite willing to that I see they have a list of 26 or 27 professionals participate in the Spitalfields Community Liaison dealing with every aspect of tunnelling and the Panel, whatever form it may take, in order if you like project, but there does not seem to be an expert on to act as the local voice for those who need the project health. I think health has been sorely neglected in all to address those concerns? the proceedings up to now. I certainly have not been (Dr Safir) Definitely, that is why I volunteered involved, or had any knowledge of the health myself to be on the committee. authority being involved or any experts coming in at this stage. 2972. If I may say so, one cannot imagine a more apt person, with your experience and your role in the 2965. MS COVE: Thank you. I do not know if the community, to represent those concerns. Is that fair? Committee have any questions? (Dr Safir) I would hope so, yes.
2973. We, for our part, can see no possible reason 2966. CHAIRMAN: First Mr Elvin or Mr Mould. why you should not fulfil that role as a member of the Have you any questions? Liaison Panel. We would welcome your continuing involvement in order to inform the project through Cross-examined byMrMould its community relations work of those local issues relating to health which need to be taken into account. Are you happy to do that? 2967. MR MOULD: Good afternoon, Dr Safir. As (Dr Safir) I am very happy to do that. I would have you said to the Committee, you did give evidence in thought by now that Crossrail would have already set the House of Commons Select Committee up some form of monitoring scheme, some form of proceedings, did you not? health impact on the local population which would Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 263
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association have involved me by now. I think this was mentioned (Dr Safir) Yes, I have. in the Commons, that there had been no local assessment of the population, and I think the 2978. And it is fair to say, is it not, that within the Chairman of the Committee felt this was an document there is a particular focus on the likely oversight. significant health impacts of the construction project upon the Whitechapel and Hanbury Street area? 2974. There are two points there and I will deal with (Dr Safir) Yes, I think there is evidence. In your the second of them—which is whether there has been document, it says that there is a potential for any assessment of the health impacts from the project problems, and that is my interpretation, but my point in Spitalfields—in a moment, but the first point is to you is, can the scheme go ahead with a tunnel of whether there is a mechanism in place to enable local whatever width and length and whatever, if it has health concerns at that time to be fed into the detailed such a detrimental eVect on the health of my local planning of the project. That is plainly a role which population? That I think needs to be looked at very, the Liaison Panel can and ought to be performing, is very carefully on a local issue rather than in a it not? generalised way. (Dr Safir) I think that is absolutely certain, yes. There needs to be external sources brought in as well 2979. I should say straight away that we do not to do the monitoring, not just going on the hearsay of accept that the project will have a vastly detrimental one general practitioner. eVect on the health of the people in Spitalfields, that is not to say that we do not deny for a minute the importance of taking careful account of the potential 2975. However that may be, I think we have agreed health impacts of construction works upon local that you are particularly well placed, not just people particularly those who might be anecdotally but based on your professional disadvantaged in terms of their health, and we have experience and knowledge of health problems in the been through that point and we have been through local area, to play a prominent role in performing particularly the role you can play and are willing to that function and you can do so through your play in order to ensure that matter is not lost sight of attendance at and contribution to the Liaison Panel? and the role the Panel can play in that respect. But in (Dr Safir) I agree. order to make a sensible judgment on that matter, that is to say the real risk of construction works of Crossrail in the Hanbury Street area aVecting the 2976. The second point you raise is whether there health of the local people, one needs to focus on the has been any assessment by the project of the central actual proposed works and their scale and extent health impacts of the Crossrail proposals, which are intended to take place within that area, particularly as regards the proposals for a does one not, and one needs to avoid exaggerating construction work site at Hanbury Street. It is in fact the extent and scale of the works and thereby factually correct to say that Crossrail has carried out exaggerating the extent and scale of the potential a health impact assessment. That is right, is it not? health problems which might result from them? (Dr Safir) A generalised health impact assessment (Dr Safir) I think that is fair enough but what has but not a specific one for the very ailing population in happened over the course of the years is that Banglatown. I want to make it clear to the Crossrail has put forward various documents Committee that I do not regard Spitalfields as a suggesting diVerent sized shafts, diVerent lengths of normal community healthwise, they have very times that the digging is going to take, diVerent specific poor health and the impact on a community numbers of lorries coming through, and I am not sure like Spitalfields would be much more devastating that we are fully aware—I am certainly not—of your than in a far more aZuent area. latest proposals that you outlined just before, saying there will be only 16 lorries a day for nine months. We 2977. Dr Safir, I am certainly not putting the case to have heard in the past there will be much larger you that those who live in the Spitalfields are typical numbers of lorries going through. of the wider community and the health problems and challenges they present, which you, if I may say, have 2980. It is fair to say that the Crossrail proposals for very eloquently explained to the Committee this Hanbury Street and that area have changed quite afternoon. So please do not misunderstand me significantly over the course of the last few years, speaking on behalf of the project, that is certainly not most specifically, as you know, as a result of the our view, just so there is no doubt about that. I have revised tunnelling strategy which was promulgated in asked to be put up on to the screen the front page of a May 2006. As Mr Elvin explained in opening today, health impact assessment we did carry out in January the scale and extent of the works which are now 2006. You have read this document, have you not? proposed in Hanbury Street is significantly more Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
264 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association limited than was the case until that time. But that, of I know there is evidence to say that even minor shafts course, on the face of it, ought to be a benign trend so over a long period of time has a detrimental eVect on far as the health impacts on local people is concerned, people’s health. All I am saying is my feeling is that ought it not? before the work actually starts people need to be (Dr Safir) Of course. looking at this very, very carefully and not just through the Liaison Committee, I think Crossrail 2981. So that is a move in the right direction so far need to be doing it. as you are concerned? (Dr Safir) Yes. If you take it to the ultimate, there 2986. Rest assured, I did not put to you the value would not be a shaft there at all and nobody would that you have been doing through your work on the suVer. liaison panel as being an indication that that was the only measure that we propose to take in order to 2982. We have to build the railway, of course, and control matters such as potential for dust dispersal that is a thought we have to have in mind. No doubt from lorries and so forth. Under the terms of our you accept that. Construction Code, which I think you have heard (Dr Safir) I accept that but I am saying putting the mentioned, we have detailed arrangements that are shaft where it is. subject to the approval of your local authority as the interested local environmental and health authority 2983. I note that one of your particular criticisms in detailing arrangements for the prevention of dust the evidence you gave—there were two concerns, the disturbance and air quality problems through first was the possibility of airborne pollution and the practical measures, as you would expect, such as health impacts from material excavated from the sheeting of lorries, the dampening down of dust at the shaft itself, and the second was the possibility for work site, I could list a whole range of measures but airborne pollution from vehicle emissions, lorries and they will be familiar to you and to the Committee. In also from loads which were not properly sheeted and fact that is by far the most eVective way of addressing so forth. and preventing the sort of potential problems that (Dr Safir) Yes, and dampened. you have mentioned, that the construction programme should be undertaken with best practice 2984. Just dealing with the second of those, clearly, in relation to matters of that kind, yes? in order to judge that question and the degree to (Dr Safir) I agree. which that is a risk which needs to be dealt with by particular measures, one does have to have very 2987. Perhaps in that respect, can we glance at two much in mind the quantity of lorries and the paragraphs from the Select Committee House of regularity of lorry movements likely to be required in Commons Special Report because14 they did say order to serve the current Crossrail proposals? Is something specifically about health in Spitalfields that fair? and I have no doubt at all that when they did so they (Dr Safir) That is very fair, yes. had your evidence well in mind. This paragraph 101 and 102: “We were concerned that a large number of 2985. It is certainly true to say that the figures that asthma suVerers and those with other respiratory Mr Elvin gave to the Committee earlier on this illnesses in Spitalfields should be protected from the afternoon, that is to say during the peak nine months increased dust levels that would surround the of construction at Hanbury Street, we are predicting Crossrail work sites, which we understand to be 16 lorry movements a day and at other times during amongst the highest indication of those particular the construction period I think six lorry movements illnesses in UK”. Pausing there, I think that is a pretty a day, an assessment of the potential for significant fair short paraphrase of your evidence, is it not? health impacts as a result from that aspect of the (Dr Safir) Yes. scheme needs to be judged with those figures in mind, does it not? 2988.“With this in mind, we expected staV securing (Dr Safir) If that is the final figures, as I say, I have the roads to ensure that access is only given to lorries never been told until today that you have reduced the properly and securely covered”, that was an example amount of lorries going in and out of Hanbury Street, of a practical measure we mentioned a moment ago. so this is news to me today, but my feeling is that Paragraph 102: “The Promoter acknowledged our before these lorries go in and out, some expert should concern in relation to Buxton Street and traYc be called in, that the environmental health people at entering Vallance Road and agreed to ensure that Tower Hamlets and the experts on particulate appropriate measures are taken in agreement with matter, which I am certainly not one, should be 14 comparing similar size shafts and health impacts on Special Report Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235-I, paras other tunnels or digs in England or even in the USA. 101-102 (SCN-20080310-004 and -005) House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 265
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to control (Dr Safir) Yes. vehicular access on a 24-hour basis. We note that the Crossrail Construction Code will require all vehicles 2991. I am sure we mentioned that to you in the past. carrying loose or potential dust material to or from (Dr Safir) Yes, you mentioned it last time. work sites to be fully sheeted. The Construction Code forms part of the environmental minimum 2992. I do not know whether you have taken the requirements that the Promoter will make binding on opportunity—one needs a wet towel around one’s any nominated undertaker”. Dr Safir, that is what head to do it—to glance at the technical reports in the Select Committee asked us to do, that is what we question to see if they give you some reassurance as shall do, does that at least reassure you in relation to to the assessment work that we have undertaken in one of the concerns that you raised, that is to say the order to understand the challenge that we may need need properly to control and prevent particulate to meet. Have you done that? dispersal from lorry loads passing to and from the (Dr Safir) I have read part of the documents but, as work site? I say, because I am not an expert, I am not the one (Dr Safir) I have been told several times at meetings who should be commenting on all this. What I do that this is going to be the cleanest shaft and the know is that when levels of pollution go up, my cleanest spoil takeaway ever in the history of the patients get ill. universe, I hope that will be the case. 2993. My Lord, that is a very fair answer and in the 2989. Well, I do not say that we intend it should be light of that, it seems to me perhaps it would be the cleanest shaft ever in the history of the universe, sensible if at an appropriate moment later in the week that would be a high aspiration indeed, but I do say I invite one of our witnesses just to draw the to you that we intend to give eVect to the sentiments Committee’s attention to the work that we have done of the Select Committee in the House of Commons in relation to air quality assessment and just to summarise the conclusions, my understanding is, as reflected in those paragraphs and, indeed, that is the Committee might expect given the relatively small something which is set in the terms of the Crossrail number of lorries associated with the Hanbury Street Construction Code. That must surely reassure you. worksite, that we are not predicting any significant (Dr Safir) It reassures me to a certain extent, but deterioration in the prevailing air quality of the area there will still be the degree of pollution, although of Spitalfields as a result of that aspect of the works, you are trying to minimise it, that is going to aVect but we can deal with that, if I may, in detail a little the highest susceptible population and this is where I later on if that is convenient. do think that people are just covering up the cracks and are just saying that we are going to make it the cleanest whatever, but even minor deficits in the 2994. CHAIRMAN: We shall hear it in time. quality of air in the Spitalfields area can lead potentially to quite devastating eVects on certain 2995. MR MOULD: Dr Safir, the dust prevention individuals. That is what I am saying needs to be measures, control measures that we have discussed in looked at very carefully before the lorries go in. relation to lorries also form part of detailed arrangements which are set out in the Construction Code as to the control of dust coming from work sites 2990. Can I tell you on that point, and we are themselves, you are aware of that, are you not? entering into quite a technical area there, which is the Again, what we have sought to do through a contribution which construction vehicles make to relatively detailed regime is to anticipate the sort of ambient levels of pollution from particulates and so measures that are likely to be required, having regard forth in the atmosphere locally. Of course that is to the scale and extent of activity which is going to be something which is monitored by local authorities as going on in any individual site. As you say, in relation a matter of course, you will appreciate that. I think it to Hanbury Street, that would need to consider the is a legal requirement that that should be done and potential for dust disturbance as a result of material Mr Thornely-Taylor confirms that with national air being taken out of the shaft itself, you understand quality measurements. We have carried out a that that is what we are doing? technical assessment of the propensity for Crossrail (Dr Safir) Yes, I do understand. construction traYc to contribute significantly to prevailing levels of vehicular particulates in the 2996. As the scheme develops and as we get into the atmosphere across the route, including Spitalfields actual construction phase, in the event that the local and that assessment is set out in documents which community feels that matters as regards dust control form part of the Environmental Statement. I think need to be raised with the local authority or with the you must be familiar with the fact that we have nominated undertaker or both, you then, through the undertaken that work. Community Liaison Panel or directly, are in a Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
266 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association position to take those points up on behalf of your when the shaft is activated. There needs to be a lot of patients, are you not? work done in preparation and advices given (Dr Safir) I need to take it up with Crossrail to make sure that— 3002. MR MOULD: I do not think I can take that any further. We have been through some of the 2997. That is what I have just put. You touched on the Liaison Panel. I know Ms Cove is going to be practical measures that we have in mind to deal with giving more detailed evidence on that, so I will not potential problems and the matters which you have trouble the Committee for more than a moment or raised which principally focus on dust and air quality. two. You mentioned the role of Planning Aid for I will leave it there. London. You do understand that Planning Aid for London is an independent charitable organisation. 3003. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cove, do you have any (Dr Safir) Of course I do. questions.
2998. It is right to say, as you may understand, that, having engaged them to assist us with enabling the Re-examined byMsCove Panel to take up its role and to perform its work, we have been prepared to reimburse them their ordinary administrative expenses, but I can assure you that 3004. MS COVE: Dr Safir, can I confirm with you that is as far as it goes in so far as any financial that the original meeting of the Crossrail Community support from the project is concerned. Are you Liaison Panel which took place at Whitechapel Art prepared to accept that from me? Gallery in 2006, in fact you did not attend because (Dr Safir) Yes. you were not invited to that. You went to the one in October. 2999. Thank you very much. You touched on the (Dr Safir) I am sorry; I thought that was the meeting fact that there was a need for the primary care trust you were talking about. No, I was not invited to the to be involved as a consultee in relation to possible original one. impacts of the construction of the Hanbury Street shaft. 3005. I put forward the name of Dr Safir to Crossrail (Dr Safir) I was asked whether I had any knowledge representatives there, that he should be invited. Do of them being involved. you think a site-specific Health Impact Assessment should be a separate issue to your participation in the 3000. And you said you had not. My understanding Community Liaison Panel where you can advise us is that they were consulted when the Environmental on general matters of health, but that a site-specific Impact Assessment that I showed you earlier was Health Impact Assessment should include all local being aired but, clearly, they would be an appropriate professionals and be a separate entity to the CLP? consultee within the embrace of the Liaison Panel (Dr Safir) I agree. As a member of the CLP I can give and generally as regards the whole impacts of the information and ask for help or whatever, but my scheme upon local people. My understanding is that feeling is what you say: that there should be a load of that is provided for under the terms of our emerging expertise coming into Spitalfields to individually Community Relations Strategy Framework. Again, assess the impact of the shaft in Hanbury Street. that being the case, that must give you some reassurance. (Dr Safir) All I know is that at the Commons Select 3006. MS COVE: I have two final comments. I will Committee, Crossrail were informed that I should be deal with the Health Impact Assessment in more kept addressed of any health issues that were being general terms in my evidence to you. The final raised, and since I went to the Commons Select question I would like to ask you, Dr Safir, is this: Mr Committee I have heard nothing directly from health Mould raised the issue of paying Planning Aid for authorities, from Environmental Health or from London with regards to them facilitating the Crossrail about anything that has gone on since then. establishment of the Community Liaison Panel. Do you think that has had any eVect on what you have 3001. I cannot speak for other bodies but, so far as described as believing Planning Aid for London Crossrail is concerned, of course, as we have agreed, having a hidden agenda? you have been involved since its inception as a member of the Health Community Liaison Panel. (Dr Safir) But I do not know of any work that has 3007. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cove, I think the only been done in preparation for the digging of the shaft. people who can answer that are Planning Aid That, in my opinion, should be done now rather than themselves. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 267
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association
3008. MS COVE: Fine. Thank you. needs to be looked at before they start coming in. We need to get the expertise, people who have the Examined by THE COMMITTEE expertise in particulates around the table. That was the point of that last question to me there: rather than me saying, “Come on,” as part of the Liaison Panel, 3009. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: let us look at it, before the hole is dug somebody Before I ask my question, I would like to express my somewhere needs to get some experts in to look at the admiration to Dr Safir for having survived 35 years impact and realise that maybe an impact in my in that area—and it still looks like he has his own particular population would be more devastating head of hair. that in other areas. That was my feeling. 3010. Dr Safir, it is a tribute to your stamina and commitment. I mean that genuinely, even though I 3011. CHAIRMAN: Lord Brooke first. have raised it in a light-hearted way. We of course are concerned about the impact on the people. I was 3012. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: listening to your comments. We intend to probe Could I continue on the same theme, my Lord Crossrail stringently, as we ought to do in these Chairman, on the practical measures that could be circumstances. I could not help thinking that there is taken, which is what I believe you are calling for, other building work going on in that area and save, of course, abandoning the project altogether. I whatever building work goes on does not help. We do am interested in the nature of the relationship not control the number of lorries that emit between your practice and the PCT and the extent to particulates, some of which do not cover their loads which the PCT has or has not been involved with as well as they should do. We can all drive around what is happening. Do you have direct representation and see lorries giving out black exhaust emissions to the PCT? that should not be on the road. We have to restrict it (Dr Safir) In what way do you mean? to a minimum. We cannot pretend that there are not other external factors going on. You were very 3013. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:I specific. You said that the shaft, whatever size it was, live in Battersea and my practice has a representative would have a very detrimental impact. Can you really who works very closely with the PCT. validate that? You can express concern that it might (Dr Safir) Obviously we do have close working have, but you said it definitely would. relationships with the PCT, yes. (Dr Safir) As I say, I am not an expert on particulates but I have spoken to one or two people who have more knowledge than me. Obviously the least lorries 3014. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: coming in and the cleaner the spoil the better, but Have you raised the issue with the PCT about the there seems to be some evidence from previous digs possibility of— and sites that the long-term impact on the health of (Dr Safir) Not at this stage. I think the situation is the population does exist. I am trying to point out such that I was waiting for Crossrail to come to me that we have already a very polluted area—as you and say, “This is the state of play in 2008, these are rightly say, with all the construction sites and the the number of lorries, this is how long the shaft is diesels and everything—but, also, we have a highly going to take”. What I hoped would happen was sensitive population. We have far more asthmatics through the PCT or independent experts, and maybe and far more people with serious lung disease in the that is what is needed—the PCT is just a governing Spitalfields area and it does not take much to impact body that looks after general practice, they are not on their health. We know this because there are particularly the people who would have any expertise certain times of the year when my admissions go up, in their own right—what I would have hoped was when the numbers of asthmatics multiplies. It does Crossrail , either via the Liaison Committee or via not take a lot of impact detrimentally on the myself or via their own experts would get somebody environment to make a poor population go downhill in to do a local objective consultation. very rapidly. That was my feeling. Obviously the least lorries going in and the cleaner the spoil, I accept that 3015. To a good deal I am sharing sympathy with and I am sure Crossrail will do everything—because you on your objective. The PCT has a lot of money that is what they have told me at previous meetings. and, yes, there are great demands in the area where Obviously I was exaggerating when I said the cleanest you are but they have a lot of money and a lot of hole in the history of the universe, but they have told access to a lot of qualified people. I am wondering if me that they will try to make the impact as minimal whether maybe a pincer movement on your part may as possible and I want to put out that with an adverse be worth considering, not just waiting for Crossrail population a minimum of impact might have a but raising the issue direct with the PCT seeing if you devastating eVect on individuals. I think that is what can get support and partnership with them and then Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
268 committee on crossrail bill: evidence
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association into discussion fairly quickly with Crossrail and 3020. I am not trying to suggest in any way that they whether you would be prepared to consider that. are the author of their own misfortune. (Dr Safir) Of course I would be prepared to do (Dr Safir) But they are. that, yes. 3021. With someone of your knowledge I am trying 3016. BARONESS FOOKES: Dr Safir, I do admire to build up a better picture of what the area is like. your continuing care and concern for your patients (Dr Safir) Our population as a whole, and obviously and people in the area. I am somewhat curious to this is a generalisation, have poor lungs and poor know why the various health authorities, if I may hearts. As I say, we have the highest admission rates follow Lord Brooke, have not taken up these issues for asthma and chronic lung disease with acute on their own initiative. You have taken the initiative, admission into hospitals for emergency treatment. and all credit to you, but it does not seem to have No matter how much screaming we do at these been shared by other health authorities. Is that right? people it is impossible to make their lungs better, they (Dr Safir) I think they are too busy doing other will only get worse. things at the moment to be particularly concerned with an individual issue. They tend to generally 3022. I think they are lucky to have you as their monitor general practice and primary health care. I champion. do not think they see it as their role at this stage to get (Dr Safir) Thank you. involved in issues like this. 3023. CHAIRMAN: Dr Safir, I know that obviously 3017. One wonders at what stage then because we you have not got a great deal of time, no busy GP has, are getting fairly far down the road. However, that is but have you made any inquiries with the not your responsibility. environmental health people of Tower Hamlets (Dr Safir) No, but I agree with you 100 per cent. about what they are up to? They are in contact with Crossrail about this. 3018. Could I then ask you, are you concerned (Dr Safir) I have not because I hoped Crossrail would mainly about the digging of the shaft, let us leave have come back to me. I have spoken to one or two aside the lorries for the moment, or are you chest experts, chest physicians, who feel that it needs concerned about its operation which, after all, is to be looked at very carefully, let us put it that way. At permanent? this stage I have not contacted environmental health, (Dr Safir) Again, I am not an expert and obviously I have not had any health update from Crossrail at all I would need to know what is coming out of the shaft of what they have done. I had assumed from the once it has been dug and how much pollution is Commons Select Committee that they would be coming out from the tunnel. I would hope Crossrail putting into place a local health assessment of the would have the ability to monitor that. Yes, anything needs. That is how I understood Crossrail were that causes pollution in the area will have a supposed to be acting, but maybe I am mistaken. detrimental eVect. The Brick Lane area is a filthy area, it is already polluted. As you have heard, there 3024. CHAIRMAN: They did not raise it with us, are lorries going around and traYc congestion. The that is the trouble. Very well. Thank you very much roads are permanently blocked, you cannot drive indeed, Dr Safir, for coming. I think we have now run down the roads at the best of times. Most of them are out of time with our shorthand writers. Ms Cove, one-way streets and you try to drive 20 yards and they thank you. are blocked by traYc and the pollution levels go up and up and up. It is a very poor area to drive in at the The witness withdrew best of times.
3019. I am sure Crossrail will be willing to give us 3025. MS COVE: Can I just confirm that if I come this kind of information, and certainly I am sure we back tomorrow afternoon at 2.30, the chances of— will be asking for it, just to prepare them. One final point: is there any problem with cigarette smoking in 3026. CHAIRMAN: If you come back tomorrow the area which would add to their health problems? afternoon you will have to take potluck about how (Dr Safir) We have an enormous amount of cigarette far we have got. I do not think I can interpose you in smoking, yes. We have people drop dead very early the middle of somebody else’s presentation. because of a multitude of things, including cigarette smoking. We run a non-smoking clinic and my nurse 3027. MS COVE: I appreciate that, but supposing I is actually swamped with takers. It is a big, big issue do not get heard tomorrow afternoon. Is there any amongst the Bengali population, especially the way that we could perhaps agree a time that I might young men. definitely be able to finish giving my evidence because Processed: 14-08-2008 19:21:09 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401329 Unit: PAG1
committee on crossrail bill: evidence 269
10 March 2008 The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association
I really do not want to come tomorrow afternoon if 3034. CHAIRMAN: Have a word with her outside. the chances are that I will not get heard. We look forward to seeing you back anyway.
3028. CHAIRMAN: I quite understand that, but the 3035. MR MOULD: My Lord, I just rise to say that diYculty is between you all you have made I am sure your Lordship is working on the arrangements to deal with various aspects of this, assumption as regards tomorrow that once we have very sensible it is too, I just do not know how long heard from tomorrow’s petitioners, that is to say Selina Misfud, Rupert Wheeler and company are from Ms Misfud and Mr Morse, you will be going going to be tomorrow because we have not been told. straight back to Ms Cove. I certainly would not wish I do not know how long they are going to take, but to call any evidence before that. you could ask them. 3036. CHAIRMAN: I quite agree, but the thing is I 3029. MS COVE: This afternoon I had assumed cannot tell how long they are going to take; I wish I that I was going to be on at 2.30 and we would have knew. On the other hand, I suspect Ms Cove could been finished by then but, of course, you dealt with ask them how long they are going to take. We will issues with Mr Carpenter which obviously took up ring you up at lunchtime and tell you how it is quite a lot of time. getting on. 3030. CHAIRMAN: These were programming matters. 3037. MS COVE: It is about how long is a piece of string at the moment, I am afraid. 3031. MS COVE: Mr Elvin’s introduction took up a considerable amount of time as well. I would be really 3038. CHAIRMAN: I think that is the best we can pleased if we could negotiate a definite time that I do. We will come back at ten o’clock tomorrow could be heard. I appreciate your diYculties but I morning. Could I remind petitioners that we need also have other commitments. copies of documents if they are going to be referred to, preferably 24 hours in advance, although that will 3032. CHAIRMAN: Ms Price says she can ring you not work for tomorrow morning. It is 16 hard copies up at lunchtime tomorrow and tell you how it is if you are going to refer to documents because a lot going. Would that be helpful? of people have to have them, including the shorthand writers and the people who work the screens. You 3033. MS COVE: Perhaps I could have a word with will not have time to do that for tomorrow. We will her outside the Committee. come back at ten o’clock tomorrow. Thank you. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [SE] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
270 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
DAY TEN TUESDAY 11 MARCH 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Jones of Cheltenham, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Snape, L Fookes, B Young of Norwood Green, L
Ordered that Counsel and Parties be called in.
3039. CHAIRMAN: Good morning, everybody. I 3047. CHAIRMAN: Because they are not yet in think we will start. Mr Elvin? the register.
3040. MR ELVIN: Yes, my Lord. 3048. MR ELVIN: We will supply the Committee with a full set so you have them as well. 3041. CHAIRMAN: I am glad you have your glasses back. 3049. CHAIRMAN: I think that is quite important.
3050. MR ELVIN: Very well. That is in hand. 3042. MR ELVIN: I have my old ones. At least I can see you now! 3051. CHAIRMAN: There was something else you wanted to say before we begin? 3043. CHAIRMAN: You will be pleased to see in The Times cartoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer 3052. MR ELVIN: No, thank you. Mr Mould is had his oV yesterday as well. More seriously, I think handling this morning’s petition. as a result of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Petition, which did not, in fact, lead to a long 3053. MR MOULD: My Lord, just following on discussion in front of the Committee, a very from what Mr Elvin has said, your Lordship’s point, substantial number of extra assurances and so on in fact all the undertakings and assurances that have were given. been given to date to Tower Hamlets are on the public register and, as your Lordship knows, that 3044. MR ELVIN: Indeed. They are on their way to register is available for the public to view on the the Committee. Promoter’s website.
3045. CHAIRMAN: It is not so much for us, I think 3054. CHAIRMAN: I have my own private copy it is very important the community in Spitalfields and it does not have the latest ones on it. I do not should know what it is that their local authority has think it has the ones recently agreed with Tower done and, therefore, I think that the various Hamlets. organisations which are appearing in relation to Spitalfields should know about these because for all 3055. MR MOULD: It is pretty up-to-date, but I know—I have not seen them—they may aVect some obviously we will check that and if there are any that of the points of the Petitioners. are so recent that have not found their way onto the website, I will make sure that is done for you. 3046. MR ELVIN: In fact, my Lord, I can say this: I think the Tower Hamlets undertakings, at least the 3056. CHAIRMAN: We cannot carry the website vast majority of them, were included in the exhibits about with us, that is the trouble. I do tend to carry that we circulated to the Petitioners at the end of last this about. week. I cannot recall seeing them myself, for reasons which you know only too well, but two of the 3057. MR MOULD: Of course, it might be helpful undertakings were put up in tabular form, the shaft for the record for those who may be reading or undertaking and the schools undertaking. They were listening, Tower Hamlets appeared before your from the table of undertakings which were included Lordships last week, I think it was on Day Seven, and in the exhibits given to the Petitioners, but we will made a statement in relation to a number of matters make sure that all the undertakings have been which Petitioners who are appearing this week may circulated to the Petitioners. want to read on the transcript to familiarise Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 271
11 March 2008 themselves with Tower Hamlets’ attitude to a 3071. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: number of matters which they dealt with. Lord Chairman, could I ask a general question on communication? As a member of the House of Lords, 3058. CHAIRMAN: I am very anxious because the last week—and others may have received this—I got Petitioners have put their heads together in order to a document from Crossrail called “The Link”, a very try and take individual points rather than repeat pretty coloured document covering a whole variety of everything that everybody else said, they are topics. Just reading the petitions relating to this week therefore entitled to the maximum help from all of us I wondered whether in fact there is any means in order to make sure they know what exactly has had whereby, similarly, Crossrail communicates directly happened and what the position of their local with the citizens in the area aVected or is it only authority now is. through the representatives?
3059. MR MOULD: Quite so. My Lord, in that 3072. BARONESS FOOKES: That was the young respect it may help to say for those who have the people, was it not? exhibits pack—and we obviously served this on Petitioners at the end of last week—the document Mr 3073. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Elvin referred to, which is the extracted list of That was the young people. undertakings and assurances relating to Spitalfields, that is to be found at pages XR5-C-012, divider C, 3074. MR MOULD: What I will do is I will ask --- XR5-C-012. 3075. CHAIRMAN: Do you know about this at all, 3060. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, where? Mr Mould?
3061. MR MOULD: In this pack. 3076. MR MOULD: I know broadly about the initiative in relation to schools. I was not familiar 3062. CHAIRMAN: In the pack? with that particular document, but Mr Elvin is taking some instructions on this. 3063. MR MOULD: Yes, it is divider C and there are three pages. There is a three-page table at the 3077. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: If I beginning of XR5-C-012 going onto 014 which lists a may, I am just following up with the questions that range of undertakings under “Topic headings” which the Lord Chairman has just been posing about the have been given to Tower Hamlets and others in nature of communications and reading through some relation to the Spitalfields area. of the documentation there appears to be quite a gulf in some respects. I know there is a problem in getting the panel running, but I wondered if you had given 3064. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: In any thought to how you are communicating with section C. the citizen? 3065. MR MOULD: Section C, that is right. 3078. MR ELVIN: There are written bulletins that go out from time to time to inform people of changes 3066. BARONESS FOOKES: You need a and updates. I know because, being on the route, I magnifying glass to see it, it is very small. certainly get one every so often in West London and it goes out in multiple languages. We can give you 3067. MR MOULD: It is small, I appreciate that more information on that when we present our and what I have asked to be done is that hard copies evidence on community liaison if that will assist. be brought to the Committee room today and I can ask that they be brought in an A3 format so they are 3079. BARONESS FOOKES: Is it what one might slightly larger on the typeface. call “user-friendly”, because the website is not user- friendly? 3068. CHAIRMAN: Have the Petitioners had a chance to look at these various matters? 3080. MR ELVIN: It is usually a couple of pages of a letter and it is fairly straightforward, to my 3069. MR MOULD: I hope they have. These recollection. I am sure we can get you some examples documents were served at the end of last week on if you would like to see it. them and, as I say, the register is on the website. 3081. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 3070. CHAIRMAN: Feel free to refer to them if any Do you still send the information to the panel even of you want to. though the panel does not meet, so to speak? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
272 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008
3082. MR ELVIN: As far as we are aware, yes, and segment which obviously begins much, much closer we will get Mr Leeks to explain that to you. Can I also to the actual ground itself. That is the nature of the say, while I am on my feet, the Committee should ground. As you will recall from Professor Mair, as have had a copy of the notes that I had yesterday the construction of the tunnels will be undertaken by when I was opening. I amended them slightly to make using closed face earth pressure balance tunnel them a little bit more readable, but I hope they are boring machines, Professor Mair explained how suYciently clear. those machines work, I remind the Committee of that evidence. 3083. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Elvin. 3086. If we turn2 please to page 96, the second of three 3084. MR MOULD: Just picking up on Lord drawings again, this is Petition 18, this is Ms Jones, Young’s point, the panel of course does meet, albeit the Spitalfields Society, and her property is here, 21 we would hope in future it will meet more frequently Wilkes Street. Wilkes Street is here running north- than it has in the past, but of course, as you will south between Hanbury Street and Fournier Street, know, it met on 26 February. and Princelet Street, another street which your Lordships will hear mention of, is this street here which runs east-west and parallel to Hanbury Street 3085. My Lord, we are going to hear petitions, I and Fournier Street (Indicating). The majority of the think, today which are going to focus on the issue of Petitioners’ properties are located in and around this settlement and I know that Mr Wheeler is waiting to little area on Wilkes Street, Princelet Street and, take the stand and present those matters on behalf of indeed, I think also Fournier Street. Also I draw your the Petitioners. It may be helpful if I spend literally attention to Christ Church Spitalfields which I think about five minutes just taking your Lordships may be referred to, a very famous Grade I listed through one or two plans that we prepared to show building and your Lordships can see— the relationship of the Petitioners’ properties with the1 line of the tunnels. If we can have up, please, XR5-A- 095 and just to orientate the Committee we have here 3087. CHAIRMAN: Is that it (Indicating)? in the dotted blue line the Crossrail running tunnels. They pass beneath the Spitalfields area and, as you 3088. MR MOULD: Indeed it is, yes. Your see to the right-hand side of the drawing, we have the Lordships can see the relationship between Christ Hanbury Street shaft site. The continuous red line on Church and the running tunnels. The simple point is either side of the running tunnels, that is the line that that the Crossrail alignment happens to pass represents the area of the ten millimetre settlement somewhat to the north of the location of Christ contour and you will recall when Professor Mair gave Church itself and we can deal a little later as necessary his presentation to you at the start of the with the assessment of Christ Church under our Committee’s sittings, he explained the three-stage settlement assessment process. 3 settlement assessment process and the significance which the ten millimetre settlement contour has for 3089. Then if we can turn please to 97, just to that purpose. We have shown in the yellow shading complete the location of the Petitioners’ properties. Petitioners’ properties within the Spitalfields area for Again that is a petition of Ms Mifsud and others and, Petitioners who have come under the aegis of Petition again, your Lordships can see a number of properties 22 and where those properties are listed buildings, shown with the shading and the listed buildings that is so say shown on the statutory list of buildings shown where they occur in relation to running of of historic and architectural interest maintained by tunnels. the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, 4 we have shown a mauve or purple outline for the 3090. If we can have up please 94, just to give you building footprint itself, so one sees examples of that some factual information about another topic that where I am pointing at the moment (Indicating). may be raised. This shows the location of boreholes Where the structures are not listed, then it is simply which have been drilled in order to investigate the the yellow hatching that identifies the properties. I ground makeup in the area of Spitalfields. As is the should say that, as the tunnels pass beneath this part case along the route, again Professor Mair explained of the route, the tunnels are at about 30 metres below to you the borehole investigation process and what ground level and the ground through which the we have shown is completed boreholes in the red tunnels will pass is at the interface of London Clay shading and proposed boreholes in green; this is an and what is known as the “Lambeth Group” which 2 is a mix of London Clay and sand. That is to say the Street (TOWHLB-XR5A-096) tunnels will be at the lower end of the London Clay 3 CrossrailVarious properties Ref: P23, in PetitionSpitalfields 18—Patricia (TOWHLB-XR5A-097) Jones—21 Wilkes 1 4 Various properties in Spitalfields (TOWHLB-XR5A-095) CrossrailSpitalfields Ref: area P23, (TOWHLB-XR5A-094) Petition 20—Selina Mifsud and others— Crossrail Ref: P23, Petition 22—Nicholas Morse and others— Crossrail Ref: P23, 10mm settlement contours and boreholes— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 273
11 March 2008 ongoing process. I might mention in written tabular form with a list of all the Petitioners under petitions, as your Lordships will have seen, there is a Petitions 20 to 22, their properties, whether they are reference to the possible incidence of underground listed buildings or not, whether an individual rivers in the location. Our understanding is that there settlement assessment report is being produced, what is an underground river, the Walbrook I think it is. It the settlement assessment shows as regards the likely passes some 300 metres to the west of Spitalfields risk of any damage being caused by virtue of ground Market which is this area here, so it is way oV-plan to movement through the construction of Crossrail and the west and the other point is that, as I mentioned, where we have produced individual reports, that is to the Crossrail running tunnels are at a depth of about say where copies have got to the third phase in the 30 metres and, of course, the underground river itself settlement assessment process. We have given you the is at the other end, the top end of the London Clay, reference in your packs to the reporting questions. so the chances of any interrelationship between For example, in respect of 3-5 Princelet Street if you underground river and the Crossrail works for turn back to the beginning of divider A in your packs settlement purposes we consider to be remote. you will find the settlement assessment report in relation to the property. It comprises an engineering 3091. CHAIRMAN: What stratum is it running in? assessment and an historic building assessment carried out6 by our respective technical consultants. 3092. MR MOULD: It is running in some sand and gravel, I think. Just bear with me, I have got that 3095. The previous page, page 99, is the first page of information here. The riverbed is at the top of the that table. We hope that table is comprehensive and London Clay and it runs in some gravel-filled covers all of the individual property-holders who channels, that is the information I have. If the have petitioned on settlement concerns to your Committee requires further information about that, Lordships’ committee. I will see if I can provide that through Professor Mair tomorrow. 3096. My Lord, that is all I propose to say by way of brief opening on this topic, unless there is anything 3093. CHAIRMAN: We will see what happens.5 else I can assist the Committee with at this stage?
3094. MR MOULD: Exactly so. Finally, in this very 3097. CHAIRMAN: Not at the moment thank you brief introduction, if you can turn please to 100. We very much, Mr Mould. Who is presenting Petition have provided the Committee and Petitioners in number 20?
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others.
MrRupertWheeler appeared as Agent.
3098. MR WHEELER: I am presenting the Petition 3102. MR WHEELER: No, I am not. this morning. My name is Rupert Wheeler. I am an architect of some 20 years’ practice, much of that 3103. CHAIRMAN: You have divided up the working with old buildings. I am a resident of Wilkes workload, have you not? Street. My Lord, I have a text if I can refer to that. I issued yesterday as required the copies of the 3104. MR WHEELER: Yes, we have. It is a big illustrations I wish to refer to. subject and we have divided it up to avoid repetition.
3099. CHAIRMAN: Is that the one with Spitalfields 3105. CHAIRMAN: Very much appreciated it is Church on the front? too, I can tell you!
3100. MR WHEELER: Yes. I have provided the 3106. MR WHEELER: I am just concentrating on Committee with 16 copies of the document. I will settlement today. I have a few questions that the refer to those as I go through the text, if I may. petitioners I represent have asked me to ask. I imagine I would ask those of the Promoter. 3101. CHAIRMAN: You are not going to go through every paragraph of this Petition? 3107. CHAIRMAN: It is no use asking us! 5 (TOWHLB-XR5A-100) 6 3108. MR WHEELER: I imagine I ask them of the Crossrail(TOWHLB-XR5A-099) Ref: P23, Petitions 20 and 22—Assessment Table Promoter. Crossrail Ref: P23, Petitions 20 and 22—Assessment Table Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
274 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3109. MR MOULD: Yes, I suspect that Mr 3116. CHAIRMAN:7 Are they in here? Berryman may be able to help on a number of them. If there are any which require Professor Mair’s input, 3117. MR WHEELER: Yes, if we could have the first that will be tomorrow. If that presents diYculties for illustration, please. You will be familiar with that. Mr Wheeler perhaps I can have a word with him at The first was Christchurch, for which actually no an appropriate moment to see how we can deal with assessment had previously been made. It is outside that. the lines of deviation, but it is inside the line if there were such a line, and it is not shown on any of the Promoter’s information that demonstrates the extent 3110. CHAIRMAN: Would you do that because I of settlement. A line of deviation is defined by the ten want you to have the opportunity of asking questions millimetre degree of settlement. The degree of such as you need to. Professor Mair cannot be here settlement on Christchurch is not that great, but it is all the time. within an area of settlement. The local people were very keen that some assessment be made of it. 3111. MR WHEELER: They are not that technical. I realise Professor Mair is a very distinguished 3118. The other properties we asked them to look at scientist tunnelling engineer, but my questions are were 84 Commercial Street, The Ten Bells public not that technical. house next to the station and, lastly, we asked them to look at8 19 Princelet Street, which is the Museum of Immigration, a very well known old synagogue and 3112. CHAIRMAN: Yes, he is. really quite a remarkable remnant from the area’s history. That is the main hall, and there is another shot of the interior there showing the cast iron 3113. MR WHEELER: On 13 June 2006 we columns. These are the properties we took them presented evidence to the Committee that around. demonstrated in our view the Promoter had not carried out suYciently detailed investigations into 3119. The conclusion of these visits was that, in the the condition of the listed buildings within the lines of case of The Ten Bells at least, they confirmed they deviation along the base route. The Commons’ Select were happy with their original assessments; but that Committee we believe took our points on board and the other two properties would now require furtherth asked the Promoter at the time to come back to the consideration. 9 Committee (and this is their quote) in the autumn and demonstrate clearly that an individual 3120. This is a letter from Crossrail dated 9 June assessment had been made of each listed and historic confirming their conclusions. They duly reported building in the area and that the appropriate that further investigations would be carried out into mitigation had been put in place. the eVects of likely settlement on Christchurch; and that the building sensitivity score for 19 Princelet Street should be upgraded from two to three. 3114. We had previously pressed the Promoter to make a proper assessment of historic buildings and, 3121. The next document is the Inspection Report in response to their statement that they had actually itself where it confirms that this has changed the completed their Phase 3 investigations and did not 10 impact from negligible to a moderate magnitude; and intend to carry out any further investigations, we then, more critically, the overall assessment from a challenged them (I suppose is the way to put it) to negligible impact to a potentially significant impact. review a small selection of buildings so that we could What it also did, of course, was prove entirely our demonstrate the inadequacy of their Phase 3 point that the original assessments were inadequate. assessments. That is why we believe the Committee asked them to look again at their assessments. 3115. We invited the Promoter to visit three buildings th and inspect internally. We had chosen the three on 3122. Notwithstanding this, there has been no further the basis that they were all open to the public and eVort as far as we have been made aware to review were therefore reasonably accessible, and that they any of the other structures. On 30 January 2007 we demonstrated a reasonable cross-section of the 7 20 05-001) construction issues typical in the area. We pressed the 8 Promoter to visit these buildings because it seemed Committee(TOWHLB-20 Ref: 05-002 A19,to Christ -005) Church Spitalfields (TOWHLB- clear to us that the scope of their settlement 9 CommitteeRupert Wheeler, Ref: A19, 9 June Various 2006 (TOWHLB-20 view of properties 05-006) in Spitalfields assessment report did not adequately reveal their 10 condition and the risks of damage from settlement. CommitteePrincelet Street Ref: (TOWHLB-20 A19, Correspondence 05-007) from CLRL to Mr Committee Ref: A19, Post visit review of Assessment—19 Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 275
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others appeared before the Committee again to demonstrate think, two or three of the 25, 30 or so listed buildings the inadequacy of their investigations, and pressed in the area that are within the lines of deviation, and once again for a proper assessment of the listed I will refer to those later on. They have not therefore buildings. The Promoter at that time basically replied recorded or appreciated the variety of construction to confirm that the Phase 3 reports he has already and structural defects inherent in many of these prepared are all he intends to prepare at this stage. structures, both arising from their original We believe that the Committee would not have asked construction and subsequent alterations and the Promoter to come back to the Committee in the deterioration over the last 300 years. autumn and demonstrate that an individual assessment has been made on each listed building if 3132. These subsequent alterations, which generally the Committee had been happy with the previous arise from the conversion of the original houses into reports. Subsequently there has been no action or commercial buildings, usually comprise removing attempt to carry out a proper assessment of an area structural elements that from an external inspection the Promoter acknowledges time and again is of a you might assume still remain. For example, in many highly sensitive nature. of the houses all internal structure was removed at th ground floor level, in the late nineteenth century 3123. We were therefore astonished to read that the generally, to form open factory space. The necessary Promoter has claimed in their response to the structural support to the upper floors that usually petitions dated 15 February this year that he has remained in residential use was often reinstated by established a detailed understanding of the historic the installation of a single cast iron column in the character and significance of the buildings concerned centre of a ground plan and sometimes on the in accordance with the criteria laid down in PPG15, basement as well; or otherwise they simply relied on and in particular identified any features of particular the strength of the original floor beams spanning architectural interest of sensitivity, for example between the party walls. delicate plasterwork and fine stucco mouldings.
3124. CHAIRMAN: What are you quoting from, 3133. The fragility of the building construction in the Mr Wheeler? area was highlighted in a letterth from the Ancient Monuments Society. The Ancient Monuments Society is a statutory consultee on listed building 3125. MR WHEELER: I am quoting from the matters. In this letter dated 24 May 2004 to Norman Promoter’s response to the petitions. Haste, who I think was the Chairman of Crossrail at the time, they confirm in the middle paragraph, “The 3126. CHAIRMAN: To your petition? th propensityth st to distortion11 and collapse is therefore infinitely greater with buildings of this form and age 3127. MR WHEELER: Yes. than would be the case for any structure in the 19 , 20 and 21 centuries”. 3128. CHAIRMAN: The trouble is that none of these things are ever paginated and it is impossible to find them! It probably relates to paragraphs 47 and 3134. In some instances the properties incorporate 48. complete buildings behind them, either self- contained or in the form of large extensions often built for religious or commercial uses. Many of these 3129. MR WHEELER: Yes. What we asked is how buildings have not been inspected or included within has he achieved this detailed understanding without the assessment simply because they cannot be seen entering the majority of these houses? The claim is from the street or accessed without going through the surely mistaken, and I shall demonstrate how buildings fronting the street. I will comment on this inadequate these reports are shortly. 12 later in connection with my second point that they have not produced reports on all the listed buildings 3130. This presentation essentially is to make two in the area. points: firstly, the assessments that have been carried out have been shown to be inadequate and incomplete; and, secondly, the Promoter has not 3135. Let me give you some examples of what has produced individual reports for all the listed been missed. The next slide shows an extract from the buildings in the area contrary to his claim. Phase 3 report for the houses 17-25 Wilkes Street which, if you recall Counsel’s map at the beginning of 3131. My first point that the assessments carried out 11 have been shown to be inadequate and incomplete, Monuments Society to CLR, 24 May 2004 (TOWHLB-20 05- 008) this is simply because they have not been inside a 12 Committee Ref: A19, Correspondence from Ancient great many of the buildings. They have been inside, I Assessments, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20 05-009) Committee Ref: A19, 17—25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
276 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others 13 this session, runs directly over both sets of tunnels at and if they are not briefed to go into the properties or right-angles to the tunnels. even around the back, as you can do here because this photograph was taken from the Puma Court public 3136. The description given at the bottom of the page alleyway, they are not going to able to make any refers only to the front elevation and talks about the reasonable assessment of these structures. I stress the windows, shutters, stone dressings, spalling to the word “structures”. You can get the appearance from brickwork, cracking below windowsills and other the outside but you have to go inside to get the true things that can be seen from the street, basically attic character of the structure. dormers and chimneystacks. Not surprisingly, therefore, the description of what is called 3140. The trouble with this process is that these “significant and potentially vulnerable features” historic building assessments are then treated as fact comprises only elements visible from the street—no and they are handed on to Mott MacDonald so that mention of any internal layout or features at all as if they can assess the likely eVects of the tunnelling and they do not matter. Frankly, in estate agent circles consequent subsidence on these buildings. As a result this is what they call a “second gear survey”; second of maybe issues about mistaking the height of these gear being the gear you need to engage as you drive buildings, for example, they conclude that the height past the house to make your survey. of the structure is ten metres, when in fact it is at least 15 metres; 50 per cent higher again. 3137. Then they get to the technical bit at the bottom 16 entitled “Foundations”. Likely construction: they 3141. They have at a stroke reduced the height of refer to “corbelled brick strip footings approximately these buildings by nearly two storeys. Let us have a 2.0-2.5m below road level” and that is it. That is the look at the next drawing. This is a scale drawing of sum total of the assessment; the end of the historic I think 21 Wilkes Street and the basement is at the building assessment. In fact you wondered why they bottom of the picture here (indicating) and if you go needed anything less than third gear really. right up to the top of the roof you get to a figure higher than 15 metres, but it is certainly not ten 3138. This is an historic building assessment by what metres. This is a matter of consequence when you is reputed to be one of the expert consultants in the consider how these buildings will move. Professor land. I have demonstrated how superficial it is but it Mair will explain hogging and troughs and things like is so cursory, I am afraid, they have not even14 got the that. A building like this if it is on the hogging number of storeys on the buildings correct. The basically divides the degree of settlement, the parting height is described as being three storeys with cellars of the parting walls, as it were, get more pronounced and weavers’ attics15 to numbers 19, 23 and 25. There the further up the building you go, so to mistake their are actually weavers’ attics to numbers 17 and 21 as height so dramatically we believe may have serious well. You will see this from the two photographs that consequences. It is certainly a bad mistake. follow this slide. This is number 17 with its weaver’s attic; and this is 19 where they acknowledge there was 3142. Let me describe a few other things that they a weaver’s attic; and this is 21 with a very fine have missed. To the rear of number 17 is an old weaver’s attic, which does not appear in the synagogue, a two-storey gallery structure. You can assessment; and these are 23 and 25. The next slide see the lantern light here, not awfully prepossessing shows the backs of these buildings—five weavers’ from outside but it has been17 in commercial use for a attics, the most notable feature in the area really, long time, a two-storey galleried space supported on unique to have five almost matching attics. These five cast iron columns and apparently one of the first houses were built at the same time. synagogues in the country. It incorporates many of the characteristics, although not the scale, of the 3139. Alan Baxter has a very good reputation in the synagogue at number 19 that we saw earlier on at 19 area. Indeed their practice has done a lot of work on Princelet Street, that was reassessed as being at a historic buildings in the area. I think it is fair to say greater risk as a result of the previously mentioned that a lot of the locals, who also count him as a friend, selective internal inspections that we encouraged the were actually very relieved that he was assisting Promoter to make. This building is just not Crossrail in this matter; but clearly their brief, I mentioned at all in the Promoter’s assessment. The believe, is inadequate. They do not have X-ray eyes, basement of this house, incidentally, the house
13 fronting on to the street, is reported to have collapsed Assessments, Historic Buildings & Features, Mott MacDonald into a stream not so long ago running under the (TOWHLB-20 05-010) building, a reminder that the area is well known for 14 Committee Ref: A19, 17—25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building Assessments, General Description, Mott MacDonald 16 (TOWHLB-20 05-011) E1 (TOWHLB-20 05-014) 15 Committee Ref: A19, 17—25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building 17 (TOWHLB-20 05-012 and -013) LondonCommittee E1(TOWHLB-20 Ref: A19, Scale drawing05-015) of 21 Wilkes Street, London Committee Ref: A19, Weaver’s attics, Wilkes Street, London E1 Committee Ref: A19, View of the rear of 17 Wilkes Street, Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 277
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others being riddled with underground waterways and wells you are reasonably sure that they will suVer no and, of course, this is the reason it was chosen as the further movement and cracking. site of the Truman Brewery. There were a lot of other local breweries in competition at the time in the area. 3145. The Promoter’s analysis or Mott MacDonald’s Number 19, next to number 17, is entirely analysis suggests, if you look at their settlement underpinned with concrete footings and has a diagrams, that this parting wall here (indicating) lowered basement floor, the only house treated in this which I think is between 21 and 23, will subside by way in this part of the terrace and therefore about 18 millimetres. I might not have got this exact, guaranteed to move and settle diVerently to its I am transposing from the small-scale diagrams in neighbour. This diVerential settlement, which I will Mott MacDonald’s report. The wall this other side is refer to later, is a very critical issue and it is not further over the tunnel and that will subside by about commented on in these assessments at all. 24 millimetres. The maximum subsidence in the terrace is 26 or 27 but that occurs to the property next 3143. Number 21 remains entirely in its original 18th door. This wall will go down further than this wall. century panelled form on the upper floors, the next What that means in respect of this tensile member page, but was gutted at the ground floor in the 19th18 here, we think that this one will start to sag and this century and converted to a furriers’ factory and at the one might be stretched to breaking point. We really basement levels to form factory space before being do not know. This detail has gone back to the returned to residential use some ten years ago. It engineer who devised it for an opinion on the matter, therefore has no original rear wall at basement and but we really think Crossrail or Mott MacDonald ground floor level, but now has instead a two-storey ought to be considering this sort of issue because if glazed screen of full height sliding glass panels. I this snaps, then the consequences are too frightening believe this panel here is slid open and you can see up to bear really. It is this kind of fine engineering that the garden up to the house. The very slightest has gone on in these houses that does not appear in settlement will render this construction useless. This any of these assessments and, of course, they are not apparent when you look at the front wall of the is a good example of one of these houses where the 20 internal structure of the building, the internal timber buildings. structure of the building within the four brick outer walls rests entirely on a single cast iron post in the 3146. This is a slide which shows the same principle. basement. Cast iron is extremely brittle and flexible This is a site protection of buildings publication that and is a bit of a frightening prospect for tunnelers. gives guidance on these appropriate techniques, so You will see that a lot of these buildings do contain a they are quite sophisticated conservation techniques. lot of cast iron within them. There is another one here that has been done on some of the other houses in the area where you have to 3144. This building has been restored from a near reinforce them in the other direction and you derelict state but almost all the historic internal carefully drill through all the joists and do the same timber structure was retained even though sort of turnbuckle at the end and then you can considerably distorted. With respect to main floor tension them up as well and that helps brace the floor so that you can reinstate the partitions on top of the beams, this has been done19 by carefully tensioning the old timber beams with steel rods tensioned by a floors. These are details used by Alan Baxter, I hasten turnbuckle. This is a sketch of what went on in to add as well, on buildings in the area. They should number 21 Wilkes Street. This is a floor beam and know about this sort of stuV and they should be this is accurately drawn with the height in terms of aware that these buildings contain these sorts of deflection in the middle. Rather than push this beam technology. up when you come to repair and make the house fit for human habitation again, you fix some steel rods 3147. If I carry on down the street, number 23—next21 from the top at either end underneath the middle and slide, please—includes another completely self- back up to the top at the other end, then with this contained dwelling in the rear garden of the original turnbuckle, which is a screw thread thing you see on historic --- This is of original historic construction. boats. You wind that up and you tension that beam It is a listed building. It is not connected to number so that not to raise it up, but just to stabilise it and 23 at the front, but it is another building that the take the springiness out of all the floors. Once you Promoter has completely missed and it has some have done this, then you can proceed to repair the quite nice old timber trusses inside it and cast iron panelling, the cornices and the plaster work because as well.
18 20 London E1 (TOWHLB-20 05-016) 20 05-018) 19 21 Street,Committee London Ref: E1 A19, (TOWHLB-20 View of the 05-017) rear of 21 Wilkes Street, (TOWHLB-20Committee Ref: 05-019) A19, Floor beam strengthening (TOWHLB- Committee Ref: A19, Floor beam strengthening—21 Wilkes Committee Ref: A19, Rear view of 23 Wilkes Street, London E1 Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
278 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3148. The next one, number 25, I do not have a slide years after the original build, but it is of note and it is number for 25, but the history of 25 demonstrates of suYcient note to mention quite an extensive what happens when work is undertaken without mention in the survey of London. It is one further suYcient analysis of the historic fabric. While this indication of the superficial nature of these Phase 3 property was being converted back to residential use assessments, that the presence of a great many of the some 23 years ago the entire front wall of the building internal features of the buildings in Spitalfields can from the first floor up came loose and crashed down simply be revealed by reading the listed building into the street. This is exactly what the Historic descriptions of the properties. Monuments Society were talking about, the front walls are very rarely eVectively bonded to the parting 3152. CHAIRMAN: I was going to ask you about walls. I am sure you have heard evidence on this sort that because if these are listed buildings there will be of thing before, but it is a very familiar problem and a description of the elements that have caused them in this instance it simply gave way as a result of work to be listed. happening elsewhere in the house. They were not planning to do any work on the front wall at all, there 3153. MR WHEELER: Yes, that is true. were repairs going on elsewhere in the house and something moved, something shook and the front 3154. CHAIRMAN: What about 1 Fournier Street, wall came oV. If I could go on to another example. I does it mention the ceilings and so on? will not go through many more examples but let me mention one more. 3155. MR WHEELER: Yes, I believe it does.
3149. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, we have got a 3156. CHAIRMAN: You have not got them with picture of 25, is that before or after this happened? you.
3150. MR WHEELER: That is after, yes. It appears 3157. MR WHEELER: I have not got them. I have in that photograph I showed you but you may be spoken to the owners of the building who have not referring to another picture. It was rebuilt 23 years seen the listed buildings. ago and you will see it has slightly redder brickwork as a result, but they did a nice job of it. 3158. CHAIRMAN: But they are public documents, are they not?
3151. Another clear22 example that demonstrates that the Promoter has made no eVort to record the 3159. MR WHEELER: Yes, they are. They refer to internal features, if I could refer to page 216 of Alan the fireplaces, the staircases, the ceilings in the listed Baxter’s reports. It is a shame you cannot see the top building description. It is also referred to in the of it. This is right next to the Ten Bells. The report is relevant sections of the Survey of London which on a pair of buildings, this one you see here describes, as I say, the ceiling that I have just (indicating) and the one to the right. This is another mentioned and that is available in any good local example that demonstrates that the Promoters made London library. I will not take you through any more no eVort to record internal features contrary to his of the reports, but I assure you that the inadequacies recent claims. Again, the listed building assessment are apparent and the ones I have described are only refers to features of the front elevation and very repeated throughout most of them. It was not our briefly at that as well, only three lines of it, and, intention to carry out the detailed survey, I think that therefore, misses a whole host of very fine internal obviously is the responsibility of the Promoter, but features, some so dramatic that they can be seen from we did intend to highlight the fact that these Phase 3 the street. There are some very elaborate gilded reports are inadequate and not of the standard plastered ceilings on the first floor of this building, required by PPG15 or, indeed, claimed by the recently been rather overly gilded, frankly, but they Promoter. are genuinely historic and very fine. The ceiling of the first floor of number one, these two houses really do 3160. A further significant consequence of not contain some remarkable work. You can see the inspecting the interiors of the buildings is revealed if wider width and they really are quite grand and are you take a closer look at the range of reports for this full of the most elaborate panelling and also area. It would seem that the Promoter did get access decorative plasterwork which does not occur very to about three out of the 30 or so properties often in Georgian buildings, it is something that came inspected, although we have no knowledge of how along a bit later and this ceiling did follow 20 or 30 these were selected and we believe the owners of two
22 of the ones I am going to mention were not aware that Assessments, Historic Buildings & Features, Mott MacDonald the internal inspections had taken place. These are (TOWHLB-20 05-020) numbers 3, 5 and 25 Princelet Street; they are the ones Committee Ref: A19, 1—3 Fournier Street, Listed Building Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 279
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others that we do have some internal evidence for on the where no internal inspections have been made, let me reports. Although these are not the finest houses in go to the next slide, number 246 in the Historic the area by any means, they nevertheless exhibit a Building Assessments, this is the terrace of five good range of the typical internal features found in houses I took you through earlier on in my most of the properties and these are duly noted in the presentation. They have probably a finer range of reports. It is pages 305 and 426. 23 houses than numbers 3 to 5 with nice phrases, but they recorded a “more assertive piano nobile”, taller 3161. This is the report for 3 to 5 Princelet Street. proportions, much grander door cases, very much Just look at the list of interior features there. If you more extensive internal panelling and together form recall, the list of interior features in a very much finer a very fine and unique terrace. However, no internal house that we have just looked at 1 to 3 Fournier inspection, the properties therefore score zero for Street, well there were not any interior features listed special and vulnerable features simply because Alan in that assessment, my point is there were only three Baxter Associates were not able to gain access to features mentioned at all and they were all external, inspect the interior. As a result of this they score only but here it is a better list of the interior features. It one under the Phase 3 assessments. talks about panelling and boxed cornicing, the details of the staircases, panelling on some of the stairwells, 3163. CHAIRMAN: Are these listed buildings too? first floor panelling, original roof timbers, halls with moulded architraves and keystone, actually that does 3164. MR WHEELER: Yes, very much so. not mention anything on the outside, apart from the attic with the windows on the two elevations. Maybe 3165. CHAIRMAN: What does the description in the reason it does not mention anything on the the list say? outside is that the frontage of this building was rebuilt in the 19th century which is why the windows 3166. MR WHEELER: The description in the list are set back rather more than its neighbours, but refers to panelling, dog-leg staircases, turned newel access was gained inside and I note it is quite fulsome posts and refers to internal features in the attics. by comparison with the others. 24 Wilkes Street will be covered, 17 to 25 will obviously be covered by five diVerent listings but they do refer 3162. Number 25, the next one, has been a near to internal features. building site for many years now. It is in a very poor condition, although it is lived in. The internal 3167. Again, this terrace is also well-documented in description here is very brief, original chimney breast the Survey of London and27 I believe it has quite a fine survives, some original panelling survives, there are a drawing of it as well. Take down a building such as 4 few photographs of the internal staircase later on in Princelet Street, if we could move on, this is right their report. It is very brief but at least there is one. opposite numbers 3 to 5. It is well-known from These assessments then have now been issued to Mott countless period TV blockbusters, photo shoots MacDonald and in both instances, and on the basis adverts and so on. It is intensely used as a film of entirely diVerent criteria for these two properties location and has an extraordinary range of historic from the historical building assessments for these two detail and fabric generally preserved in an original properties, both have been awarded one point for the and fairly delicate state. Let us just run through these presence of special and vulnerable features. This then photographs. Can I go back to the front, please? It upgrades their score under the Phase 3 assessment25 does not have the original windows, actually, except scoring to two points. If you look at the next two on the ground floor, but due to various generations slides, one for 3 and 5, you see here (indicating) of alterations to the frontage, this bit of the elevation special and vulnerable features, it scores one26 point. is one of the reasons it appears in so many photo- The next slide, the next building, and the same for shoots, which see Kate Moss and Sharon Stone, and really a fairly limited range of original features in a all sorts of people, posing in front of this old very bad condition, it still scores one point. If you plasterwork. This is very delicate stuV; even if it has compare that with the buildings in Wilkes Street that fallen oV recently. The owner does very well to keep we looked at, and indeed the one in Fournier Street, it as intact as he28 does. Let us go inside. 23 Assessments, Historic Buildings & Features, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20 05-021) 3168. These next few photographs show the interior 24 Committee Ref: A19, 3—5 Princelet Street, Listed Building of the building. It is part of the address of No 4 Assessments, Historic Buildings & Features, Mott MacDonald Princelet Street, but is a pretty self-contained (TOWHLB-20 05-023) 25 Committee Ref: A19, 25 Princelet Street, Listed Building 27 Assessments, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20 05-022) 20 05-027) 26 28 Assessments,Committee Ref: Mott A19, MacDonald 3—5 Princelet (TOWHLB-20 Street, Listed05-024) Building (TOWHLB-20Committee Ref: 05-028 A19, to View -034) of 4 Princelet Street (TOWHLB- Committee Ref: A19, 25 Princelet Street, Listed Building Committee Ref: A19, Interior views of 4 Princelet Street Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
280 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others building out the back of 4 Princelet Street. Carry on selected, always assuming that the Promoter if you could, please. generally did take account of the sensitive nature of the area, as he claims. 3169. CHAIRMAN: They look like being cast-iron columns. 3174. I have been generally referring to the Historic Building Assessments carried out by Alan Baxter 3170. MR WHEELER: This is another cast-iron Associates, but we have also received advice from column down in the basement here. Basements are various structural engineers engaged in the repair of quite deep, actually—about three metres these the listed buildings in the area that raise more basements. This is a building to the back of 4 technical concerns, arising from shortcomings in the Princelet Street that has not been inspected at all. As engineering analysis carried out by Mott you see, it contains elements that any tunnelling MacDonald. These concerns are as follows: firstly, engineer would really want to know about. there is no information on what analytical model they have used. 3171. Carry on through these. Still in the back building. I think the other photographs show some of 3175. CHAIRMAN: Have we got any of this written the original features. This is quite a notable panelled down anywhere? room. It has very large panels; a lot of the panels are rather narrower. You have to be quite clever to build 3176. MR WHEELER: I have it in this panels this wide with such wide planks of timber and presentation, which I am happy to leave. tongue-and-groove, and so on. It has a bit of a later plaster staircase, but an absolute delight for a whole 3177. CHAIRMAN: You do not tell us where it is. range of really original and beautifully cared for We do want to follow you. It would be a great help if features. If we just spin through the rest of the you could tell us where we find these things. photographs, there are interesting decorations as well—solid oak doors—some very fine features 3178. MR WHEELER: You would like to see some indeed. of the—I am sorry, I am trying to guess ahead and see if what I am about to mention would be written down 3172. I just also point out, actually, if you recall the anywhere and what actually we have gained by external elevation, you saw the shutters were open; talking to the owners of the buildings and the these shutters stay open all the time; the property Petitioners that I represent. If any of this needs to be constantly advertises its use as a filming location, and justified by the engineers that we have spoken to, then there are usually crowds of people looking through I can undertake to do that. the windows on Sundays and so on. So it is rather surprising that when Alan Baxter come to talk about 3179. CHAIRMAN: For the moment, Mr Wheeler, the interior in29 their report (second bullet point from what we have got is what I have got: your Petition. I the bottom), they talk about “panelled rooms, have looked at paragraphs 47 and 48 of that, which cornices, timber staircases and balustrades is where this matter is raised. I have got the collection (assumed)”. Why “assumed”? However, having30 of documents with a picture of Christ Church on the made that assumption, Mott MacDonald, obviously, front. That is all. read the “assumed” bit, and guess what it scores? It scores zero for special and vulnerable features. 3180. MR WHEELER: That is all there is, other Presumably, again, because no internal inspection than what I am presenting today. was made, and as this exhibit confirms, it scores zero, and, as a result, it scores 1 under the Phase 3 3181. CHAIRMAN: Right, but you now want to assessments. talk about structural engineering.
3173. This, then, is the information passed on to 3182. MR WHEELER: I do not think I am going to Mott MacDonald in order that they might assess the get as technical as, maybe, you fear. likely impact of damage on these buildings and all subsequent decision-making follows this flawed and 3183. CHAIRMAN: I am not fearing anything; I incomplete analysis. This decision-making, of course, simply want to be able to follow what you say. We would then include the selection of the route, or at all do. least the assessment of the route once it has been 29 3184. MR WHEELER: Okay, then I will leave out Assessments, Historic Buildings & Features, Mott MacDonald the bit about analytical models because I have to (TOWHLB-20 05-025) 30 Committee Ref: A19, 2 and 4 Princelet Street, Listed Building admit that I do not fully understand it myself. I am Assessments, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20 05-026) passing on concerns raised by engineers who have Committee Ref: A19, 2 and 4 Princelet Street, Listed Building Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 281
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others worked on some of the buildings in these streets that 3193. MR MOULD: Quite. belong to the Petitioners I represent. This is one of the: “Ask them this, if you would, please, Mr 3194. CHAIRMAN: I am not trying to be diYcult Wheeler”. As I say, I do not understand analytical about this. We need to follow what you say. models. I doubt anyone else (other than Mr Berryman) in the room would understand it either. I 3195. MR WHEELER: I have a copy that you can am happy to leave that point. I have oVered to leave see here, but can I mention one very pertinent point? this text with your recorder, once I have finished with What I am about to read—this whole page, in fact— it, to help with some of these technical expressions. is exactly the same presentation to the Commons Select Committee whenever it was, last June. 3185. CHAIRMAN: If you are going to read it out, is it capable of being put up on the screen? 3196. CHAIRMAN: It may well be, but this is a diVerent Committee in a diVerent House. 3186. MR WHEELER: That is a good idea; yes, we could do that. 3197. MR WHEELER: Yes, the point I am making is that it has been available in exactly this form to 3187. CHAIRMAN: Page by page, so the Crossrail for the last year-and-a-half. Committee can follow what you are saying. 3198. CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but it is not available to us. 3188. MR WHEELER: Okay. I have a second copy. 3199. MR WHEELER: I appreciate that, and on 3189. MR MOULD: My Lord, I wonder if I might that basis I would be happy to put this up on the suggest that it would help all of us if, at a convenient screen. Thank you for your forbearance. moment, we had copies made of Mr Wheeler’s speech, which he has in front of him, if he is happy for 3200. Along with, I dare say, an awful lot of the that to happen, because your Lordships would then, Petitioners and Agents, we are not wholly conversant obviously, have that in front of them and be able to with the conventions. We had passed the copies of all refer to it in detail. Also, the specific questions that he the evidence that we thought you did need to see to has raised and which I anticipate, so far as we are able your Clerks yesterday, which has provided these to do so, your Lordships would welcome assistance bundles, but I was not aware that it was to include the from us upon, we would then have those in front of content of our text—our oral presentation. us and we can deal with that. I do not promise we will deal with it straightaway, depending on the 3201. CHAIRMAN: Is this part of your technicality of it, but we can certainly take them away presentation? and provide an answer as soon as possible. 3202. MR WHEELER: Yes, it is. 3190. CHAIRMAN: You have never seen them before? 3203. CHAIRMAN: Right. It is, obviously, substantially technical. 3191. MR MOULD: No. This is one of the diYculties that we have; everything that you have 3204. MR WHEELER: It is. been hearing, really, relates to detailed questions and concerns about aspects of the settlement assessment 3205. CHAIRMAN: We have to understand it. We that has been carried out to date. It is much easier if have, after all, to do our job, which is to report to these matters are shared with us and then we can look Parliament. at them and see whether there is anything we need to do in response to them. To hear them, essentially, for 3206. MR WHEELER: Yes. I think, obviously, all the first time in an oral presentation to your parties—us as Petitioners and your Lordships as our Lordships’ House this morning is, perhaps, not the representatives—need to rely on the technical most eVective way of taking things forward. There it evidence because neither of us fully understand a is. What I will do, when I have this document, is do great many of these engineering issues. So I our best to provide the answers we can as soon as we sympathise with your point. We struggle to can to the specific points raised. understand an awful lot of what is proposed to happen in the Spitalfields area, but that is why we are 3192. CHAIRMAN: This is the point of providing asking these technical questions, because we need the copies of the documents in advance, which I answers in a form that can be understood by the man mentioned yesterday. in the street—if I can put it like that. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
282 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3207. The first point here is that there is no 3218. CHAIRMAN: If you have a terrace of ancient information on what analytical model they have houses going across at right angles, say, to a used, nor the data and assumptions that have been settlement trough, the ones on the edge will get tensile made in their input to that model As it stands, all we strains, the ones on the slope may get none, the ones have to go on is a table of results, giving predicted at the bottom might get compressive strains, and then settlements, strains and the likely severity of damage, so on up the other side. Therefore, there will be a which is usually defined in terms of “negligible” and diVerent sort of strain for each of the houses in the “slight” and so on. terrace.
3208. CHAIRMAN: Where are those? 3219. MR WHEELER: You get my point entirely. That is exactly what we find rather alarming. We 3209. MR WHEELER: Those appear at the bottom have right at the beginning of this piece, many years of every page of the Mott MacDonald report. ago, attended a seminar or a meeting with Professor Mair, who I believe is talking tomorrow, who 3210. CHAIRMAN: No, they do not. There is explained these consequences of tunnelling to us, and nothing about “strains”. so we do understand that. My house, for example, sits in the bottom of the trough, so I am actually quite 3211. MR WHEELER: I was referring to the relaxed about the compressive strain, because I think predicted settlements, yes. Is there nothing about the building will deal with that. It is the tensile ones strains? that really cause the problems, and as you go up the buildings, of course, it does that (indicating), does it 3212. CHAIRMAN: I have not seen anything. not? That is why we are so alarmed that they miscalculate the height of the buildings and do not 3213. MR WHEELER: If we may leave the issue of refer to these sorts of procedures as they make these strains aside ---- reports.
3214. CHAIRMAN: We have now found one in 3220. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I entirely understand that, relation to 25 Wilkes Street. but we have not got very much information about it so far. 3215. MR WHEELER: The next item, two: even if the predicted degree of settlement is accepted it is not 3221. MR WHEELER: I quite agree. I have clear how they have used this to predict a likely crack forgotten where I was! This would have the result width in a particular property. Three: they have given that movement and cracking at high levels is likely to a prediction of maximum strain in the buildings of be considerably more than the 0.1 of a millimetre that 0.024%, but have not stated where this occurs in the they predict (which I think is the point you are building. This is the strain that is likely to occur at the making). It is actually very diYcult to predict and foundation and subsoil interface, and will in fact be there is no substance for their current prediction. magnified up through the building, as a result of the hogging component of the settlement wave, for example. That is what I was referring to, your 3222. There is a severe lack of tensile resistance within Lordships, when I was talking about the Wilkes the buildings due to the lack of bonding of cross- Street properties and the importance of at least walls, the presence of lime mortar and the poor gauging exactly how high the buildings are, because bearing of often rotted timbers on supporting walls the higher you get the greater the settlement will be or on rotted wall plates. This means that any apparent. movement would have serious consequences for the buildings, requiring extensive remedial works and 3216. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, there are two repairs, and of course the risk of collapse referred to separate sorts of strains; there are tensile strains and in the letter from the Ancient Monuments Society to there are compressive strains. It depends where, on Norman Haste of Crossrail on 24 May, 2004. the curve of the settlement trough, the building stands which of these will occur. I do not think we 3223. They have taken no account of any of the have got any information about this at all. numerous structural alterations that have occurred over the last 300 years since these buildings were first 3217. MR WHEELER: That is correct. It is partly built. This has frequently involved the insertion of because, I believe, the buildings have been treated cast iron structural elements, both columns and individually and not as a whole—not as a terrace. beams, the removal of much internal structure and, They look at them as a series of individual buildings, more recently, the underpinning and piling of not as a terrace. foundations in connection with the change of use and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 283
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others extension of many of these properties as they are 3227. CHAIRMAN: I think, in fact, it depends how converted back to family homes. close the two tunnels are together.
3224. Can I just take that diagram you were 3228. MR WHEELER: Yes, that does aVect the describing, my Lord, of the terrace settling into a degree of settlement, but I think, also (I have to trough? If you then put very rigid elements, like remember back to our lecture from Professor Mair), concrete-tanked basement underpinning the tunnels together do create a single sort of foundations (which is usually mass concrete, a metre basement. The profile of that basement, if you like, deep and a metre wide, and so on) and very rigid changes though as they go through at separate times. elements like columns and beams and cast-iron So there is an initial movement, there is a second framed structures like you find at No 19 Princelet movement and then they settle to a more even Street; if you put these very rigid elements into that settlement. The alarming thing was that it was rather picturesque profile that we all assume nice old explained that the bulk of it will happen within a houses will settle into, you completely disrupt that week of the tunnels coming under the houses, but it pattern of settlement. That is what worries us so then carries on settling for years thereafter. It is the greatly about the lack of internal inspections: that the initial week that really frightens a lot of people who tunnellers and engineers do not know what they are have those sort of tensile structures that you saw in going to have to deal with. I struggle to see how my earlier presentation, who, frankly, wonder: do Crossrail manages to define the risk and define its they need to move out while the tunnels are coming liabilities or actually define the costs arising from the underneath? It would be interesting to hear what the mitigation or the remedial measures it is going to Promoter’s advice is on that, actually. Anyhow, that have to make to solve those problems when they is the end of the technical bit. I think all the above occur. clearly demonstrates that these original assessments are inadequate; certainly inadequate for the purposes of this project. 3225. The reports treat all these buildings individually, or in small groups and pairs, completely 3229. My second point is that the Promoter has not ignoring the fact that they share party wall structures, produced individual reports for all the listed take support oV each other, overlap occasionally buildings in the area. I can be quite brief on this with flying freeholds (that happens quite a bit), share because I have referred to a number of them during roof structures, and so on. Wilkes Street, for my presentation. I referred earlier to the fact that example, is not a collection of individual buildings these assessments have been restricted to only those but a continuous terrace of about 100 metres long of buildings visible from the public highway. The buildings built, rebuilt and adapted over 300 years Promoter claims in his response to the Select and now comprises all manner of structures and Committee’s Interim Decisions dated 11 October foundation systems. 2006 “that an individual report for all listed buildings in the Spitalfields area has been produced”. 3226. The Promoter explains that the middle bits will sink about 27 millimetres and the end bits will sink 3230. Further analysis of their settlement assessment about 10 millimetres. The eVect of the diVerential reports reveals that this is not so. For example, settlement due to varying structural systems, varying detached buildings to the rear of numbers 3, 5, 7 and ground conditions and the uneven settlement 9 Princelet Street and to the rear of 13, 23 and 25 predicted by the Promoter makes it virtually Wilkes Street have not been inspected, and large and impossible to make an accurate prediction of the architecturally notable extensions to properties such damage that will be caused by the tunnelling. Add to as 4 Princelet Street (of which I showed you some this one further complication, which is that the two photographs earlier) have also been missed, and, of tunnels will be bored at diVerent times, therefore the course, the synagogue to the rear of number 17 ground will go up and down twice, as the tunnelling Wilkes Street. machines pass through the area and you will understand why we feel that the results of these Phase 3231. The details of these properties were contained 3 reports are so misleading. We have already spoken in our earlier presentation to the Commons Select about the way it sinks in the middle, but the alarming Committee and they, at the time, asked that we thing is that as the tunnels come through, the ground provide these details to the Promoter. They were actually slightly rises, it passes on, it then drops provided to Mr Mounty, who was in post at the time, down, and the next one comes through right next to as requested by the Committee, and I believe the it and the ground rises again, passes on and it drops reason they requested that is they clearly expected the down. So these buildings are actually being asked to Promoter to make good these inadequacies and move four times. inspect these other parts, areas, of individual listed Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
284 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others buildings. We believe that has still not been done, and 3233. CHAIRMAN: It may be deemed to be granted that is why we say that we feel that the original in the Bill. assessments are not complete. 3234. MR WHEELER: I understand that, yes, which I think is why it is so important to consider it 3232. MR WHEELER: To recap, first, the carefully now, yes. assessments that have been carried out have been shown to be inadequate and incomplete and, 3235. CHAIRMAN: I quite agree. secondly, the Promoter has not produced individual reports for all the listed buildings in the area, contrary to his claim. The Promoter has 3236. MR WHEELER: The conclusions we draw acknowledged on many occasions Spitalfields is from the above evidence is three-fold. That the environmentally a very sensitive area. It has never reports acknowledge that damage will occur that is taken the trouble to assess just how sensitive it is or negligible, slight or moderate; in truth we have to quantify it in any meaningful way. The Phase 3 demonstrated that these reports cannot be relied reports have all been produced in respect of the upon; that the Promoter entirely misses the point of historic fabric of the area and we have demonstrated damage and loss of fabric to historic buildings is very clearly how incomplete and incorrect and, irreversible. You can repair it and you can replicate therefore, how inadequate they are. I understand that it, but you cannot recover it. Once lost it is gone forever. This is precisely why these buildings are this Bill is the equivalent of the Promoter applying for protected. It is also why a lot of local people and planning permission or, in the case of the historians and so on do get so agitated about it aforementioned buildings, listed building consent for because they were so nearly lost and they should, the works that will so aVect these historic structures. therefore, not be subjected to any amount of stress The reports prepared to date come absolutely and settlement. nowhere near complying with the scope of detail required for historic building assessments, required by planning authorities to accompany such 3237. Thirdly, that the choice of the base route has applications, and they wilfully understate the been based on incomplete and incorrect evidence. condition and the fragility of these buildings. The The original Crossrail route passed up to Allen extent of such assessments is set out in government Gardens and avoided the historic buildings of guidance entitled “PPG 15” and requires a detailed Spitalfields both to the west and the east of the route, understanding of the historic character and but this later route now loops around to aim at the significance of the building concerned. The Promoter very heart of the historic area even though the undertook to carry out internal inspection and has original stated reason for this that they needed to claimed that he has established a detailed connect to the spoil adit serving the tunnelling shaft understanding of the historic character and in Hanbury Street no longer applies. significance of the buildings concerned in accordance, as he says here, with the criteria laid 3238. The latter point, I believe, is the most down in PPG 15 and, in particular, identified any fundamental. There is no reason why there should be features of architectural interest or sensitivity, for any risk to the historic area if the Promoter is genuine example delicate plasterwork and fine stucco in his desire to achieve the quickest, most cost- mouldings. It interestingly refers to obviously what eVective, most buildable and most environmentally are internal features in that comment, but he has friendly route. You will hear petitions from others in clearly not done so. The Promoter has claimed in the Spitalfields area that demonstrate there are better earlier evidence that PPG 15 does not apply because routes available to the Promoter and that the they are not proposing to alter the buildings, but then selection of the current base route is ill-advised and they acknowledge these buildings will be aVected by possibly unlawful. settlement and in the case of 19 Princelet Street, for example, they have confirmed they will be carrying 3239. CHAIRMAN: We are going to have to look out structural alterations and bracing by inserting for a natural break because there is coVee available, steelwork into the building and this will most I do not know whether this is it? certainly require a listed building consent unless, of course, the Promoter is in a position where such consents are waived, I am not sure of the conventions 3240. MR WHEELER: This is the last page. on that issue, but if it were a private or building owner for example, that sort of work would definitely 3241. CHAIRMAN: The last page, we will finish require listed building consent. that. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 285
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3242. MR WHEELER: It seems to the residents way for convenience of the Committee to avoid who I represent that the Promoter cares a lot less repetition as I previously explained. about the listed buildings and the historic environment of our city than he does about the 3246. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, through you, development potential of various sites on the city could I request that the text of these various fringe. Furthermore, the Promoter has pursued a assurances and undertakings that you all would like route that is demonstrably more circuitous, to see are handed in pretty soon because otherwise it seemingly to protect these commercial interests as no is not going to be possible for the Promoter to other reason is apparent and to the detriment of the respond to them. speed of operation, passenger comfort and safety, and the cost of both construction and future 3247. MR WHEELER: Sure, I will do that. maintenance and, of course, to the detriment of the Spitalfields area. The base route has therefore been chosen on the basis of inadequate analysis to follow 3248. CHAIRMAN: You do not want to miss the a safeguarded route for a failed and fundamentally opportunity when the Promoters are here dealing diVerent project on a tunnelling strategy that has with your case to hear what it is they have to say been abandoned and on criteria for a shaft site that about these things. are no longer relevant. This is surely contrary to best practice, contrary to the strategy adopted by all other 3249. MR WHEELER: Yes, I only hesitate because recent large-scale tunnel projects in the country, I wonder how soon “soon” needs to be. contrary to the best interests of the project itself and contrary to the public interest and, therefore, 3250. CHAIRMAN: The first thing that is going to possibly illegal. happen when you come back from coVee is I am going to ask Mr Mould if he wants to ask you any questions. He probably will not but he may want to 3243. MR WHEELER: Returning to the issue of call evidence and in the course of that he may want to listed buildings, I will end my presentation with a deal with this thing you are asking for. request for a simple undertaking. That is that all listed and historic buildings undergo an accurate and comprehensive individual inspection and assessment 3251. MR WHEELER: During the break can I in accordance with the guidelines of PPG 15, enquire as to how soon those undertakings can be got including internal issues, now and not once work has for you? started, to determine the settlement impact and mitigation measures, first, for the long-term 3252. CHAIRMAN: It is entirely in your hands. If protection of the individual buildings that are you want them properly attended to, the sooner aVected and, secondly, to give a clear idea of the everybody has them the better, but I cannot ask you likely impact of the Promoter’s preferred route under any time limit because it must be a matter for alignment on the historic fabric of the area and, you and we cannot put pressure on you to produce thirdly, in support of a proper analysis of the best documents you have not already got. route east out of Liverpool Street Station. Can you please assure us that we will not all be ignored --- I 3253. MR WHEELER: I will do my best to get hold had crossed out the word “misled” in this of them immediately. presentation. 3254. CHAIRMAN: It would be very helpful. Shall 3244. CHAIRMAN: Especially as it is misspelt. we adjourn for a quarter of an hour until five to 12.
After a short break 3245. MR WHEELER: That is why. Please give your assurance that we will not all be ignored yet again by Crossrail, and that the Promoter will now 3255. CHAIRMAN: I think we had better go on. Mr undertake the issues of settlement and the potential Mould, what do you want to do about this? damage to the historic fabric of our area of the city seriously. I have asked for that specific undertaking, 3256. MR MOULD: My Lord, what I would like to but can I just make a point cognisant of undertakings do is first of all I certainly would not wish to ask Mr that all the residents of Spitalfields will be requesting Wheeler any questions. at the end of the Spitalfields’ presentations so what I need to say now is to confirm that I would ask that the 3257. CHAIRMAN: You can if you want to and if same undertakings on behalf of the Petitioners that I he is prepared to answer them. If you do not want to, represent will be granted. We have dealt with it in this so be it. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
286 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3258. MR MOULD: What I would much rather do contextual points, so if it is convenient to deal with it is deal with the points he has raised with a view to at this stage, that is what I propose to do. giving the Committee and Mr Wheeler the reassurance that is required in relation to those 3265. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, I am afraid all of points. That is what I would like to do. The way I you from Spitalfields are going to have to be fairly propose to seek to do that is first of all remind the patient about this because if we are going to deal with Committee that I am going to call Professor Mair all the points you all want to make it may not be able tomorrow, and he will deal with detailed technical to be concentrated into one particular period --- points in relation to assessment of settlement and will build, in that respect, on the presentation that he has 3266. MR WHEELER: I understand. already given to the Committee on the third day of the proceedings. 3267. CHAIRMAN: --- And you may need to come back if you want for instance to ask questions of 3259. CHAIRMAN: He can also deal with this. Professor Mair, and, what is more, you may want to hear what other people say. Keep in touch with the 3260. MR MOULD: He can deal with that, exactly, Committee Clerk and we will make sure that you Sir. There are a number of engineering questions know what is going to happen next. which, as we know, Mr Wheeler has raised and your Lordship has asked he put those on the screen, which 3268. MR WHEELER: Can I just mention that we he did. What I would like to do about that, if I may, have chased up the full list of undertakings that you is to park those for the moment and when Mr requested. Berryman comes to give his evidence later in the week, as Mr Elvin indicated yesterday, to ask him to 3269. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to have given you deal with those questions then. It may well be that we this job but it is the first I heard there was a list and will provide your Lordships with a written note in we need to take the first opportunity to try to make response to specific questions as well and if we are sure they are all clear. going to do that I will let you know and make sure that that is available to you before we close on these 3270. MR WHEELER: We should be able to get Petitions. I will obviously make available a copy of them to you tomorrow morning. that note to Petitioners when it is produced. The question of undertakings, I think we would expect to 3271. CHAIRMAN: That is marvellous, excellent. respond to those in detail in our closing submissions. Well, there are no questions for you so for the moment I will invite Mr Mould to call a witness 3261. CHAIRMAN: Because you need to have the briefly. text of them. MrKeithBerryman, recalled 3262. MR MOULD: I do and I believe Mr Wheeler is making eVorts to make that available for us, for 3272. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, do you know who which we are grateful. Mr Berryman is? 3263. CHAIRMAN: He is going to have to 3273. MR WHEELER: I certainly do! collaborate with a lot of colleagues about this. The problem I have got and I want to forestall is if there are some things in the proposed undertakings or 3274. CHAIRMAN: I would be very surprised if assurances which are not clear, you need to be able to you did not but I just needed to ask. get this dealt with before you start responding. 3275. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 3264. MR MOULD: Yes, for my part, I am sure we It would have been a very poor survey if he did not will speak informally to the Petitioners during the know who he was! course of the day just to keep an eye on where we are with that. I am very grateful for what your Lordship 3276. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: has said about that. Then finally I would like, with Okay, have you taken any photographs? your Lordship’s leave, to ask Mr Berryman now to go into the witness box, briefly, to deal with a very Examined byMrMould few questions of context which it seems to me, whilst matters are fresh in your Lordships’ minds, it might 3277. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, the first be helpful to address. I do not promise to deal with all question which I would like to raise with you is just the matters of detail but rather just to deal with some simply, can you give the Committee an idea of the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 287
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others likely timing of the passage of tunnel-boring gradient and sharpness of curve and so on. That is for machines beneath the Spitalfields area? the purpose of building a railway that can operate at (Mr Berryman) Yes, at the very earliest it will be the the design speed with satisfactory passenger comfort end of 2012 and more likely into 2013 before the and with minimum maintenance consistent with that. machines pass under here. This is almost at the end of The final thing that we have to do is to locate sites or the tunnel drive which starts way back in the east end potential sites where a shaft can be positioned. As I near the River Lea, so it is quite a long drive. think has been explained already, we need to provide shafts for intervention by the Fire Brigade and other 3278. CHAIRMAN: This is because you are going emergency services and for purposes of ventilation. in for portals? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. 3282. This is a requirement of HM Railway Inspectorate, is it not? 3279. Are they both going to happen at the same (Mr Berryman) It is, Sir, so the alignment here was time? fixed bearing those things in mind. Whatever we did (Mr Berryman) One will be about three months we knew that we had to have a kind of S-shaped behind the other, Sir. curve. We investigated a number of potential sites for shafts, as I think has already been explained, and 3280. MR MOULD: The next question is on a point none of them was very good. I would not like to raised and I think this really was the burden of Mr pretend that the site we chose is brilliant but it is the Wheeler’s argument to the Committee today, and least bad of all the ones we looked at and so we knew that was can you give an explanation of what the alignment had to go through here and we wanted motivated the choice of route alignment through the to avoid the large number of piled buildings here. Spittalfields area please? That is why this alignment was selected. The initial (Mr Berryman) Yes I can. The alignment of decision on tunnelling strategy to put in a temporary adder here and tunnel in here (indicating) was taken Liverpool Street Station,31 which is here (indicating) is eVectively fixed by the presence of the existing much later, at least a year after this alignment had mainline station and the number of tall piled been selected, so the remarks made by Mr Wheeler buildings in the area. The alignment of Whitechapel earlier that this shaft site had been selected to Station likewise is fixed by the availability of open facilitate the tunnel programme is actually not true, space from which to construct the station, which I although, to be fair to him, he would have no way of showed your Lordships when we went down there, in knowing that because he was not there at the time. this location here (indicating). On any alignment the first requirement is that it must connect (indicating) 3283. MR MOULD: Just following the logic of that this alignment here with this alignment here point, he said that the fact that under the revised (indicating). What we also need to do is to avoid piled strategy it was no longer necessary to use the buildings, as I think Counsel has mentioned several Hanbury Street shaft for the sinking of the tunnel- times before. There are issues about settlement but boring machine and the Pedley Street exit was no there is also the high risk of a tunnel-boring machine longer required as part of the revised scheme—his touching or colliding with the pile on the building if suggestion was there is a clear link between that and you do not know where they are. The general rule in the continuing need to drive the tunnels through the London, I am sorry to say, is that we have very poor Hanbury Street area. What do you want to say records of how deep the piles are in existing buildings. about that? (Mr Berryman) The absence of the need for that link 3281. CHAIRMAN: Or where they are. and the absence of the use of this site as a tunnelling (Mr Berryman) We are not too bad on where they site obviously means the works here can be much are, my Lord, but the depth is always a problem. more modest than they previously would have been, Contractors, as I think you are aware, are supposed but as things stand at the moment we still need to to produce as-built drawings when they finish the provide the intervention and ventilation shaft and construction of a building. Unfortunately, piling this is still the best site in the area, although I would contractors appear to be less assiduous than perhaps be the first to admit it is not perfect. they could be in that matter. There is always a risk with piled buildings that we will not quite know 3284. Does that revised tunnelling strategy where the piles are and as a result we have tried to significantly aVect the route alignment? avoid them wherever possible. That is the first (Mr Berryman) It has no bearing on that really. criterion. The second criterion is to keep within the Crossrail alignment standards which is related to 3285. Thank you. I want to turn to another point. Mr 31 Wheeler has expressed a number of concerns about Station (TOWHLB-XR5B-040) the assessment of listed buildings within the Crossrail Ref: P23, Liverpool Street Station to Whitechapel Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
288 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
Spitalfields area that are potentially subject to (Mr Berryman) No, my Lord, that would be Mott ground movement during the construction of the MacDonald who would have produced that. That is Crossrail running tunnels. You heard him talk a matter of mathematical calculation of course. about that? (Mr Berryman) Indeed. 3290. Yes I notice that. 32 (Mr Berryman) I am not suggesting, my Lord, that 3286. I have asked to be put up one of the assessment Alan Baxter cannot do mathematical calculations; reports that he referred to and criticised during the quite the contrary. course of his presentation this morning. The first question I want to ask you is this: as he pointed out, the heritage aspects of these reports were prepared by 3291. No, but it is not his primary role. Alan Baxter Associates. Can you please explain the (Mr Berryman) Absolutely. The role of English role Alan Baxter Associates have had within the Heritage is that English Heritage are of course the project and in the settlement assessment process? statutory consultee in the process of preparing this (Mr Berryman) Well, the first thing I should say, my Bill and the approach to ‘Assessment of Settlement Lord, is that Alan Baxter, as I think the Petitioner Impacts on the Built Heritage’, which is one of our mentioned, is very highly regarded in the baseline documents, one of the documents on which conservation community. He is a member of the the whole process is based, was agreed with them. Advisory Panel of English Heritage and he is, I think, They were heavily consulted on it and it was an in terms of structural engineering probably the doyen agreed text with them. That is what sets the of experts in that matter. He advised us on the framework for how the assessments should be done robustness or the historical aspects of the buildings and the approach that should be taken. As I say, they and helped us in formulating our policy on how we agreed that process with us as to what was the dealt with the issue of tunnels passing underneath appropriate way to do it and we have consulted them historic buildings. I am sure members of the all the way through on matters of concern where such Committee will realise that these are not the only have arisen. historic buildings under which we pass in London. There are quite a number in other areas of London. 3292. MR MOULD: Just turning then to where reports, of which this is an example (that is to say if 3287. Was it open to Mr Baxter in principle to express we look at the top left-hand corner “Listed Building his views about the adequacy of the assessment Assessments, Phase 3 Iteration 1 Reports”) fit into method that the project proposed in order to assess the overall settlement assessment procedure which the potential impact of the scheme upon historic the project has embarked upon, Mr Berryman, can buildings under which the route passed? you help the Committee with that? (Mr Berryman) Yes, my Lords. Alan Baxter is a man (Mr Berryman) Yes I think your Lordships will of quite strong opinions and where he feels that we remember that Professor Mair gave an outline of this have not given him a wide enough brief or he should iteration at stage one, two and three—iteration one, be doing more than we have asked him to, he has had two and three in the process—but basically all the no hesitation in coming forward and telling me, and properties inside the 10 mm contour settlement are he has never done so in connection with the subject to a Phase 1 assessment, irrespective of their Spitalfields area. age or any other features. Anything which comes up as more than negligible damage will be subject to a 3288. And as has been made clear, the historic Phase 2 assessment and anything that goes beyond buildings and features reports, of which this is an that, and all listed buildings, irrespective of where example, were prepared by his firm, as I understand they come in the spectrum, will be treated to a Phase it? 3 assessment. Phase 3 in itself has got three iterations. (Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes. In the first iteration is an individual building assessment and we calculate the maximum tensile MR MOULD: Just turning from Mr Baxter to the stress. Again, Professor Mair referred to that in his role of English Heritage, can you just give the presentation and explained the significance of that, I Committee a little bit of background --- think better than I could. Then iteration 2 is taken forward if the building scores more than a certain 3289. CHAIRMAN: Just before you leave that, was amount in the scoring system that we have developed it Mr Baxter who produced the predicted strains and then iteration 3 would occur if advanced where they are given, which is most unusual? numerical analysis was needed if we thought there
32 was a really big issue. So the process here is that most Assessments, General Description, Mott MacDonald of these buildings, in fact all of these buildings which (TOWHLB-20 05-011) are listed, have been taken to the Phase 3 analysis and Committee Ref: A19, 17—25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 289
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others all of them through iteration one. Further work will (Mr Berryman) The process here is that before the be done when the contractor is appointed. tunnelling comes through a survey will be carried out by a surveyor, jointly instructed by us and the building owner, and I am talking in the generality 3293. CHAIRMAN: Where does the interior come here and not particularly about listed buildings, so in this whole process, the features of the interior? that if there is any damage due to settlement (and we (Mr Berryman) The owners of these buildings will all confidently expect there will not be any) we would be entitled to a Settlement Deed, which will include a have an accurate assessment of what had been caused requirement to survey the interior of the building in by the settlement as the machine went through. some detail for the purpose of detecting existing defects in the building, and assessing whether there is anything specific that needs to be done to that 3299. It is quite likely, is it not, that there will be building during the process of the works. Of course, existing defects which may or may not be aVected by once the contractor is appointed and the details of his substance but which a detailed survey will throw up? machines and so on are known then further (Mr Berryman) It is perfectly possible. assessments will be done before tunnelling actually comes through. I think it is worth saying in this case, 3300. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I because as I mentioned earlier we are near the end of am trying to get my head round your survey as being a tunnel drive, by the time we get to these locations described as a “second gear estate agent’s survey”! we will have very good empirical evidence of how the Presumably Alan Baxter, the expert you rely on, said machine is performing and what kind of settlement that the survey you have conducted was suitable and we are experiencing with the actual construction. appropriate in the circumstances; but some of the things that appear to have been missed, even if we put 3294. LORD SNAPE: Further to your question, my to one side the internal surveys, there were comments Lord Chairman, if you do not look at the interior that were made about the height of buildings and now surely that impacts on the score sheet, as we have whether there were attics or not? heard from the previous witnesses, as to which (Mr Berryman) First of all, I would not accept the category these buildings are put in? comment about the height of the building. That is not (Mr Berryman) I do not think it necessarily does, and quite true, I accept the comment that the building is I am not sure even if it does that it is that significant, the height stated; but the crucial thing for us is the my Lord. We will be assessing them again before height of the masonry, not the height of the building tunnelling is actually done and that will include an overall. On the scale plan that was shown, although internal inspection as part of the Settlement Deed. I am happy to accept the building is well over 15 metres tall, the masonry is about ten metres tall. 3295. You see the point I am seeking to make. The fact is that you categorise these properties one, two 3301. MR MOULD: Has that dealt with your and three and presumably, having not inspected the Lordship’s point? I was going to ask Mr Berryman if interior, that has impacted upon the category in he could take this particular aspect a little further. which each building finds itself? (Mr Berryman) It may do in some cases. 3302. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: The point I have been trying to make is about the 3296. Do you think that is satisfactory, or can you see quality of this survey; because the generic allegation an alternative? being made is, quite frankly, that they are (Mr Berryman) At this stage of the process I think it substandard and do not really meet the undertaking. is satisfactory. As you said quite correctly, my Lord, You have part answered it by saying you are going to it will need to be looked at again before the tunnelling come back and do a more detailed survey; but I still is actually done, but I think it has been made clear in worry a little bit that you have based assumption on any event that we will be doing that. this. What I want to be sure about, and probably my colleagues do as well, is the quality of this. Does the survey you have conducted meet the requirements at 3297. BARONESS FOOKES: You indicated that this point in your operation? there will be an internal survey for all listed buildings (Mr Berryman) My Lord, I can only reiterate the automatically? point I made earlier that Alan Baxter is without (Mr Berryman) Yes, my Lady; not only for all listed doubt the leading expert in the country on this buildings but for all buildings actually. matter. I think the Petitioner alluded to that point in his evidence and expressed relief that we had 3298. That was going to be my next point, and you employed Alan Baxter. All I can say is I rely heavily have answered it. on his advice, and this is his advice, that this is the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
290 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others level of survey that is appropriate for this stage of (Mr Berryman) Yes. the works. 3311. “The structure is approximately” and then 3303. BARONESS FOOKES: Would there be various dimensions are given and the height is given confusion over the stages, in that case? This is not the as ten metres. What is the significance of the reference final stage—it is an interim stage and is appropriate to “the structure”? Why is that important?35 for that stage, with more detailed surveys coming (Mr Berryman) As Professor Mair explained during later? his presentation, the movement a building (Mr Berryman) Absolutely right, my Lady; I could experiences is expressed as “strain”. If you imagine not have put it any better. a tall building which is subject to a hogging bending moment so that it tends to do that (indicating), the taller the building the more the strain, so the height 3304. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, I wonder if we of the masonry elements is important in assessing can illustrate this a little more with reference to one of what the strain will be at the top of the building. the examples. You will recall that Mr Wheeler spent a Similarly when a building is in a trough and doing little time dealing with 17-25 Wilkes Street, and that that (indicating) the height is also important because is on the screen in front of us now. This is the Alan it is the dimension from there (indicating) to there Baxter Associates historic buildings and features (indicating) which sets how big that strain will be. aspect of the Phase 3 report. The height there you see at the top of the page is expressed as three storeys, 3312. You referred I think to “hogging”. Just so I am plus cellars, plus weavers’ attics to numbers 19, 23 clear, to the lay person is that the same thing as and 25? tensile strain? (Mr Berryman) Yes, I see that. (Mr Berryman) Hogging is bending that way
33 (indicating), and sagging is bending that way 3305. If we could just turn on to page 14, this rather (indicating). It is hard to explain without a ruler. attractive drawing of the frontage of one those properties, do you see that? 3313. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: (Mr Berryman) Yes. Convex and concave. (Mr Berryman) Convex and concave. Thank you, my Lord. 3306. We can see the three storeys there, can we, to parapet height? (Mr Berryman) Yes. 3314. MR MOULD: Where does the concept of tensile strain come in? (Mr Berryman) Tensile strain comes in at the top of 3307. Then the attic structure on top? a hogging or a convex bending. The top of the (Mr Berryman) Yes. building will be under tensile strain in that situation.
3308. And the cellars we can see shown in outline 3315. If we go down the page we have the general below? description. You have commented on the significance (Mr Berryman) Yes. of the reference to the masonry structure, and then we come down to the building response findings; maximum settlement which Mr Wheeler referred to, 3309. If we then come back,34 please, to page 11 and we 26mm in this case; maximum ground slope; and then see the engineering aspect, we have moved away now maximum tensile strain and we see a percentage from Mr Baxter and we have now come on to Mott figure is given there? MacDonald, have we not? (Mr Berryman) Yes. (Mr Berryman) That is correct. 3316. When we look at the classification of damage 3310. We see the approach they have taken; in the table we can see that it is expressed by reference to general description of the property they say “three limiting tensile strains? story brickwork terrace with basement and loft (Mr Berryman) That is right. conversion”, and we have seen that in the drawing we have just looked at? 3317. Can you help the Committee with why the 33 classification of damage table is expressed by E1 (TOWHLB-20 05-014) 34 reference to that consideration? Assessments,Committee Ref: General A19, Scale Description, drawing of 21 Wilkes Mott Street, MacDonald London 35 (TOWHLB-20 05-011) Robert Mair, 20 February 2008 (LINEWD-RJM01-036) Committee Ref: A19, 17—25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building Crossrail Ref: P6, Assessment—Deformation Types, Professor Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 291
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
(Mr Berryman) The damage to elements of a 3321. It seems counterintuitive, does it not? building, particularly a masonry structure but (Mr Berryman) The fact that the buildings are old actually buildings in general, is almost always a result there are two aspects of that which I think are of of tensile stresses developing. Those tensile stresses interest. First of all, they will have moved quite a bit are as a result of tensile strains. The fact that the during their life. We know that London is going up bricks try to move apart at the top of the building is and down all the time and it is quite diYcult to know a strain, but that puts a stress on the masonry exactly what movements they will have experienced structure. I am an engineer and it is hard to explain over the years, but they will have experienced some without doing sketches, I am afraid. That puts a movements. Secondly, some of them have been fairly stress on the structure. It is those stresses which lead robustly attacked with a sledgehammer during times to cracks in the buildings. Those cracks are almost of their existence. The fact that they are still standing always what cause any kind of damage, whether it is is of interest. It is not particularly relevant to this but to the external features or the internal features of a it is of interest. There are those who feel that this kind building. Things like stucco plaster and so on, which of lime mortar building is actually more flexible than have been referred to previously, if the building itself a Portland cement building. I am not sure whether I cracks they would tend to crack as well. could go along with that, but there is certainly a school of thought that thinks that.
3318. We can see that in the case of this building in 3322. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:I relation to that factor, that is to say tensile strain, the am amazed to hear that the diVerent type of building classification of damage based on the engineer’s does not make any diVerence. Why then are there assessment having regard to Mr Baxter’s historic problems with timber frame buildings? buildings assessment, is within the negligible (Mr Berryman) I am afraid I am not an expert on category? timber frames. (Mr Berryman) It is. I think you can see the negligible category goes up to 0.05 per cent strain. The strain in 3323. There are problems over insurance and a whole this building is 0.024 per cent, which is about half the range of things, and selling them sometimes. limiting tensile strains. I just want to emphasise, as (Mr Berryman) I think those are related to the Professor Mair said, that these assumptions are very, movement of the timber, my Lord, rather than the very conservative. They are more than double the movement of the ground. actual results which have been achieved, for example, on the Channel Tunnel rail link. We would expect 3324. I do not know! this to be very much an upper bound of the potential (Mr Berryman) I am afraid I am not really aware of strain that may result. I would forecast it would that problem. probably be about half that in reality. 3325. MR MOULD: I think thankfully, as far as I know, there are no timber frame buildings. 3319. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: (Mr Berryman) Not here! For that type of building? (Mr Berryman) The type of building does not make 3326. I was going to say “within the Spitalfields any diVerence, my Lord. The strain that is developed area”! I just want to carry this line of thinking is a function of the ground movement and the way the forward a little further if we can. We see there in ground moves. relation to the tensile strain criterion, if I can call it that, the classification for damage in relation to this building has been assessed as negligible. Is that 3320. I can see that. You will pardon me because I am correct? a lay person pursuing this but what sort of impact (Mr Berryman) That is correct. would it have? If we took one sort of building that was constructed in one fashion obviously you would 3327. That being the case, can you assist the get one sort of impact with your stresses and strains; Committee, and assume for the purpose of this and now we have got this type of building; we have question if I may, that there is limited knowledge of got this Georgian terrace with a particular type of the detailed make-up of the internal features of this construction. What I am trying to ascertain is: is there particular building at this stage? likely to be more of an impact in these circumstances (Mr Berryman) Yes. based on previous experiences of tunnelling under similar sorts of structures? 3328. That being the conclusion in having regard to (Mr Berryman) No, my Lord, it does not make any the tensile strain, what is the significance to diVerence, the fact that the buildings are old. consideration of the risk of damage due to ground Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
292 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others movement in relation to this building of the finding as of a building whilst the tunnel boring continues; and regards tensile strain, and the question of what may the other is where some permanent remedial measure later be found about the internal features of the may be required. I think in the case of both of them building? we would obviously involve the owner, and we would (Mr Berryman) As I said earlier on, the tensile strain involve English Heritage as needed; but the Bill does really determines the amount of cracking, if any, give us powers to disapply some parts of the listed which is going to take place in a building. The cracks building consent, so we would have a reasonable almost always are the things which lead to problems freedom of action in that case. If we do disapply those in other features. The kinds of movements we are parts we have to get the local authority’s consent, and talking about here are very, very small. Issues such as they will of course consult English Heritage and the the beams which Mr Wheeler put up, which have like as statutory consultees when we apply under been pre-stressed to strengthen them and so on, Schedule 8 of the Bill for that permission. would not particularly be aVected by this level of movement. These are very, very small movements. I 3334. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: think it might be slightly misleading for the What happens if there is a disagreement between Committee that this figure of maximum settlement you? Who has the final word on this? 26mm is on the board. It is worth bearing in mind (Mr Berryman) I think the Bill actually sets that out. that the significant factor is not the absolute I think it is the local authority but I am not 100 per settlement, it is the diVerential settlement. If the cent and would need to check that. whole of Spitalfields went down by 26mm no-one would notice. 3335. If you say you wanted to disapply and they say “In these circumstances, no, we feel you shouldn’t”? 3329. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: All (Mr Berryman) No, my Lord, I think the Bill actually at once? disapplies in all cases. There is not a judgment to be (Mr Berryman) All at once, no-one would notice. made on that. The judgment to be made is in what The fact of the matter is, this 26mm is over a very remedial measures or what form of heritage wide area, and so the diVerential settlements are treatment is required; and on that I think the local very small. authority has the final approval.
3330. MR MOULD: In relation to a point my Lady 3336. BARONESS FOOKES: That is not asked you, you mentioned about the significance of disapplication in the true sense, is it, if you spot the defect survey that will be carried out in advance of something and say, “It is disapplied but we can’t do the works, and the fact that that will involve internal X, Y and Z”? inspection of these buildings? (Mr Berryman) The procedure is actually (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. substantially the same as application for listed building consent. I am afraid we have not actually 3331. Let us assume that when that survey is carried been through it yet, but the procedure I believe is out it is found that there is some internal feature slightly diVerent in that we do not have to show a which it is judged at that stage merits some protective reason why we need to do the works but just have to measure being taken, such as the strengthening of a agree what the works should be. joist or something of that kind. Do you see the point? (Mr Berryman) I do. 3337. MR MOULD: My Lady, my recollection is that these matters are dealt with under the Schedule 3332. Then the question arises that these are listed 7 powers, which are the powers that local planning buildings, they are sensitive and they are subject to authorities have in relation to approval of detailed close control over alterations to their structure, aspects of the works. Certainly, picking up on your internal or external, that might materially aVect their Ladyship’s point, my understanding is that in character. You are familiar with that? relation to matters where local planning authorities (Mr Berryman) Indeed. have conferred upon them rights of detailed approval of aspects of the work where, for example, heritage 3333. How would we propose to ensure that any such issues arise and they would expect ordinarily to strengthening works of that kind that might be consult English Heritage, we would expect that that required are sensitive to the character of the building would happen under the terms of the Bill just as it and, as far as possible, maintain that character for would outside it, so the upshot is that both the local future generations? authorities and English Heritage would be closely (Mr Berryman) There are two situations there which involved in scrutinising remedial measures or I think arise: one is where it might be necessary to do protective measures of the kind that Mr Berryman some temporary shoring-up or propping-up of part has mentioned in his last answer. Mr Berryman, you Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 293
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others touched on the Settlement Deed and we may need to listed buildings and then in paragraph 107, the say a bit more about that to the Committee position as regards all other buildings. If one turns to tomorrow, but the basic qualifying criteria for a glance at 108 and 109, there is a reference to Settlement Deed, that is to say a direct contract monitoring requirements which the Committee asked between the Promoter and the building owner in us to undertake in relation to Spitalfields and we relation to a building which is potentially aVected by agreed to do that. Mr Berryman, just so we are clear, ground movement from the works, is that the deed is what were the assessment reports that were before the available to the property owner whose property lies House of Commons Committee and against the within 30 metres on plan of the running tunnels, that background of which they expressed their conclusions is right, is it not? as we have seen in this document? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. (Mr Berryman) To the best of my recollection, they were the reports that have been before your 3338. LORD SNAPE: Sorry? Lordships today.
3339. MR MOULD: Within 30 metres on plan of 3342. To put it another way, has the assessment the running tunnels, and I will be corrected if I am process progressed, in regards to listed building, wrong, but my clear understanding is that with beyond the Phase 3 stage? regards to the Petitioners who are before your (Mr Berryman) Not yet. Lordships’ House today, if they are the owners of the properties which have been raised for consideration by your Lordships, they certainly lie within that 3343. We have seen that these are Phase 3 assessment distance. reports? (Mr Berryman) I am not sure if they all do, my Lords, (Mr Berryman) Yes. I think one or two of them are outside that but they are also well outside the settlement zone as well. 3344. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, I have forgotten for the moment, what is the situation about buildings 3340. Those within the 30 metres settlement contour which are not listed but are within a conservation by definition will be? area? (Mr Berryman) Certainly.
3341. The next point is the House of Commons report, 3345. MR MOULD: They are dealt with as is set out perhaps we ought to see what the House of Commons in paragraph 107 of the report. That is to say they are said in their Special Report about this. I want to be subject to substantially the same process of assessment but the presentation of the results is rather clear on the information that the House of Commons36 had in front of them when they reported as they did so diVerent. They are not the subject of individual that your Lordships are able to have that point in reports in the way that your Lordships have seen for context.ThisisfromtheSpecialReport.Itispage26. listed buildings, they are dealt with in generic They report that they heard a great deal of evidence assessment reports and the results are presented about listed buildings in the Princelet Street area and graphically, but the substance of the assessment asked the Promoter to come back to the Committee to process is the same. demonstrate clearly that an individual assessment was to be made at each listed and historic building in the 3346. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. area and that appropriate mitigation be put in place. They say they are happy to report that the Promoter has done a considerable amount of work to ensure 3347. MR MOULD: That was made clear to the that the settlement impacts of the works on all House of Commons. Thank you very much. buildings, including listed and historic buildings, have been adequately assessed and appropriate mitigation put in place. The Promoters confirm that settlement 3348. LORD BROOKE: Do you accept that you did assessment reports have been produced. They have miss some buildings? considered every individual structure within the (Mr Berryman) It is possible that we have missed predicted zone of influence along the route. The some, my Lord. Obviously when we get into the stage results of this assessment process are reported in one of doing the detailed assessment we will not miss any of two ways, both of which are described below. Then of them. We may have assumed in some cases that there is a description of the work done in relation to buildings which were described by Petitioners as
36 separate we have assumed they were part of the SpecialReportof Session2006–07,CrossrailBill, HC235-I,paras adjacent building and we may have been remiss in 106-109 (SCN-20080311-008 to -010) that. House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
294 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Nicholas Morse and others
3349. MR MOULD: I want to be clear about that. 3356. MR WHEELER: Yes. Mr Wheeler showed us some photographs of what I think might broadly be described as rear extensions of 3357. CHAIRMAN: I do not want to insist upon this, buildings within Wilkes Street. I just thought it would be convenient. (Mr Berryman) Yes. 3358. MR WHEELER: I would be very keen to do 3350.Thequestionwould be,Isuppose,whetherthose what is convenient for one of my neighbours. Does are separate buildings. I do not think they are that mean I come back later on? identified separately by address, they form part of the main structure, as I understand it. 3359. CHAIRMAN: You will be coming back again, I am sure. 3351. CHAIRMAN: I think you will find they are all listed because they are within the curtilage of a listed 3360. MR WHEELER: I would like to follow up the building. most recent presentation and ask a few questions of the witness myself, if I may. 3352. MR MOULD: Exactly, my Lord, very much that is the point. My Lord, I think that is all I wanted to ask Mr Berryman to deal with now. As I said to you, 3361. CHAIRMAN: You will have several I am going to come back to some more detailed opportunities to do that. I do not mind. If you do not matters tomorrow when we have Professor Mair but, want Mr Adams to give evidence now and you want to of course, if there are any other points which the ask Mr Berryman questions, so be it, your go ahead Committee would wish to ask now, then we are in and do it. your hands. 3362. MR WHEELER: I would like to ask Mr 3353. CHAIRMAN: Well, I hope they do not Berryman questions but I am not insisting on doing it because, Ms Wheeler, you have got Ms Adams here, now. have you not? 3363. CHAIRMAN: Why do you not do it after 3354. MR WHEELER: Yes. lunch and see if we can get Mr Adams’ evidence on to the record and perhaps then he will want to go. Thank 3355. CHAIRMAN: Mr Adams has got a proof of you, Mr Berryman, for the moment. evidence of two pages and I dare say Mr Adams would like to deliver that now. Would that be convenient? The witness withdrew
The Petition of Nicholas Morse and others
MrRoyAdams appeared as Agent
3364. MR ADAMS: Good afternoon. I am an 3365. My Lord, I am anxious not to cover old urban planner and a member of the Royal Town ground and, therefore, do not intend to go through Planning Institute. I am a specialist in urban the details of what I regard as the inadequate way regeneration and major development schemes. For in which these proposals were first explained to the 10 years I was Chief Executive of Europe’s largest wider community in February 2004, nor do I intend multi-discipline firm of architects and engineers. I to recount the sorry tale of the disregard by was also for two years an Executive Director of one Crossrail engineers on the impact on health and of the largest construction companies in the UK, community welfare of their proposed tunnelling Laing O’Rourke, and I am now Executive shaft at the eastern end of Princelet Street/Hanbury Chairman of a development company specialising in Street—an enormous hole in which they planned to urban regeneration. My experience includes the build a structure the size of one of the towers of conception and the implementation of many large Tower Bridge, nor do I want to remind people of development projects ranging across infrastructure, Crossrail’s reluctance to change any aspect of this housing, shopping centres and stadia. I was awarded proposal when urged by the community and its an OBE in January 2006 for services to urban advisors. In fact, abandonment of the proposal was regeneration in North Belfast where I have been for only achieved through changes in the engineering the past two years chairman of a cross-community concept for reasons to do with the 2012 Olympics. ministerial advisory panel charged with producing a For me and residents right across the area, this development strategy for a £300 million project on episode demonstrates very well the intransigence of a 30 acre site. I am also a member of the Spitalfields Crossrail which has been evident from our very first Society and I live in the area. meeting with them in February 2004 to deviate one Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 295
11 March 2008 The Petition of Nicholas Morse and others iota from the route they had already chosen. I am report unconvincing and the arguments against other going to concentrate in this presentation on the issue routes “not proven”. I would condemn it as a failure of the route which is the major objection to the to achieve any form of objective evaluation. Crossrail scheme by people in the community where I live. Again, I do not wish to waste people’s time 3367. My third, and final, question is around the fact by going through the detail or arguing about the that the 1990’s scheme linking Paddington to radii of curves or vertical and horizontal alignments, Liverpool Street Station was due to exit its these engineering issues are dealt with in other underground length via a portal at Allen Gardens, to evidence to the Committee. Instead I am going to take it on to the suburban route which passes to the ask three simple questions. The first question is, if north at that point. How, then, was it possible for there had been or were to be no station at Crossrail to be happy with a route passing directly Whitechapel what would be the alignment of the under the tallest buildings in the Brewery with, railway between Canary Wharf and Liverpool presumably, deep piles, and not now in the case of a Street? The answer to that question is surely that it route to the south? Mr Berryman confirmed today would have followed a route to the south of that that the avoidance of piled buildings was an proposed now by Crossrail and if valid in those important criterion, but it does not seem to have circumstances, why not now. My Lords, this is no applied to the original proposal. I can find no reason longer just a theoretical question because if the costs for the anomaly. The Mott MacDonald report, when of the Olympics continue to rise, if the costs of the analysing the northern routing options, cites the Crossrail project continue to rise and if the diYculties of “conflicts with the piled foundations consequences of the recession we are undoubtedly in under the Truman Brewery” as a reason why tunnel become more serious than anyone is admitting right depth would have to increase by seven metres and now, then this project must be subject to review. would, thus, penetrate the water-bearing sands of the Hopefully the Crossrail project will not tumble but Lambeth Group, even though, in a subsequent financial diYculties of this the largest infrastructure statement, the engineers admit that “the size and project in Europe could cause there to be a review depth of the piles on this site are unknown”. If of the cost benefit of all stations, in which case engineers are confused on this issue, what possibility Whitechapel might fare badly. My question is not is there for the rest of us? just academic but I raise it to demonstrate the point that there is a viable alternative to the route to 3368. So, my Lords, there is an obvious way to which Crossrail has stuck since day one. My second remove blight , remove objection and reduce the question is that if one were deciding to plan a new above-ground impact of the current proposal, and it underground railway across London, would it not is to take a route to the south. This has been a be logical to take into account above-ground consistent message from the community. We have impacts as well as tunnelling feasibility and to seek been saying it for four years and it is about time to weigh these impacts against criteria that enabled somebody listened. a balanced answer to be arrived at, before deciding on the best route? This was not done for Crossrail. The choice of the “base scheme” route was arrived 3369. CHAIRMAN: Mr Adams, I am afraid you are at and property safeguarding transferred, without going to have to listen to me about this, because it is any assessment that was meaningful of above- not within our powers to do anything about your ground impact. It is my opinion that the “base suggestion. I had this out yesterday with one of your scheme” had the worst above-ground impact of any colleagues from Spitalfields. We are stuck with the of those options considered and drawn by Mott alignment, within the limits of deviation, in the Bill. MacDonald, the engineering consultants. Rupert We cannot say anything about alternative routes; it is Wheeler’s evidence made clear the dangers to and not within our powers, it departs from the principle the potential impacts on the historic fabric. Please of the Bill, and however much you and your various bear in mind also that Crossrail’s preferred route colleagues and friends in Spitalfields would like there scored better in their analysis before the tunnelling is not anything we can do about it. It is part of the shaft was dropped; before this massive proposal that Parliamentary process. would have impacted so adversely, particularly on the Bangladeshi community, was dropped. 3370. MR ADAMS: Thank you for clarifying that.
3366. Therefore, I regard that process as being 3371. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you did not know flawed, with options to the north and south scantily that, but that is the situation. regarded. The engineering analysis smacked of retro- fit and the engineers from Arup, employed by Tower 3372. MR ADAMS: I was not aware of what took Hamlets, found the Crossrail comparative evaluation place yesterday, my Lord. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
296 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3373. CHAIRMAN: That is a rather brief repeat of hands of the Spitalfields community to tell him gently what happened yesterday. I am sorry about it; it is a that it is a matter for him to decide whether he wants simple fact of life. to come and tell the Select Committee his views or not. If he does not come he will not tell us. 3374. MR ADAMS: Thank you very much for the clarification. All I can say is God help us all then. I 3385. MR WHEELER: You do have a time for him, am not at all relieved to understand from Mr do you? Berryman that by the time the boring machines get to Spitalfields we will know the level of settlement we 3386. CHAIRMAN: Yes, he is coming tomorrow or are in for. Thank you for listening. Thursday.
3375. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, I do not suspect 3387. MR WHEELER: Right. Okay. you want to ask any questions? 3388. CHAIRMAN: If he does not come tomorrow 3376. MR MOULD: My Lord, I do not. or Thursday I do not know whether we will be able to hear him at all. 3377. CHAIRMAN: I wanted you to have the opportunity of reading your proof out this morning 3389. MR WHEELER: He is to contact the Clerk? so that if you do not want to stay you do not need to. You are, of course, welcome to stay if you would like. 3390. CHAIRMAN: If you can. He might listen to That, I am afraid, is a frank description of the you, whereas he does not appear to pay any attention situation in which we find ourselves in relation to to us. This is quite serious because if he does not come what it is you have told us. in accordance with the plan there will be no work for the Committee tomorrow afternoon. No doubt the 3378. MR ADAMS: Thank you very much. Promoter has plenty of things to do internally, but it does not help us. It will help us in the end, but it does 3379. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me this might be a not help us in terms of timetabling. moment to adjourn. 3391. Mr Mould, you wanted to ask some questions 3380. MR MOULD: Yes. If it is convenient to the of Mr Berryman. Committee I will recall Mr Berryman to answer Mr Wheeler’s questions after the adjournment. 3392. MR MOULD: My Lord, there were two matters before I hand Mr Berryman over to Mr 3381. CHAIRMAN: Could we make up a little time Wheeler, if I may. The first is that I hope that your by starting at twenty-five past two? Lordships now have in front of you an A3 copy of the schedule of assurances. After a short adjournment 3393. CHAIRMAN: It is the comprehensive 3382. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, you are a very undertakings and assurances. responsible member of the Spitalfields community, and we are grateful for what you have done in putting 3394. MR MOULD: I thought that as you have it in this all together. We are having a lot of trouble with front of you it might be worth—because it relates to Mr Haque and Khoodeelaar. I do not know whether the matters that you have been told about this you can let it be known that we cannot get him to morning—just drawing your Lordships’ attention to answer anything; he will not answer the telephone the bottom of the first page where there is a series of and he will not answer emails. If he does not come in undertakings in relation to settlement. In particular, accordance with the programme—well, too bad. I do the second of those undertakings relates to internal not know whether there is any way in which you can inspection. You will see that an undertaking was get that message through to him. I am sorry to put yet given during the Select Committee process in the a further burden on you. other place as to the internal inspection of the buildings within the 10 millimetre settlement contour 3383. MR WHEELER: I will do my best. that are on the English Heritage Building at Risk Register, to ensure that any particularly sensitive 3384. CHAIRMAN: It is no use him going on saying aspects of these properties are considered in the that he wants time to copy documents and all the rest assessment process. I do not think that particular of it; he is either going to come or he is not going to point came out clearly during the course of the come. This has been programmed for a long time, as evidence this morning, so I thought I ought to draw you well know, but there you are. Could I put it in the that to your attention. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 297
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3395. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Wheeler, you 3406. MR MOULD: The second category is the one have heard that. which is directly relevant to the issues raised by Mr Wheeler and that is buildings where it is not proposed 3396. MR WHEELER: Yes, indeed. to undertake any works to those buildings for the purposes of constructing the railway but where it may be necessary to undertake protective, preventive 3397. CHAIRMAN: An undertaking given in or remedial works to the building in order to cope October 2006. Has it filtered through? with the eVects of ground movement. It is that category of buildings that Mr Wheeler was concerned 3398. MR WHEELER: I suppose our question is: about this morning. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 makes “When?” provision and there is a list of buildings of that kind which you will find, I think, from pages 173 and 3399. CHAIRMAN: It evidently has not. There it is. following. What I am going to do is to ask that we show you on the overhead projector37 the list of 3400. MR WHEELER: Thank you, yes. buildings within the Spitalfields area to which that provision applies and you will see that it begins about halfway down page 185 of the Bill. The first building 3401. MR MOULD: My Lord, the other matter, if that has been referred to today is 84 Commercial I may, arises out of questions this morning about Street which, I think I am right in saying, is the Ten how the statutory listed building controls are going Bells pub and then we have you will see 1 to 3 to be dealt with under the terms of the Bill. I thought Fournier Street and the list goes on. I have glanced the Committee might value an explanation of that, if through it myself and over the page --- In fact, I think this is a convenient moment. that the vast majority, if not every one, of the buildings that Mr Wheeler has referred to is identified 3402. The position is this: there are two broad within that list. The position is this: those buildings categories of case in relation to listed buildings. are identified specifically as buildings where it may be necessary to carry out some preventive or remedial 3403. CHAIRMAN: Is this all Schedule 7? work, or rather provision is made within the Bill for that to happen, if necessary, and then under the 3404. MR MOULD: It is Schedule 9, in actual fact. bespoke control regime, which is applied in place of I said 7 this morning; forgive me, I had the wrong the ordinary controls, heritage agreements will be number. Schedule 9 begins, I think, on page 167 of entered into as required in relation to each of those the Bill. My Lord, there are two broad categories of buildings with English Heritage and with the local buildings that this schedule is concerned with. The planning authority to ensure that in so far as may be first category is listed buildings where it is necessary required those works are dealt with in a way that is to undertake works as part of a construction process, properly sensitive to the particular interests of special which would ordinarily attract a requirement for architectural and historic importance that caused listed building consent. What this schedule does is to those buildings to be shown on the statutory list in list those individual buildings and premises which are the first place. My Lord, that is set out in particular at on the statutory list to which that requirement paragraph 5.5 in the Information Paper B1 to which I applies. It then dis-applies the ordinary controls have drawn your Lordships’ attention to a moment under the Town & Country Planning Act and the ago. I hope that clarifies the arrangements that have Listed Buildings Act, and replaces them with a been made within the Bill and outside it in relation to bespoke procedure which you will find set out and that particular aspect of the scheme. explained in Information Paper B1 in your bible, and in particular paragraphs 5.1 through to 5.7 of that 3407. CHAIRMAN: I see Schedule 9 paragraph 4 paper. deals with a building included in conservation areas which is not a listed building. Do you know is there a 3405.EVectively, provision is made for heritage regime for that? agreements to be entered into between the Promoter, or the nominated undertaker, English Heritage and 3408. MR MOULD: Yes, that is right. Then the the local planning authority who are responsible for schedule goes on in page 190 to make provisions the building in question—clearly, in consultation regarding ancient monuments as well and you saw a with the building owner and others who may have an letter earlier on from the Ancient Monuments interest, such as, for example, one of the interested Society, I think, so there is provision in relation to societies, such as The Georgian Group or bodies of 37 that kind, who might be consulted. That is the first disapplication and modification of controls (SCN-20080311- category. 011) Crossrail Bill [HL Bill 14 (2007-08)], Schedule 9— Heritage: Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
298 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
38 that. I do not propose, unless you would find it 3421. CHAIRMAN: Number? helpful, to go into any more details as to the nuts and bolts of this now but I thought I ought to draw that 3422. MR WHEELER: 240. Yes, you were asking to the Committee’s attention. whether we were aware. Let me read it: “The Promoter will also undertake an internal inspection 3409. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, that is very of the buildings within these contours that are on the helpful. English Heritage Buildings at Risk register to ensure that any particularly sensitive aspects of these 3410. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I properties are considered in the assessment process. wanted to ask, are these undertakings in addition to This does not apply to listed buildings or any other the register that we have? historic buildings other than those on the Buildings At Risk Register”. It is slightly irrelevant but, in fact, 3411. MR MOULD: No. This is— I think I will demonstrate it is completely irrelevant. There is only one building that is on the At Risk 3412. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I Register and that is 19 Princelet Street, the synagogue was looking for one of them and I could not find it in that we spoke of and illustrated earlier. The reason I here so I did not know whether these were say it is completely irrelevant is that is one of the additional ones? buildings we persuaded Crossrail to come around and do an internal inspection of, it was our initiative. 3413. MR MOULD: These are extracted from that This undertaking is of no use to us at all. I think, but I very much take my Lord Chairman’s point from earlier that I cannot say for sure, but it 3423. CHAIRMAN: You may like to look at that, may be there are one or two undertakings within this Mr Mould. extract that are suYciently recent but have not yet found their way into the comprehensive document. 3424. MR MOULD: Yes, lest there be any doubt about it, I do not suggest this is the sum total of the 3414. CHAIRMAN: They will in the end but for the inspections that we shall be carrying out, but this is a meantime we ought to know about them. specific undertaking that we have given in relation to buildings which fall within that description. Mr 3415. MR MOULD: Please do not take it that is Berryman has already explained to the Committee necessarily the case but that may be the reason why. earlier that there are broader proposals in relation to What I can say is that the undertakings that are on inspection. I think he mentioned, for example, that this A3 sheet are all undertakings that the Promoter there would be a process, creating the defects survey has given to Tower Hamlets or, indeed, in a number would involve internal inspection of buildings along of cases to Spitalfields’ residents as well. the route, but I thought it right to draw attention to this particular provision because it was one that had 3416. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: I think been raised and an undertaking given to Parliament Mr Mould said that almost all, or probably all, of the at an earlier stage in the process. It should not be seen properties mentioned are on that list we just saw? as the only undertaking in relation to this topic, it is one of a number of provisions that we have referred 3417. MR MOULD: Yes. to during the course of our evidence.
3418. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: Is Mr 3425. MR WHEELER: Can I confirm whether there Adams’ property on that list which is 5 Princelet are any other similar undertakings or not with regard Street? to listed buildings?
3419. MR MOULD: Let me just check. Yes, it is 3 3426. MR MOULD: There is a policy to which Mr and 5 Princelet Street. It is the penultimate property Berryman has referred already and which we referred on page 185 of the Bill. If there is nothing else, I will to in earlier stages in our submissions to you, in the give way to Mr Wheeler. opening for example, which is set out at Information Paper D12 which deals with our approach to 3420. MR WHEELER: Thank you. Could I just ask settlement. The provisions and the components of that this extract from the registry of undertakings that settlement policy embrace, amongst other and assurances be put up on the screen because I do things, monitoring at various stages, inspection for not think we have looked at it hard enough. If we go the purposes of preparing schedules of defects to to the bottom, I think it was the last undertaking that which you have had reference made already, the was highlighted. Let me read it to you. This is the 38 undertaking we were talking about, let me just check. and Assurances, No. 240 (SCN-20080311-012) Crossrail Ref: P23, Extract from the Register of Undertakings Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 299
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others approach we take to assessing and keeping under know what do we do, where do we go, how do we get assessment buildings which are on the statutory list, these things implemented and it is not a bit clear on our commitment to make good at our costs any the papers that I have seen. damage that is caused to buildings whether listed or unlisted as a result of the construction of the railway, a range of matters. I was proposing to deal with those 3430. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: If I in a little more detail when we hear the evidence from may, my supplementary question on that was, what Professor Mair tomorrow. As you know, I did not happens in the event of a dispute? Is there a procedure intend to provide an exhaustive presentation through for resolving the dispute? Mr Berryman today but that is a short and, I stress, incomplete account of the various matters that are 3431. MR MOULD: Mr Wheeler, as I understand dealt with in that settlement policy. It also explains in it, is representing a number of proprietors of listed some detail the Settlement Deed arrangements which buildings which lie overall within a close distance of I referred to earlier which enable property openers the running tunnels in Spitalfields. As I explained and within 30 metres of the running tunnels to enter into Mr Berryman clarified, the majority of those a direct contractual relationship with the Promoter Petitioners who Mr Wheeler represents are eligible to which will embrace all of those matters to which I call for a Settlement Deed so they will be able to enter have just referred. into a direct contract with the Promoter in relation to the controls and continuing assessment and 3427. CHAIRMAN: How are these things to be monitoring and so forth of the impact of the works enforced? upon their particular property. By far the most straightforward way in which they can get involved in 3428. MR MOULD: The deed, of course, is terms of securing the proper consideration of their enforceable directly by contract by the building interests, my Lord, is for them to take advantage of owner against the Promoter or the nominated the opportunity to call for such a deed and to undertaker as a contracting party. Undertakings and negotiate such a deed with the Promoter. assurances are enforceable through the environmental minimum requirements which we 3432. CHAIRMAN: That can only be done have mentioned to you and in very short and, I presumably after the Bill has passed? suspect, rather crude terms they are enforced by the Secretary of State through the contractual arrangements that she enters into with the nominated 3433. MR MOULD: No, indeed not. This is undertaker in relation to the construction of the something, I believe, that can be done now and I will railway. They are dealt with; there is a section of the be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe we are Code of Construction Practice which addresses already negotiating Settlement Deeds with a number impacts on heritage features, for example, which will of proprietors along the route. I do not know the find its way into the contractual arrangements facts but if your Lordships would like me to find out, between the Secretary of State and the nominated I shall readily do so but I shall be surprised if we have undertaker. These matters have been the subject of not already received requests from proprietors within very thorough and continuing discussions between the Spitalfields area who wish to begin negotiations the Promoter and interested local authorities. They with us to enter into such a deed. The point I was are the subject of continuing discussions at the coming to was that under the terms of the model deed planning forum to which you have heard reference there is a dispute resolution clause which provides in already. Matters relating to heritage interests, as we short for arbitration --- The technical point is an have touched on, have been and continue to be the independent expert determination of any dispute that subject of discussions with English Heritage for arises under the deed by a suitably qualified obvious reasons and we have made very good independent expert, I suspect somebody who would progress with agreeing heritage deeds with English be a chartered surveyor would be the obvious Heritage for a number of locations along the route solution. I should say this is not new information in and that process continues. I have already pointed the public domain. These arrangements have not out that embraces, amongst other things, the need for changed substantially since the committee any mitigation works that may be needed, and I stress proceedings in another place and in the context of a may be needed, in relation to listed buildings aVected number of petition hearings at that time in the by ground movement. parliamentary process we explained these arrangements to the Committee and, indeed, my 3429. CHAIRMAN: I think that on this and on a clear recollection is that we explained them in some number of other matters members of the community considerable detail in the context of the Spitalfields of Spitalfields, and no doubt elsewhere, will want to petition hearings in June 2006. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
300 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3434. CHAIRMAN: The trouble is that you are in a policies are converted into undertakings, is that diVerent House and I think that you have to accept right? that the members of this Select Committee have probably not read every word of the transcripts of the (Mr Berryman) They are not necessarily converted proceedings in the Commons. into undertakings but they will be entered into the register of commitments and undertakings. The 3435. MR MOULD: That point was not directed at undertakings are normally given to individual the Committee, that was directed at people within parties. I am afraid I may have to ask one of the Spitalfields. Of course I appreciate, we should ensure lawyers to help me. that we inform your Lordships’ Committee as appropriate as to these matters but I had thought the 3442. We may be in diYculty over names of things. question was how do Petitioners know about these (Mr Berryman) The idea is that all of the matters. Forgive me if I misunderstood the point. commitments we have made, whether it is a commitment or an undertaking, will all be entered 3436. CHAIRMAN: All right, they do. Go ahead, into the register, will be enforceable either if it is a you wanted to ask a few questions. deed through the courts or a commitment through the Secretary of State which was mentioned earlier by 3437. MR MOULD: I am going to hand over now Mr Mould. to Mr Wheeler. 3443. BARONESS FOOKES: A commitment is Cross-examined byMrWheeler something which is derived from the policy documents and an undertaking is something specifically given in relation to a plea from a 3438. MR WHEELER: Thank you. Can I just ask petitioner or petitioners? whether the policy referred to has the same strength, (Mr Berryman) I do not think the definition is quite if that is the right phrase, as an undertaking? Because that clear-cut because some of the commitments are I am assuming --- Sorry, Mr Berryman, is it? contained, as you said, in policies, but some of them (Mr Berryman) It is Mr Berryman. are also of a more general nature such as some of the ones given to local authorities, for example. 3439. MR WHEELER: I am asking for guidance. I asked the question whether there was an undertaking 3444. CHAIRMAN: On the first page of the of a similar nature as this one here in respect to the Register I have got there are a number of general Buildings At Risk Register for listed buildings and assurances, not given to anybody in particular, but the answer I got was not yes or no but the fact that all sorts of useful things. Is that the sort of thing to there is a policy. Does the policy have equal strength which there are going to be additions? to an undertaking? I am not quite sure what I am (Mr Berryman) That is very likely. I have not got the supposed to take back to Spitalfields from here. I can list in front of me, my Lord, but I think that is the say there is a policy but not an undertaking? idea, that there will be additions to that. The basic (Mr Berryman) Generally speaking, the point is that everything which is contained in the commitments which are made in policy documents Information Paper which constitutes a commitment are picked up in the register of undertakings, that is (and there are lot of things in the Information Paper the same with the information papers. If there is which do not constitute commitments) those things something that is in the information paper which will be eventually included in the Register of constitutes a commitment to do something, that is Commitments and Undertakings. called up again in the register of commitments and undertakings. If that has not been done yet, it will be done before the final version of that is published. 3445. There are four or five pages of general assurances? 3440. CHAIRMAN: It is not in the register yet, all (Mr Berryman) Yes. of it? (Mr Berryman) Actually, my Lord, I am not sure 3446. BARONESS FOOKES: Is an assurance the whether it is or not, I thought this one was but may same as a commitment? not be. (Mr Berryman) I perhaps ought to get legal advice, but I think they only diVer in the way they are 3441. BARONESS FOOKES: Could we be clear enforced. about the system? You have your various policies set out in considerable detail. At some appropriate 3447. BARONESS FOOKES: Lawyers are good moment and I am not clear when this might be, those with words so perhaps we had better hear from them. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:55 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 301
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3448. MR MOULD: I think we use the phrase or consortia of original owners, even in “commitments” generically. Mr Berryman is circumstances where the land itself has been absolutely right that undertakings take two forms: materially changed as a result of the works— firstly, they are contractual contracts between the something which would not ordinarily fall within the Promoter and individual petitioners, which have the embrace of the Crichel Down Rules. That is force of a binding contract and are enforceable in something that Mr Smith explained to you in his that way at law. The other form of undertaking that presentation and we may return to that in the future. we provide is an undertaking given to Parliament; and a number of undertakings were given to the select 3451. Another example of policy is the Secretary of committee in the other place; those are enforceable State’s policy in relation to settlement. That is set out through parliamentary processes. Any undertaking, in Information Paper D12 and it embraces a number for example, given to this House would be of things; it embraces an assessment process which enforceable under the auspices of the Lord Chairman the Secretary of State advisedly has stated is her of Committees, as I understand it. There is a specific policy to follow in relation to the assessment of procedure under the Standing Orders of this House settlement. Mr Berryman has explained that we have to deal with undertakings; it is rather diVerent in the got a little way down the implementation of that Commons, and it is dealt with there on the floor of process, but by no means to the end of it; further the House. Assurances tend to be commitments, if work will be done between now and 2012 or 2013 you will, and I use that word in an informed sense, when the tunnel-boring machines are making their which are given by the Promoter on a wider basis; way beneath Spitalfields. It also embraces they are given not to individuals necessarily but they monitoring both before, during and after the are given to local authorities, who obviously construction of the tunnels. represent the interests of their constituents; they are given in relation to matters that aVect a number of 3452. It embraces another matter we have touched on people, organisations or institutions along the route. today the preparation of schedules of defects to Assurance is given, for example, about reducing, so identify pre-existing defects within properties, and far as reasonably practicable, obstructions of the thereby to assist the process after the works have highway system around worksites; that would be an been carried out of identifying any defects which have example of an assurance of that kind. resulted from the works themselves and therefore fall to the Promoter to remedy at the Promoter’s cost. 3449. We do have a number of provisions which we call “policies” relating to arrangements that are non- 3453. It embraces the commitment to make good statutory but which the Secretary of State or the damage caused by the construction of the railway Promoter has entered into and expressed in a public and through the impact of ground settlement. It also document, and there they take eVect in the usual way: lays the groundwork for the settlement deed, for that is to say, where the Secretary of State has property owners who fall within the class that I have promulgated a policy and says that she will act in a described to call for and to enter into a direct contract certain way in relation to matters, then ordinarily she with the Promoter so as to be able to secure through and the public are entitled to expect that she will direct contract the operation of that policy in relation behave in accordance with that policy. There may be to their building. There is a specimen Settlement circumstances of course where exceptionally there is Deed attached to Information Paper D12 so the some reason not to do so but ordinarily, in the Committee and those aVected are able to see what its absence of any such circumstances, she would expect ingredients are and how it may protect their interests to behave and act in accordance with the policy, and and the interests of their building in the event that the public would have that expectation. they call for it.
3450. I can give you two or three examples of that: 3454. I do stress this, it is not necessary to enter into first of all in relation to land acquisition, the the Settlement Deed in order to enjoy the advantages Secretary of State has promulgated a policy in of the settlement policy and its ingredients; those will relation to land disposal, and you will recall we have be brought to bear in favour of and for the protection referred to that; it is in one of the C series of the of properties aVected by ground movement due to the Information Papers. That policy essentially is an construction of the railway whether or not a extension of the very well-established policy which is Settlement Deed is called for. The mechanism enshrined in the Crichel Down Rules. The Crichel whereby those processes are secured is through the Down Rules themselves are an expression of policy— action of the Secretary of State who will put in place a very longstanding one. What we have done is we contractual arrangements with the nominated have extended this policy to a degree in order to undertaker and who, in advance of that, will continue embrace the disposal back of land to original owners to require that her policy is complied with in the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
302 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others continuing work of settlement assessment, do?—it seems to me that is in practice of greatest monitoring and so on and so forth. She is ultimately interest to Mr Wheeler and those whom he responsible to Parliament and, indeed, to the courts represents. They do not want to come to this House for carrying out her policy in a manner which is or to Parliament and to set in motion a parliamentary reasonable and proper. process. They want to be able to say, “I’ve got these rights, I want them honoured. I’m going to see 3455. That is a broader explanation of the somebody and point out that this is something that arrangements. It is perfectly readily acknowledged a should be done”. little complicated, but I think that is perhaps unavoidable given the scale of the scheme we are dealing with. What I can say is that these matters 3460. CHAIRMAN: This is exactly what I am trying have been set out in Information Papers and have to get out of you. been explained in another place and it is absolutely right that we should explain them, and I hope explain them with a tolerable degree of clarity, to your 3461. MR MOULD: That is why I keep saying, with Lordships. If there is more work to be done in that respect, that the neatest and simplest way under our respect then we will readily undertake it and provide arrangements for that to happen is for proprietors of any further clarity that is required. the kind you have mentioned to require of us that we give them what I called the Settlement Deed, which is a contract between ourselves and that proprietor in 3456. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, I hesitate to speak relation to their property which requires us for Mr Wheeler, but if I was one of his colleagues and contractually to undertake defect surveys, a listed building owner in Spitalfields I would look at inspections, to commit to paying the cost of remedial the Register39 of Undertakings and Assurances number 240, which is at the bottom of the page “The works that are required as a result of the construction Promoter will also undertake an internal inspection” of the tunnels, provide the dispute resolution and so on. Supposing nobody comes and looks at arrangements that Lord Brooke asked me about a my house which has got a very elaborate plasterwork few moments ago, all those things. If there is a frieze, what do I do, and it is a listed house? message that Mr Wheeler should take back loud and clear to those that he represents it is, those of us who own properties in Spitalfields which lie over or 3457. MR MOULD: On the assumption that it is a adjacent to the running tunnel of the railway, we listed house which lies on plan within 30 metres of the running tunnels, let us assume it is over the tunnel, must all write letters and say, “We want, please, a then if you are well advised you will have entered into Settlement Deed in relation to our property so that a Settlement Deed. we can secure under the terms of our contract with (Mr Berryman) May I interrupt? He would ring us up the Promoter these various protective measures and and we would arrange for such a survey to be done. benefits which we have been told are available to us”. If that event happened it would only be because we Frankly, that is by far the most straightforward way had missed somebody out inadvertently, or for some in which compliance can be secured. such reason. 3462. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, does that make 3458. CHAIRMAN: I am sure that is all very simple, sense to you? If it does not now do you think if you but at the present moment we have got a commitment discussed it a bit further with the Crossrail legal team to Parliament which was delivered to the House of it might do? Commons; now we are going to have the thing repeated in this House. There was a suggestion that what the person who is aggrieved ought to do is to go 3463. MR WHEELER: Yes, that is a good point. to the Lord Chairman of Committees? The issue of the Settlement Deeds will be dealt with by later petitioners, later presentations, tomorrow 3459. MR MOULD: I should make it clear, it is not and Thursday. It is not an issue that I am familiar our intention to repeat this commitment directly to with or presenting for discussion today. It is a very this House. The advice which we have is that, the legal issue and I am really dealing with the physical, commitment having been given in another place, that architectural, engineering issues. suYces for the purposes of ensuring that the commitment is honoured. What I am at pains to point out—because your Lordship asked the 3464. CHAIRMAN: We have done a bit of initial question: what would the individual property owner exploration of this. If you and your colleagues want 39 to follow it up you are, as far as we are concerned, and Assurances, No. 240 (SCN-20080311-012) welcome to do so. Crossrail Ref: P23, Extract from the Register of Undertakings Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 303
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3465. MR WHEELER: We will be. Thank you. 3472. MR MOULD: I do not have specific instructions to say that but I would be very surprised 3466. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I if we were not to say that is what we would do. am presuming, and maybe I am wrong, that you have (Mr Berryman) The situation really cuts across the a duty of care that you are going to communicate land acquisition point here, as well. We have to with every one of these properties and say to them, acquire subsoil rights from quite a lot of people, and “These are the assurances. It is in your interests to of course we have to reference them and find out who enter into a Deed of Settlement with us”. It should is living in which property, so we will have a register not be a situation where you inadvertently miss of the people directly over the tunnel. There will be a anyone out, because you will have a project zone of people either side of that corridor whom we management process. Am I right in assuming that will not necessarily have picked up by the formal you are going to do this so that they will get from you process of referencing. a communication which says, “These are your rights. These are the assurances and undertakings, etc. It is 3473. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: in your interests to enter into a Deed of Settlement”, Within the 30 metres? and you will describe the process? Then of course (Mr Berryman) Within the 30 metres, yes. However, they have got to get back to you, I accept that. we will obviously write to all the people as far as we can identify them. We have found through bitter 3467. MR MOULD: Every one of the petition experience we think we have written to everybody response documents which we have written in the last and then somebody pops up and says, “You haven’t month or so to Mr Wheeler’s body of petitioners, to written to me”. This is a particular area where that Mr Adams’ body of petitioners, to Miss Jones, to happens, because the street layout is rather others who have raised settlement in petitions has a discombobulated. As has been mentioned this paragraph in it which specifically identifies their morning, there are properties at the back of other entitlement to call for the Settlement Deed and refers properties which are occupied as separate to the Information Paper D12 that I have referred to. residencies. We will do our best to do that. We will That is not the first time that has been drawn to their have a consultation group in the area. We will have a attention. I think I am right in saying that exactly the one-stop shop. We have already given that same point was made in petition response documents undertaking to the other House. Anyone who feels that many of the same petitioners will have received that they have been missed out will be able to visit in 2006 in response to their petitions in another place. that one-stop shop and be dealt with there. We will I know this is not a complete answer, but it is also have a complaints commissioner so, in the event something that is included on the website as well. that person does not get satisfaction in the first instance, there is a complaints procedure and it will 3468. It is a feature of our arrangements that has be very well publicised. Certainly the intention will be certainly been well-ventilated in the public domain in to let everybody who is aVected know but, as I say, the parliamentary process, and I am very happy to go very occasionally you miss somebody out. on the record today and reiterate the points I have Unfortunately that is a fact of life, I am afraid. made. There is simply no doubt about that. As I understand it the key concern is that people should be 3474. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: On able directly to enforce these arrangements; and the the Register, the Deed, which you oVered on 18 Settlement Deed is the mechanism which is available February 2008 where you set out all the procedures in to them for that purpose. Information Paper D12, which I gather is going to be subject to further petitioning later this week, that I 3469. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: presume would go into the Register? If I may just explore further. What is the timetable within which they need to enter into this Deed of 3475. MR MOULD: I am not sure that it would. I Settlement with you? will take instructions on that, because it is felt that the Information Papers sit alongside the Register. I will 3470. MR MOULD: Any time in advance of nine take instructions on that and make sure. It may be months before the works take place underneath their sensible if it is not in the Register if we take steps to property. They have got between now and at the include it. latest 2011. 3476. Before we leave this, and I appreciate we have 3471. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: spent a bit of time on this, but it is obviously If before that time you notice there are one, two or something of importance. First of all, what I am half a dozen people who have not communicated, will going to do is I am going to ask that we invite you follow up with a further reminder to them? Planning Aid, who I think are still facilitating the Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
304 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
Liaison Panel or, failing that, invite the Liaison Panel 3485. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the things we have been themselves to put this topic on the next agenda for the talking about and from your points this morning. next Liaison Panel meeting and I am going to suggest that, if possible, we provide information to the next 3486. MR WHEELER: Obviously we would like to Liaison Panel meeting, explaining these procedures. come back to you on that. I think we do. I hope that would be a helpful thing to do. 3487. CHAIRMAN: We would be very happy if you 3477. CHAIRMAN: It certainly would. Has it not did come back if you find there is any gap. been on the agenda before? 3488. MR WHEELER: I will review the transcript 3478. MR MOULD: I honestly do not know the of these proceedings today with others and we will be answer to that question, it may have been. able to get back to you.
3479. CHAIRMAN: We are all very concerned 3489. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I about this Liaison Panel and why it does not seem to want to make sure that we have got a list of all the have worked better than it has. We would like any assurances and all the undertakings and that it is further enlightenment about that. comprehensive. Are there any more buried in the information papers that have not been incorporated 3480. MR MOULD: We are going to come to that into this and the addendum? and I take that point, but it is precisely the sort of thing that the Liaison Panel is there to do, which is to 3490. MR MOULD: The honest answer is, my be informed and disseminate information, so that Lord, I do not know. I do not believe that there are, seems to be a good idea. You will have noticed that but rather than try and speculate on something that number 188 on this list this extract from the Register, I have not taken direct instructions on for this we have undertaken to the London Borough of purpose, would it be sensible if I asked that question Tower Hamlets to produce a guide for aVected and report it back to you tomorrow morning and we property owners, setting out in clear language how can clarify the point in that way. the settlement policy is applied, distribute copies of the guide to all property where settlement may occur 3491. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I provide settlement reports and propose mitigation did not want it just for our benefit but for the measures automatically for building owners, contact Petitioners’ benefit. I was getting concerned that owners of buildings at an appropriate time when there might be one or two, through no fault tunnelling work has been completed to remind them necessarily of anybody, they have slipped through of their right to a further survey. I do not know how the net, so I think that is very welcome. far we have got in producing that guide, I will find out and I will report back to the Committee in relation 3492. MR MOULD: I will put that on the list of to that. things to report back on tomorrow.
3481. CHAIRMAN: And to the Liaison Panel. 3493. CHAIRMAN: Have we got to the point where Mr Wheeler can ask Mr Berryman his questions? 3482. MR MOULD: Indeed, but that guide is obviously another means whereby we can provide 3494. MR WHEELER: Thank you, my Lord. Mr directly information of the kind that, my Lord, Lord Berryman, Mr Mould asked early on in your piece Brooke has mentioned to us. I should say one other about the Commons’ responses from June 2006 and point, although this information paper is dated 20 I wonder do we have the text for that? I think it was February 2008, it is the fifth version of a document paragraphs 103, 104, 105, something like that. which has been in existence with the Settlement Deed attached to it for a number of years, since I think late 3495. MR MOULD: Is this the Special Report? 2005, so this is something which has been available and remains available for people to look at. 3496. MR WHEELER: Yes, the report of the Commons Select Committee June 2006. The question 3483. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, before we go on I have is that, as the presentation was made today, the with your questions, do you think you have got all the impression was given that the Committee were happy necessary papers or do you think you will be able to with the surveys that have been done to date? get access to them? 3497. CHAIRMAN: I do not think this Committee 3484. MR WHEELER: Regarding Settlement said anything about it, it is the Commons’ Deeds? Committee. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 305
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3498. MR WHEELER: Yes, this is the Commons’ have a look”, and that is how that was arranged, so Committee. What I want to ask Mr Berryman is, that certainly happened at that time. what did the Promoter or himself understand? If they were so happy, why did they ask the Promoter to 3502. Have the results of those inspections been come back to the Committee in the autumn of 2007 added to the surveys, because in your submission in and demonstrate clearly than an individual response to our Petition the surveys have not been assessment has been made of each listed historic altered since 2004? building in the area and the appropriate mitigation (Mr Berryman) I do not think anything particularly put in place? Why would they ask them to do that if striking was revealed as a result of that further they were happy with the surveys and, as we have inspection. subsequently heard today, nothing has happened anyway? What was supposed to happen by autumn 3503. But you are claiming to have made a series of 2007? internal inspections. (Mr Berryman) Can I check the date of that Special (Mr Berryman) No, we have not made formally Report? internal inspections, we have made a couple of internal inspections where the owners have invited us 3499. MR MOULD: October 2007. in but that is all we have done, apart from the three (Mr Berryman) I think this report was written after that you mentioned this morning, the public house. that report had been made by us back to the Committee. When the Committee rose in July they 3504. MR WHEELER: What is the procedure here? told us to go back to them in the autumn and Were you just standing out in the street and they demonstrate as is described there and they then say in spotted you or— the next paragraph of 104: “We are happy to report (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is literally what happened. that the Promoter has done a considerable amount of work to ensure settlement impact . . . ”, and so on. I 3505. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: will not read it all out, but I think this was their report With your camera! which was made after the action which they asked for (Mr Berryman) It was not me personally, my Lord, in June had been taken. We asked the Promoters to it was a member of our team, no doubt standing over come back to the Committee in autumn 2007. The the clipboard and writing on it and taking report you were just referring to was produced in photographs and the like. October 2007 after we had reported back. They go on to say in paragraph 104: “We are happy to report that 3506. MR WHEELER: I think I might come back the Promoter has done a considerable amount of to that when I can get my head around it. The next work to ensure that the settlement40 impact of the question, a list of building owners understand very works on all buildings, including listed and historic well the meaning of listed building legislation, that it buildings, have been adequately assessed and is generally there to protect the buildings from appropriate mitigation put in place”. unsympathetic owners. In this instance it is of some assurance that it might protect the buildings from 3500. MR WHEELER: But you explained to the other unsympathetic parties and the significant Committee earlier on this morning that you had not engineering projects, such as Crossrail, so it is very done any extra work on those Phase 3 surveys concerning to hear that, while the owners remain between the original publication in 2004. banned by this listed building legislation, the (Mr Berryman) I do not recall saying that. I certainly Promoter is not. Can you confirm what parts of the do not recall saying that. listed building legislation are—I think the expression is—disapplied under this act? What protection do we 3501. Well, I have made a note of it. Could I ask it in have under listed building legislation that we assume another way, what work has been done to those we still have but we now learn we do not have? reports since 2004? (Mr Berryman) Generally speaking, the protection (Mr Berryman) I think further inspections were under this piece of legislation will be similar in eVect, carried out after the Committee made those remarks although not perhaps in detail, to that which exists and, as a result of that, you mentioned some of the under statute. One thing I should put your mind at buildings had been internally examined. This rest on, your refer to ‘unsympathetic’. Just for the happened when our engineers were walking around avoidance of doubt, I would like to confirm that my making notes about the buildings, the owners came view of these buildings is of a very fine collection of out and said, “Would you like to come inside and Georgian buildings, which is part of our national
40 heritage and I would no more think of damaging than Special Report of Session 2006–07, Crossrail Bill, HC 235-I, para I would of damaging St Paul’s Cathedral. I think it is 104 (SCN-20080311-008) rather unfortunate that you have taken that view. House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, First Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
306 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3507. MR WHEELER: It was not a personal I was reassured that he has been involved in the comment, so apologies if you found it oVensive. I project, not least because he knows quite a few of the think what I mean is that essentially, in the question, residents very well and they would probably ask the owners are bound by this legislation and we are him himself. concerned that the project is not, and that does not (Mr Berryman) Indeed they will and I believe many give a very happy message to owners of listed of them already have done. buildings, so I do not quite understand from your answer what elements of that protective legislation do not apply to your project that will apply to— 3519. There seems to be some confusion over the assessment scores. We have illustrated how they vary 3508. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, I think it may be depending on whether an internal inspection has that you will have to help on this, it is a matter of law. been made or not, but what is the relevance and how do they guide your choice of what surveys you carry 3509. MR MOULD: Yes. out next? (Mr Berryman) I think the score falls into two parts, 3510. BARONESS FOOKES: I thought it had been does it not? It falls into the assessment of the explained this morning that there were precautions settlement impacts and the sensitivity of the structure built in but they operated rather diVerently. and, possibly in the case of the disused synagogue, the (Mr Berryman) That is correct, my Lady. general dilapidation of the building was the factor which Alan Baxter took into account when they 3511. MR MOULD: This was the point I went moved that building up one category. It is a building through in some detail just after the short at risk, as I think you remarked earlier. At this stage adjournment this afternoon. the decision whether or not to do internal surveys will be based on any special circumstances such as that. 3512. CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is a question We would not generally be doing internal surveys at that Mr Berryman can answer, it is a matter for the this stage. We did do the three that you asked us to lawyers. do. As I say, we have fortuitously done some others as well, but that is not really part of our process at 3513. MR MOULD: I am not going to repeat what this stage. I said.
3514. CHAIRMAN: No, you can read it in the 3520. Can I ask then for you to talk in a bit more transcript. detail about these scores? If a building scores 2, how does your treatment of it thereafter vary or diVer 3515. MR WHEELER: You make much of Alan from if the building had scored 3? Baxter’s credentials. Could you confirm the extent to (Mr Berryman) I do not have the chart in front of me, which he was involved in the production of these but the higher the score, the more intensive the reports? modelling and the analysis which is carried out to (Mr Berryman) His firm produced them all. check the stability and adequacy of the building for the settlement which is going underneath it. 3516. Alan Baxter is the expert whose credentials you Generally speaking, you start at the lowest level have been talking about. where there is the lowest risk and you do an analysis (Mr Berryman) I take it Alan Baxter, in common of what we call the greenfield settlement. If that is with any other consulting engineer, takes that okay, you do not go any further, unless there is some responsibility for the behaviour and reports of his particular reason for doing so. If it is not okay, you stuV. Although I have no personal knowledge of go to the next stage and do a more detailed analysis, exactly how he has monitored it, I am confident he rising to the highest stage where you would do has monitored it and in my discussion with him on detailed finite elements analysis using very this topic he has demonstrated that he has a thorough sophisticated computer programmes and very understanding of the reports that his staV have extensive analysis. The score just determines the prepared. amount of work that is put in on that particular property. 3517. So he has been involved in the process? (Mr Berryman) He certainly has. 3521. There are only three scores I think, it is either 3518. I am not casting any aspersions on Alan Baxter 1, 2 or 3. or his oYce, it is just you have made a lot of big play (Mr Berryman) You are talking about Phase 3 now, of his expertise, which we entirely acknowledge, and are you not? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 307
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3522. Yes, that is all we have done so far. 3528. So these final surveys, which you do—if you (Mr Berryman) Well, in fact there are two phases have a score of 3 you qualify but you do not qualify before Phase 3, as you are aware. It is just that listed if you have only got a score of 2—they are done a year buildings go straight to Phase 3. before the tunnels come through. Is that a diVerent procedure to the condition surveys that you would do 3523. That is what we are talking about, listed on all the buildings? buildings. There seems to be three scores available, 1, (Mr Berryman) Normally, we would try and do the 2 or 3, and what we are not clear, we are putting a lot condition surveys at a reasonable period before the of eVort into asking to inspect them and certainly machines come through, for the obvious reason that because we believe that will lift their scores, as has buildings can deteriorate in the period between our been demonstrated, but we are not quite sure what inspection and the tunnel-boring coming through. So follows on from that, what have we achieved, so I we need to be about a year in advance of the machines wonder whether you could explain what is the coming through. diVerence between 1, 2 and 3? What does it mean? (Mr Berryman) It means that more detailed and more intrusive— 3529. MR WHEELER: So the condition surveys get done pretty much the same time as your historic 3524. No, specifically, if you score 3, how does that building surveys. I am struggling to see the diVerence aVect the Promoter’s response or how does that aVect between how you treat one category of building and the Promoter’s dealings with that building thereafter? another. It seems, essentially, they are all going to be I cannot get to the point of these scores. surveyed one day—rather too late. (Mr Berryman) If you score 3, you do a very detailed analysis of possible movements within the building, 3530. CHAIRMAN: I think we are at cross assess in detail what the impacts might be on that purposes. I think that the surveys that will be done in building. We would still expect that most of the advance take two forms: will one of them not be a buildings that scored 3 would still fall into the negligible or very slight category of damage, but we predictive engineering survey about what is likely to would have to make sure that our analysis was be the eVect on a particular building of the tunnelling comprehensive, thorough and included all the issues. process, and the other sort of survey is what the If it was found that there were some problems, then building is like now? we may have to go to some strengthening or some (Mr Berryman) That is correct. remedial work before the tunnelling came through but, as I think you know, there is nothing on the route 3531. MR WHEELER: Yes, that is true. which falls into that category.
3525. What happens if it scores 2? 3532. CHAIRMAN: Is that right? (Mr Berryman) If it scores 2, we do an intermediate level of analysis on the building to make sure that our original assumptions are correct. We take into 3533. MR WHEELER: That is just what I mean. account the stiVness of the building itself as well as The point is it seems as though both those surveys are the ground movements which are relevant in going to be done at exactly the same time. If this determining how the building reacts. I think further survey for the buildings that score 3 is done a Professor Mair can fill you in on that better year in advance of the tunnels coming through, and tomorrow morning. what Mr Berryman is also saying is that the condition surveys will be done at exactly the same time, what I 3526. When does this very detailed analysis that you am wondering is how a building that scores 3 is referred to in score 3 happen? treated any diVerently to a building that scores 2. (Mr Berryman) It would happen in suYcient time (Mr Berryman) If a building has scored 3, further before the tunnel boring machines came through, to analysis will be done on the actual tunnelling process ensure that if any remedial work or strengthening and on the machine that, by that time, we have work was needed it could be done. I would have already bought. The detailed analysis of the thought twelve months or so before would be about movement of the building will be carried out at that the right time. stage, and if any temporary propping or things of that sort (actually, we do not anticipate anything like 3527. Twelve months. You mentioned that the that will be necessary) we would arrange for it to be tunnels are going through between 2012 and 2014. done at that time, possibly the works being done a (Mr Berryman) Yes. The back end of 2012 at the few weeks before the tunnel-boring machines come earliest. through. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
308 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
41 3534. I understand that. The next question I have safeguarded route and none for this route—well, one concerns a map we saw right at the beginning of the down in the left-hand corner. piece this morning, concerning the boreholes. Do we (Mr Berryman) I cannot answer for the previous have that map available? Thank you. Can I ask what scheme because I was not involved in it. However, these boreholes are investigating? they actually, for reasons which I do not quite (Mr Berryman) They are investigating the soil strata understand, did far more detailed design and far beneath the ground. more site investigation for this area than we have done. We have been focusing on the areas for which 3535. Why do they so conclusively avoid where the we have no results. You will appreciate that this tunnels are going? scheme is quite diVerent from the 1992 scheme, in (Mr Berryman) The boreholes in this area were that it goes further out—it goes to Canary Wharf and carried out in the 1992 scheme. This is the only one down to Woolwich, and so on—and what we have we have done so far down here. Crossrail is not a focused on is the areas where we have nothing, which popular project in this area. We have had great are quite large chunks of the route. So this is an area diYculty— where we have pretty good information already. Of course, we will do more before we actually start 3536. CHAIRMAN: You do surprise me, Mr boring, but there is no reason to suppose that the Berryman! geology sections produced by these boreholes are anything other than correct. 3537. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: “How would you like a borehole in your garden?” 3541. So you are suggesting that the evidence that does not go down well! you gain from the boreholes that have been done are (Mr Berryman) Absolutely. We have had great adequate for your purposes? diYculty in arranging for building owners to give us (Mr Berryman) They are certainly adequate for access. Of course, when we have the powers which the planning at this stage, yes. Bill gives us we will be able to do that much more conveniently. 3542. Are you intending to do any more along the 3538. MR WHEELER: You should have been route? around when Clancy Docwra have been digging up (Mr Berryman) We have quite an extensive the whole area. There are plenty of opportunities for programme of boreholes over the next two years. boreholes. (Mr Berryman) Regrettably, their boreholes are not 3543. Why is it not on this plan? deep enough for our purposes. (Mr Berryman) I have no idea.
3539. I see what you mean, because that is why the boreholes carry on up north, is it not, because it is 3544. There is one on the bottom left-hand corner. I following the original safeguarded route. Then you have noted that. I do not think that really does the job do not show any proposed boreholes either following for us, I am afraid, but you see what I mean. So that the actual route. I think we have spoken about the is work that you are going to progress. Are you variable ground conditions and what have you in this proposing to do any more boreholes on this route? area. It is alarming that the boreholes you are relying They are not shown here but you say you are. Will on are actually not for the routes that you are you announce where they are going to be? That is pursuing. Are you not going to be taking greater care going to be something that local residents will be to put a few boreholes down along the route you are interested in. If they are to get a borehole in their back actually excavating? garden you should be able to tell them now and not (Mr Berryman) I do not know who has given you the just before the tunnels come through. idea that the ground in this area is not consistent in (Mr Berryman) Certainly the boreholes will not be its stratification. Nothing could be further from the done just before the tunnels come through. As I say, truth; this is quite a straightforward area to map. The we have a programme of boreholes in the area in the geology here is straightforward. whole of the route. We have had, as I say, some diYculty in locating people who are prepared to let us 3540. Why does this route merit very much fewer on to their land. We will certainly be doing a borehole boreholes than the previous route? I can count half- just here, without any doubt. Whether we will need to a-dozen, at least, boreholes from the previous do any down here or not will possibly depend on
41 what we find there. It is likely there will be at least two Spitalfields area (TOWHLB-XR5A-094) in this area, between here and here (indicating). Crossrail Ref: P23, 10mm settlement contours and boreholes— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 309
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3545. We may be being paranoid, or whatever, but 3551. I am not talking about number 19 Princelet you hear lots of stories about wells and underground Street. The question is why was this policy, of at least water in this area. It is not a big brewery next door including the internal description, applied to 3 and 5 for nothing. when it was not applied to the rest of them. (Mr Berryman) If I could just interrupt you there, Mr (Mr Berryman) I have no idea, I am afraid. Wheeler, the wells which fed the brewery were deep, artesian wells which went much deeper than we 3552. As I say, it has an eVect on the scores. would be going. They went below the London Clay. (Mr Berryman) May I contradict you there? I do not Digging a well in London Clay is a very pointless think it does have any eVect on the scores. In exercise, because there is no water in it. The essence particular, in that case it does not. The reason that of London Clay is that it is impermeable to water. So the score for number 19— we would be very surprised if there were any significant wells belonging to these residential 3553. MR WHEELER: I am not talking about properties. individual cases.
3554. CHAIRMAN: Do let him finish. Let him 3546. MR WHEELER: Thank you. I inquired answer the question. during the break what internal inspections had been (Mr Berryman) The reason the score on number 19 carried out to 3 and 5, because, as I mentioned in my was raised was because of the general dilapidation of previous evidence, we put up the page from Alan the building which, our surveyors felt, with a good Baxter that mentioned lots of internal features and it puV of wind would fall down anyway, irrespective of rather stood apart from the rest of the assessments. I whether or not we were going to do tunnelling understand that, actually, no internal inspection was underneath it. carried out of that property and that that list of internal features on that assessment comes entirely 3555. MR WHEELER: That was not your original from the listed building descriptions that we were assessment of the building, was it? talking about earlier. Unfortunately, it was made (Mr Berryman) That was not the original assessment over 20 years ago, as I suspect are all the other listed based on an external view but, as you noted, this is a building descriptions. An awful lot, as you know, has building at risk and, therefore, it would have been happened in the area over those years. highly likely to have been in need of some care and attention. 3547. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, there is a 3556. So there was no reason that you know of why diVerence between making a speech and asking a the assessment for numbers 3 to 5 followed a rather question. Could you stick to the question? diVerent strategy to the remainder of them? (Mr Berryman) I would imagine it was because Alan 3548. MR WHEELER: Yes. What I was going to Baxters had ready access to that information. They ask was: why was the policy of at least inspecting the told me during lunchtime that roughly a third of the listed building descriptions not applied to all the buildings which are in this area they have done work other buildings? As I demonstrated earlier, it has an on over the years, so they probably have an extensive impact on these scores. knowledge of this area, which is perhaps reflected in some of the work they have done. (Mr Berryman) In the cases you mention I do not think it had an impact on the scores. 3557. Do you know why they did not pass that on to Mott MacDonald in these reports? 3549. That is fine, I would accept that, but I am (Mr Berryman) Passed what on? worried about all the cases I have not mentioned. We have demonstrated to you that when we took the 3558. The extensive information you say they have of Promoter, or Alan Baxter, back to number 19 the these buildings. score was uplifted. (Mr Berryman) They passed on the information (Mr Berryman) Indeed it was. Mott MacDonald needed to make assessments of the strains which would be placed on the buildings. That is what they were engaged to do, that is what they did, 3550. We are concerned, of course, that if we go and they have expressed that is what they would have through all the other properties the same result expected at this stage. might apply. (Mr Berryman) The reason the score was uplifted by 3559. Do you think that can actually be done without Alan Baxter when he went in— an internal inspection? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
310 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I do. The key thing is the established a detailed understanding of the historic geometry of the exterior walls, is it not—the height character or significance of these buildings concerned and the disposition of them. in accordance with the criteria laid down in PPG 15, and in particular identified any features of particular 3560. MR WHEELER: I disagree. I think the architectural interest and sensitivity—for example, presence— delicate plasterwork and fine stucco mouldings. Now you are saying you will do it, not that you have 3561. CHAIRMAN: You are asking questions “you done it. do not think” at the moment. (Mr Berryman) We have done that as far as the external features of the building are concerned. We 3562. MR WHEELER: I am sorry. How do you have not necessarily done it as far as the internal therefore assess how a structure is going to behave, if features are concerned. you cannot get inside it and look at it, if that structure contains elements like cast iron and underpinned 3565. That is not what this statement says, I am foundations and concrete basements that are not afraid. It says that you have done it, and in particular apparent from the outside? you have identified features of architectural interest (Mr Berryman) I am not sure that those matters and so on. make any diVerence at all to the kind of information (Mr Berryman) We have, and the reports that we that we are seeking. As I said this morning, it is the have put before you make that clear, do they not? I strain on the building which leads to any other am sorry, I cannot answer the question. damage which might result to the building, such as cracking of features, and so on. There seems to be an 3566. What I am confused about is that you say you idea that these buildings do not move. In fact, the will do it and yet what you have published says you strain caused, on the fac¸ade of one of the buildings have done it. As you say you have done it and because which I was looking at over lunchtime, by the sun we know you have not done it, we are asking for an shining on it in summer will be greater than the strain undertaking that you do it. It is very fundamental to caused by tunnel-boring machines passing our undertaking. underneath. We are talking about very, very, very (Mr Berryman) I do not think there will be a problem small movements, typically the kind of stress/strain with that. We need to work on the wording, of ratios we are talking about are 5 millimetres in a 30- course, but I do not think there will be a problem. metre long frontage, which is that much (indicating) in quite a big building of 100 feet long. It is not 3567. Thank you. I put the undertaking before the something that does not happen every day, due to Committee, and if we can make progress on that that thermal movement and general movement of the would be good. So you have clarified that it has not ground. yet been done but it will be done. (Mr Berryman) Not as far as internal features are 3563. Can you tell me, if you do not actually carry out concerned, no. these internal inspections, how do you record the vulnerable and the special internal features that your 3568. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, Ms Cove has policy says that you are searching for and that you been waiting all afternoon. She did not finish have stated you are doing these assessments in yesterday. I think it would only be fair if she was accordance with PPG 15, and taking account of allowed to take the stage fairly soon. I do not want to vulnerable features like plastered ceilings and interrupt your train of thought, but I think we will cornices and mouldings? How do you assess those if have to listen to her fairly soon. you cannot actually ever see them? (Mr Berryman) We will see them. I thought I had explained several times now that we will see them 3569. MR WHEELER: Yes, it was that first point before the tunnel-boring machines come through. I we dealt with that rather interrupted proceedings. stress, again, it is the strain on the building which will cause damage to those features. You are an architect 3570. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid, to some extent, it and I expect that you know that as well. It is the strain was to your benefit. on the building which will cause damage to those buildings, and that is the thing that we are trying to 3571. MR WHEELER: Yes. Petitioners are calculate to work out what it is. concerned that they would be put to proof in respect of any damage caused: is this damage caused by the 3564. What you have reported, on 15 February 2008 result of tunnelling or is it just a natural feature of (tell me if this is correct and still your position), is not their historic fabric? How are you going to that you “will” do it; what it says is that you “have” approach this? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 311
11 March 2008 The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
(Mr Berryman) Where does it say that? (Mr Berryman) I think certainly some of them which have been significantly altered may benefit from a structural survey, yes, but I keep going back to the 3572. Does it need to say it? I am saying Petitioners same point, that we genuinely do not expect the are concerned; that is why we are here today. It may movement of the buildings to be significant at all, be unclear, when damage is caused, whether it is as a irrespective of whether they have been altered or not. result of tunnelling or of the natural historic fabric of Certainly when we inspect the interior of the the buildings. building, if we find any particularly sensitive or (Mr Berryman) The answer to that question is that unusual features, then that will be something that will we need to rely on our experts on both sides, certainly be checked. on our experts, to assess that. This is why, as far as the condition survey is concerned, the surveyors involved will be engaged on our joint behalf, and we will pay 3578. The reason we have raised that question is for them of course, but they will be engaged on behalf because we are very keen to get to the bottom of the of both us and you, and we will rely on their issue of diVerential settlement. Would it then be professional expertise to answer those questions possible to review these structural surveys together or properly. even your internal inspections in order to quantify the diVerential settlement? (Mr Berryman) Well, we certainly will make that 3573. How can you actually prove the cause of information available, yes. damage without monitoring the buildings for an extended period beforehand? 3579. At some time we will be able to look at the (Mr Berryman) We will be monitoring the buildings buildings together rather than individually? for a period beforehand. I think that is covered in the (Mr Berryman) Do you mean together between Settlement Deed. ourselves and the owners or together as a group?
3574. What sort of time frame are we talking about? 3580. I mean both actually. (Mr Berryman) I think it is nine months, but I am (Mr Berryman) I think the answer to both those relying on my memory, I am afraid. questions is yes, we will.
3575. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 3581. Can42 we put up the plan of the route coming out It says for one year, according to your ground of Liverpool Street Station, which is just a more settlement information paper. “Where practical, it is distant view than the one you have on the screen proposed to carry out full one-year area background already? I got the impression from the presentation, monitoring to establish seasonal trends with I cannot remember if it was at the beginning of the building-specific monitoring commencing at least day or not or Mr Mould’s presentation a bit later, one month prior to the commencement of the and the alignment of Whitechapel Station was works”. It goes on, “Monitoring will continue until confirmed, but I got the impression that the all potentially damaging settlement due to the alignment of the new station at Whitechapel was Crossrail works has ceased”. resolved before the route alignment and that that is (Mr Berryman) As your Lordships are probably what created this big S-bend that we have. Is that aware, London goes up and down a bit through the correct? diVerent parts of the year, so it is necessary to have (Mr Berryman) That is substantially correct. I think that background position so that we can identify the point that was identified there was the potential what is due to tunnelling and what is just due to the worksites here and here (indicating) and there natural cycle. possibly would have been some possibility of very minor movements within that, but generally in that corridor was the identified route for the station 3576. MR MOULD: I hesitate to add further, but tunnels. just picking up on Lord Young’s point, in the case of Spitalfields the monitoring will actually continue for 3582. Lastly, we got this very large package of a period of seven years after the works because that is information from the Promoters yesterday which I what we have undertaken to the House of Commons understand, though we have not read all the way Select Committee that we will do. through, but I did spot a couple of pages at the end and I wonder, since I have them here, whether we 3577. MR WHEELER: Do you agree, in the light of could look at those briefly and then I will be done. the substantial alterations that I have described to a They highlight an issue that has been baZing a lot of number of these buildings, that a structural survey is 42 really required of all these properties? Liverpool Street (1) (SCN-20080311-013) Crossrail Ref: P23, Plan of building development east of Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
312 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association the Petitioners I am representing for some time, but I 3587. CHAIRMAN: You can comment on it, but at have never seen it so graphically illustrated before. I the moment you are asking questions. am not quite sure why these papers are in this report at all— 3588. MR WHEELER: Well, I was going to ask what my question was and you have answered it, so 3583. CHAIRMAN: Never mind that, they are, so thank you. you ask questions about them. 3589. CHAIRMAN: Before anything further 3584. MR WHEELER: You have the base route happens, we are going to listen to Ms Cove. coming oV here (indicating) and this is, I think, an option, though I am not going to talk about options 3590. MR WHEELER: Well, I have completed my and stuV like that, but it seems to go through all these questions, my Lord. great big, tall buildings and so on. We know where the base route goes, up through all the listed buildings 3591. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I do not and so on. Could we go on to the next one? What I know whether Mr Mould wants to ask anything? simply wonder is what is stopping you going just from one station directly to the other, straight 3592. MR MOULD: No, I think we should get on through here (indicating)? with Ms Cove. I have a number of things which I will need to come back to you on tomorrow. 3585. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, we are stopping him because it is not within the principle of the Bill. The route of the tunnels is within the principle of the 3593. CHAIRMAN: You can come back on them Bill and there is nothing that we can do about it. It is tomorrow and Mr Wheeler can have the final say. as simple as that. It is the same point that I made this morning. 3594. MR MOULD: What I am going to do, as you know, is I am going to call Professor Mair tomorrow. 3586. MR WHEELER: It is, yes, I acknowledge that. Well, I will leave it at that then. As I say, we got 3595. CHAIRMAN: I realise that Ms Cove has been these papers very late last night. I looked at them and waiting all afternoon and I think we really are duty- I thought that, if this is information that is now being bound to hear from her. presented to us in response, one might comment on it and that is the immediate comment that arises. The witness withdrew
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of the Spitalfields Community Association.
MsJilCove appeared as Agent.
3596. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid there is always a of all matters really that have an impact on the living wait in legal proceedings if you are not extremely and working conditions and the well-being of local lucky, but we are glad you are still here. Do you have residents and small businesses. time now to present this? We can go on until five. 3599. You will already know that other Petitioners 3597. MS COVE: Yes, I am sure I have got time. In will be dealing with specific details relating to the fact I thought I had begun to negotiate with counsel tunnel and Whitechapel Station, but I would just say that I would go away and come back tomorrow in passing that in my Petition there was a section morning, but I am here, so I will present my Petition. oVering an alternative site for the Whitechapel Station which was more or less directly opposite, 3598. Having listened to the sort of technicalities, as across the road, on a vacant or semi-vacant plot I mentioned to you yesterday, you may be quite which in fact the Promoters just did not address in relieved that my presentation to you is of a very their response to my Petition, but in fact just gave me simple nature, I hope, and it concerns a number of a routine justification for the supposed regeneration things. First of all, let me just say, as I said yesterday, of the facilities of the station itself. that I am the Secretary of the Spitalfields Community Association which was formed in 1998 and we have 3600. I am going to be dealing with generalities 185 members across the diverse community and our covering consultation, the Community Liaison Panel function is to try to present the widest possible view and the impact of the proposed construction site on Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 313
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association the health of local people. At the end, I will be asking levels of health”. Again, Dr Safir has described that for some advice because I have heard the earlier in quite vivid detail yesterday, I think. We know that discussions regarding what is a policy, what is an increased noise, dust, air pollution, stress levels, road assurance and what is an undertaking, and I have traYc and other features associated with major ended up probably sort of not fully understanding, construction sites have a more detrimental impact on but you can understand the confusion for laypeople people suVering chronic ill-health leading to between the two, and my concern of course is that increases in stress and a worsening in both their policies, I understand, are non-statutory. However, I physical and their mental health. Despite that, the will be seeking some advice from you at the end. Health Impact Assessment says throughout, without any supporting evidence being included in the actual 3601. We have heard from Dr Safir and I just really document, that everything is going to be fine in wanted to come back again on the question of this Spitalfields. Now, I have heard in fact that, if we want Health Impact Assessment which was produced by to find out how they have done this assessment, we Crossrail in January 2006. We received it in June have to cross-reference all of this with the 2006 and it is a 40-page document covering the entire Environmental Impact Assessment which is a very route. We were assured in the House of Commons complicated and very lengthy document which, as a that it was a work-in-progress and that more work layperson, I neither have the technical ability to would be done on specific areas of the issues that we address those issues nor the wherewithal to sift for raised in the House of Commons with regard to this days on end trying to find that evidence, and I would rather bland document. To my knowledge, and you have hoped that it should have been included in the heard from Dr Safir, virtually nothing, as far as we Health Impact Assessment. However, they do not in are aware, has been done with regards to this being a that document actually provide any detailed work-in-progress document. Now, we believe that environmental statement for such evidence, and any the document is totally inadequate and it does increase in noise, dust, air pollution and all other recognise that Tower Hamlets will be one of the factors impacting on health arising from the boroughs worst aVected by the Crossrail Hanbury Street construction site in the middle of a construction from air pollution, dust, noise, densely populated area, they say, “will have no increased stress levels, accidents, et cetera, but significantly detrimental eVect on Spitalfields nowhere does it oVer any specific solutions for residents”. mitigating these impacts, nor does it oVer any benefits that might help to oVset these detrimental impacts. 3604. A specific area of serious concern to us is the increase in air pollution. We again have heard from 3602. In supporting evidence that we have received Dr Safir about the seriously high level of patients in from Crossrail, it says that the Crossrail Health his practice suVering from potentially fatal chest Impact Assessment is focused on the changes to the ailments of all types and of children with eczema and key determinants of health that are predicted to occur asthma, much of which is suspected to be the result of as a result of the project. It is not concerned with the very high levels of air pollution. Neither Dr Safir nor eVects that would occur anyway without Crossrail, I are experts on pollution, but I have been advised by but it does consider possible cumulative impacts a former GP in fact, who is not Dr Safir, that Tower resulting from implementing the project in an Hamlets has one of the worst air pollution rates in environment that is already aVecting the health of the inner London. A committee on the medical eVects of defined population significantly. There is no air pollution says, “The eVects of air pollution in the evidence, as far as I can see, to demonstrate that UK show that deaths occur earlier and that hospital Crossrail have considered any cumulative eVects on admissions for respiratory diseases are probably both the health of Spitalfields residents. caused by exposure to air pollution”. The same committee goes on to say, “The results of preliminary 3603. Further on, the document says that these work on exposure to air pollution is certainly impacts on the key determinants of health may then consistent with current levels of air pollution having lead to a changed health outcome, such as an a significant eVect on life expectancy”. Now, this is a increase, or a decrease, in the risk of disease or pretty sobering message for us as local residents and accident. Perhaps most significantly, the actual for all the doctors in the Spitalfields practice as it is Health Impact Assessment itself says that “life acknowledged in the Health Impact Assessment that expectancy between the London boroughs exhibits in Spitalfields we will be one of the neighbourhoods similar trends with Tower Hamlets having the lowest worst aVected by this increased pollution from the life expectancy and the fourth lowest in England. Life Hanbury Street construction site and the increase in expectancy is the general indication of health, and lorry movements in narrow, congested and heavily lower life expectancies are associated with poorer used streets. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
314 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association
3605. Crossrail’s Health Impact Assessment suggests secondly, once they are at Burdett Road they might that increased air pollution will be limited to a very just as well go away altogether with their load on and small area immediately adjacent to the construction not come back to Spitalfields. We are not site, but that assessment provides again absolutely no wonderfully impressed with the idea of the holding evidence to support that claim, and I have already area. Once the lorries have left Burdett Road and said that, in order to find out the evidence to support they get to Hanbury Street and get loaded up they that claim, I would have to sift through the may have to wait 20 minutes or so between 9.00 and Environmental Impact Assessment for such details. 9.30 in the morning before they can go oV out of the route; and the holding is like a parking space 3606. However, the document does say that ambient overnight, or maybe at lunchtime. I was going to ask air pollution concentrations will increase along the about that because it did not make sense to me to lorry routes, but they justify that by claiming that it have it in the holding area. We believe they are going will increase by only 10 per cent, but that any direct to be idling around and they will have their engines impact on health of those living along the routes is running in Spitalfields because we know from past likely to be so small as to be “beyond meaningful experience of major construction sites that lorry quantification”. This can only be described as a drivers, because they are very often subcontractors of vacuous claim as no data is provided to support this subcontractors of subcontractors and they are self- statement, and you have seen for yourselves on your employed, a) they are in a hurry to get their job done walkabout the narrowness of our streets and how and b) they want to get going and want to move fast close the blocks of flats are to the roadway. The HIA once they do get going and they are not liking the idea gives no acknowledgement to the published fact as of hanging around for half an hour one way or the well that is well-known within the medical profession other. that certain particles from traYc exhaust, which are called PM10s, will inevitably be a major component 3612. We are very concerned about the potential of the increased pollution along the lorry routes in increase in air pollution and the seriously detrimental Spitalfields. More importantly, these PM10s are impact we think it will have on the Spitalfields easily able to travel long distances and enter homes residents both in the short and in the long-term. through windows even when they are closed or double-glazed. 3613. On Monday Mr Mould suggested that Dr Safir, as a member of the Community Liaison Panel, would 3607. We are also very concerned about lorries be useful for providing health information, and he waiting in the area for the proposed 30-minute agreed that he would. In that forum he can only really stoppages at the moment. Chances are that, if they give health information in general terms as none of us are going to be only there for, say, ten minutes, they are health professionals on the Community Liaison are going to keep their engines running rather than Panel, apart from Dr Safir. It was also suggested that turn them oV. Dr Safir should actually approach the primary care trust and the environmental health people to ask 3608. CHAIRMAN: I asked about this and there them what they are doing. This is a major, major apparently are holding areas. project and surely Crossrail have some responsibility for taking the initiative. You asked Mr Wheeler 3609. MS COVE: I heard about that yesterday. The about whether they had actually contacted directly holding area is in Burdett Road, if I remember the people aVected in the Georgian houses and it rightly. Burdett Road is a good half a mile away so I seems it is a fairly cavalier approach as to whether cannot see that lorries will come into Spitalfields, you get chosen or whether you do not. It seems to us come into Hanbury Street, get loaded up with their on the matter, for instance, of local environmental load and then go back to Burdett Road to wait for health we know in Tower Hamlets, because of budget half an hour and then come back and go through our cuts and for a variety of reasons, there are a very, very route. That would not make sense. limited number of environmental health oYcers in the borough and they have got enough on their hands 3610. CHAIRMAN: It may be a contractual dealing with all sorts of other issues that relate to requirement. our area.
3611. MS COVE: Once they have gone back to 3614. Mr Mould also suggested that the PCT might Burdett Road with their load they have got to get out want to take the lead. I notice that the Committee of Spitalfields to get back to Burdett Road. If they members commented that some PCTs have a lot of cannot go between, say, 9.00 and 9.30 in the morning money. It may well be that Tower Hamlets PCT has they cannot go back the route they came in on a lot of money but it has also got a lot of health issues because parts of them are one-way streets; and, it has to deal with directly, and we would be very Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 315
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association opposed to the idea that PCT actually used any of the have an organisation which is impartial and is seen to money that should be used for the health of local be impartial and is accepted to be impartial, or we are people to consider setting up a health impact not. It appears so far that the attempts by Crossrail assessment. However, we believe that Crossrail could to provide impartiality have simply rebounded go to the PCT and say, “We need to set up a site- upon them. specific health impact assessment for Spitalfields”. We would also want it for Stepney and the Isle of 3624. MS COVE: The other way of doing that is for Dogs because there are two more major construction Crossrail to say to the PCT, “We need one set-up and sites, but I am only talking to you here about we will fund you to do this work”. Spitalfields. 3625. CHAIRMAN: Then it will be said that they 3615. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cove, you will be coming are in their pocket. onto this panel no doubt in due course, but the diYculty is this so far as we are concerned: it has been 3626. MS COVE: I do not think so if we are dealing said that PAL are being paid for by Crossrail, with health professionals who know the area and we therefore they are not impartial. If Crossrail starts have got Dr Safir on that committee to actually act as inviting members of the Panel to do this that and the the liaison between the two. They are going to be the other are we not in danger of an accusation that they experts that know about pollution. We have got the are not impartial? London Chest Hospital who have some of the leading physicians in the country on chest ailments 3616. MS COVE: No, I am sorry, PCT is the who could be co-opted on to that. The Community primary care trust. Liaison Panel has not got the wherewithal, the expertise, the knowledge and are not even properly 3617. CHAIRMAN: I know it is. established (and I want to talk about that in a minute); and there is no way I can foresee the 3618. MS COVE: It is diVerent from Planning Aid Community Liaison Panel in the foreseeable future for London. We are saying that, apart from the actually being able to take on a massive task like that. Community Liaison Panel, we should have a site- specific health impact assessment for Spitalfields 3627. If we as the Community Liaison Panel said to where it is specifically dealing with information and the primary care trust, “We need this work done”, knowledge of local professional experts in health they are going to say to us, “Who’s going to pay?” matters; and that Crossrail could go to the PCT and The answer is, “We don’t know who’s going to pay say, “We need to set this up. We need to look at this because we can’t aVord to pay you”. They should not as an issue. Can you please give us the names of the be using their budget specifically to do something like experts that are appropriate to actually form this an assessment of the health impact; and we believe panel?” That is entirely diVerent from the that Crossrail should be asked to foot the bill for Community Liaison Panel. Dr Safir is willing to be setting up. part of that site-specific health impact assessment; and he would also be a member of the Community 3628. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Liaison Panel and be able to provide the link between Of course nobody expects all the expertise to reside the two. on the Liaison Panel, that I can understand, but you do not have to go down the PCT route. You could 3619. CHAIRMAN: So you want another panel? surely go down the environmental health authority route? 3620. MS COVE: Yes, I suppose the long and short of it is that I do. I want a site-specific health impact 3629. MS COVE: We have about three or four assessment for the Hanbury Street construction site. environmental health oYcers in the borough.
3621. CHAIRMAN: Who is going to set that up? 3630. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: It really does not matter, does it? The point is, you 3622. MS COVE: I believe that Crossrail have got think there is a problem that is not being addressed. some responsibility in this. I am going through the construction code while I am listening to you at the same time looking at all the 3623. CHAIRMAN: No, you see the diYculty is precautions that have been laid down here in terms of that we have already been told that PAL, who were vehicle emissions, dust control and all the other invited to try and run the Liaison Panel, are suspect things which I share your concern about, of course. because they were invited by Crossrail. We have got Nobody wants to add to it. It is not the Liaison to get to the bottom of this. Either we are going to Panel’s job to assess what the environmental health Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
316 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association authority has or has not. It is simply to say, “We come out on time whatever; and we think a minimum believe there is a possible impact and we want you to of 45 minutes at least, but preferably one hour, measure that and assess that independently”. That is should be the stoppage at the end of the day. their problem about how many oYcers they have not got or whether they can meet a timetable. Maybe I 3633. There is another issue which does not appear to am being optimistic in that assessment, but I am have been addressed either by the council or by puzzled you have not tested that route, because it is Crossrail, that the majority of the children going to important. Time is marching on and whilst both of the Thomas Buxton schools live locally, and unfortunately we seem to be in this impasse just a substantial number of those go home for lunch. because the Planning Aid group have been funded by Because St Anne’s is slightly oV the route of the Crossrail, somehow that doubts their impartiality, lorries, their entrance and exit, and they have a wider although they have been used in other circumstances catchments area, a lot of their children are collected perfectly okay, it just seems to me you are losing an and delivered at the beginning and end of schooling opportunity. I think that is unfortunate. I share your by car, so there is always a lot of traYc in that area. concern, and if you want to address your concerns The children that go to the two Thomas Buxton you have surely got to start taking action. One of the schools walk there because they all live locally. One things to do would be to ask the environmental of the women’s projects in Brick Lane cannot start health authority? any classes they run until after 9.30 in the morning so that the mums can go and deliver the children. They 3631. MS COVE: I understand exactly what you are have to finish at 12 so that they can go collect the saying and that may be a way forward on this children and 12.15 or 12.30 to take them home for particular issue; but the Community Liaison Panel is lunch; and they cannot start them again until after in no fit state to be able to do anything very much at 2.30 when they have taken the children back to the moment. I will explain that to you, because it is school. Nobody has addressed the issue of stoppages not formulated; it is not properly constituted for a of lorries at lunchtime when the children are coming variety of reasons and I will explain to you what has and going at that particular time. Nobody appears to gone on with regard to the setting up of the have addressed the issue of what is going to happen Community Liaison Panel. We do believe there must when the children go out, as the classes do, to the be some willingness on behalf of Crossrail to meet us local library, go swimming or something like that. All halfway at least on this health impact assessment of these children are going to have to walk along that when they tell us that this is a work in progress. lorry route with those lorries. Having seen this document, which was produced in 2006, there appears to be nothing further. Time is not 3634. Whilst we welcome the fact that the number of just getting on for us in the local community, time is lorries has been reduced, it is still a substantial getting on for Crossrail if this is meant to be a work amount of additional lorries along part of a street in progress. It is a two-way thing on this. that is currently closed oV because, a few years ago, two children were killed on that street. You can understand our concerns, and we would like to raise 3632. Just before I move on to the Community that very much as an issue for the Committee to Liaison Panel, if I could just address the issue of the consider. lorries and it does have some impact on the health impact. We saw from the transcript of proceedings, when Mr Drabble on behalf of the council was 3635. CHAIRMAN: Or for the panel to consider. presenting the council’s petition, that again the Committee had some concerns about the traYc 3636. MS COVE: Or for the panel to consider, but impact on the local schools, especially the three we have been told that—I will come on to the panel— schools in Hanbury Street which are directly on the we might be a useful participant, we are not an lorry route. Certainly both the Thomas Buxton important part of that panel. We have been told that Infant School and their Primary School as well as St we can perhaps use our knowledge to tell Crossrail or Anne’s, and their entrance is just slightly oV the the contractors when somebody may be getting a route, but both of the Thomas Buxton schools do not delivery, when a shop may be getting a delivery, that have separate entrances and exits. Those are the ones is the sort of remit that we have. across the road as you have seen. Originally I understand the council wanted an hour of lorry 3637. CHAIRMAN: I thought you were stoppages at each end of the day between 8.30 and independent. 9.30 in the morning and in the afternoon; and eventually it has been agreed that there will be 30 3638. MS COVE: No, that is the sort of think that minutes. Again, we know from stragglers that people Crossrail see the Community Panel as having a role. do not all get to school on time and they do not all They call us monitoring. We are certainly not a Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 317
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association decision-making body, we are a monitoring body 3646. MS COVE: Because I would suggest— where we can provide bits of information and what eVect we would have if we started providing that sort 3647. CHAIRMAN: No, it is no use you suggesting of information to the contractors and say, “You’ve it, it is fact, it has not asked us to do anything. What got to stop your lorries at lunchtime because the is it you want us to do? children are going home from school”. The contractors are going to say, “We’ve agreed to stop 3648. MS COVE: I will end up by asking you about them in the morning and the afternoon, we can’t now specific things that we would like the Committee to suddenly change the— do.
3639. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 3649. CHAIRMAN: That is what we would like to Did I get this wrong? Did I not understand that know, but you were telling us about the panel and it Crossrail were reaching agreements with the specific does not work as far as I can make out. schools because there are real concerns to be addressed then. I would not expect a Community 3650. MS COVE: Yes. I am not going to go into Liaison Panel --- I want to know that each school has details about the previous consultation because we reached its individual arrangements for the reason have never felt as if we have been consulted despite that you said. I happen to be the governor of my local Crossrail listing us. We have been informed down the primary school and I agree with you, I watch them line, we have never actually been consulted, but we straggle along for quite a long period of time, both welcomed the instruction from the House of coming in and going out, but that should be the job, Commons Committee to set up the Community and I understand it. I would welcome some Liaison Panel and we saw that as a positive way confirmation because on our local visit that is what forward and we wanted to take an active part in that we were told, there were going to be individual so that the community could fully engage with consultation arrangements with each school. I would Crossrail and discuss with them all the specific areas like some reassurance on that because I think your that would have an impact. The first meeting which point is very valid. was held in October 2006 was very unsatisfactory and it was a very unsatisfactory meeting because there 3640. MR ELVIN: Can I assist? There is a separate were 18 people present, six of whom were from the schools panel. It has met on a number of occasions. local community, the rest were from the local The schools have not petitioned accordingly, authority, the police, the fire brigade, everybody else although they have petitioned the House of from Crossrail and when we asked who else had been Commons, that is being dealt with in a manner which invited from the community we were given a list of is satisfactory to the schools. people, most of whom we did not know and we were local residents and we thought that we knew quite a 3641. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: lot of the local communities and people in the area. Thank you. 3651. CHAIRMAN: Who gave you the list? 3642. MS COVE: I am sorry, that is not my reading of the evidence that was given during the 3652. MS COVE: It was read out at the meeting. presentation of Tower Hamlets, it sounded as if it was Tower Hamlets that were negotiating because 3653. CHAIRMAN: By whom? they are the highways maintenance people and they have got the responsibility for closing oV roads. I do 3654. MS COVE: I think it was Mr Leeks who was not know who is negotiating with who on this. chairing the meeting at the time, and they had been to a specific organisation to ask for community activists 3643. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: and involvement in the Spitalfields area. The schools are not petitioning. 3655. CHAIRMAN: This is not PAL. 3644. MS COVE: No, they are not petitioning but they are in discussions with Crossrail about various 3656. MS COVE: No, no, this was before Planning issues, but at the end of the day, the local authority Aid, so we went back to the Committee in the House are the people who can close oV the roads or not. of Commons to ask for further guidance on this, as a result of which Planning Aid were employed by 3645. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cove, Tower Hamlets Crossrail to help us establish the panel. They had a Council is the local educational authority and it is the public meeting in June last year and we had our first local highway authority, it has not asked us to do meeting as a result of the public meeting in October anything. last year. We agreed at that meeting to write to Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
318 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association
Crossrail to ask them for some specific assurances Monday morning by email, and provided us with a regarding the running of the organisation, whether list of various things that they thought we could do, we would get some financial support to run the one of which was to list out the 27 experts that are administration, for oYces, that sort of thing, whether engaged with Crossrail to advise them about various we would get some training on negotiations and aspects of the project, but there is not one of them understanding of the technicalities and we had a that is related to health. letter back. We also said that we wanted to build on, as Crossrail had told the Committee in the House of 3661. The response also says that the panel is seen as Commons, the issues with regards to the King’s a monitoring body only and has no decision powers. Cross experience and they sort of said they wanted to It does not have any technical oversights on increased build on that with the Community Liaison Panel, so traYc in the area. They suggest that we provide the we were really enthusiastic about it. Unfortunately, it contractors—this is a for instance of our input into does not appear to have taken oV. the lorries that we were talking about—with local knowledge, such as when shops have their deliveries 3657. Basically, in Crossrail’s response to the and that Crossrail say that they will provide us with Community Association’s Petition, in the information within reasonable time and the panel community relations appendix that I got sent, it talks will have a useful but not important role input into about nominated undertakers who will have a the health impact assessment. That is why we say we detailed plan for community relations before and are not experts on that particular issue and we would during construction. It only talks about nominated like a site-specific. undertakers, who I assume are going to be the construction people, it never talks about Crossrail 3662. I told Crossrail last Thursday that I was going having any responsibility in amongst all of this. We to be calling Dr Safir and would be handing in just a did not receive a reply from Crossrail to the first letter couple of documents and rather assumed that that which went in in October until the end of January, so was the end of the matter, but on Monday morning I we had a second meeting in February at which two had a very busy morning because I had 13 emails representatives from Crossrail came along to the from Crossrail, which I have just given you a sample meeting and we questioned them very closely on the of one of them, which explains that it was going to be contents and I have handed in the original letter from providing me with documentation in paper copies, the preliminary Liaison Panel and their reply. which arrived at 12.30 and I think it is the same pile of documents, which Mr Wheeler was referring to, 3658. CHAIRMAN: This is the letter to Gareth and a CD and yet they constantly tell us they are Epps, is it not? going to be providing information well in advance. They knew that Spitalfields was going to be dealt with 3659. MS COVE: That is right and his response this week in one form or another and yet Monday which is attached to it. We left the meeting after two morning, 12.30, this pile of documents arrived. I do hours with a sense that everything we asked for, apart not feel that Crossrail are engaging with us in a very from one specific thing, which was that Crossrail constructive way. could oVer us some administrative support, was no, no and no again and that they did not want to enter 3663. Article 6(2) of the EIA directive says, and I into any negotiations with us as they kept placing the quote: “It requires information to be made available responsibility on to the local authority for significant to the public . . . ”—in other words people like and detailed matters. myself—“ . . . within reasonable time in order to give the public concerned opportunity to express an 3660. I have to be honest, the Crossrail representative opinion” and so far we do not seem to have much at the meeting in February did say that they had evidence because of the lateness of the arrival of nothing in principle against the Panel engaging documents. I would like to reserve my rights to come experts as we felt we needed them but felt that they back to the Committee on issues raised once I have could not meet the fees because that would be public had the opportunity of looking through the funds, although they could possibly agree if we were documents they presented to me. able to negotiate a lower fee, but we do not know what budget or anything like that. We came away 3664. We are not sure how Crossrail see their from that meeting feeling very, very dissatisfied and attempts so far as complying with the undertaking very unhappy with the way we felt we were being given in the House of Commons regarding keeping treated. When we wrote to Crossrail in November the community informed, nor have we seen any last year we sent with it a suggested draft of the remit evidence, as I have said again and again, of any work that we would like to adopt as part of the setting up on the health impact assessment nor have we seen any of the Panel and their response, which arrived on evidence that they want to build on the King’s Cross Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:56 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 319
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association experience of community consultation and we have they will provide us with financial support if we seen no evidence certainly that they would be would like to introduce or actually involve some prepared to treat us as equal partners. independent experts to advise us in order to be able to negotiate with Crossrail on mitigation. 3665. All of this means is that the Community Liaison Panel has still not been formally constituted 3667. Once we have those assurances we believe that and is in no state, and I understand I heard you say we can make the community panel actually work to Mr Wheeler, could the Community Liaison Panel properly; we can make it become much more not deal with those deeds, I am afraid to say at this representative and we will make sure that we go out stage there is no way the Community Liaison Panel and encourage people to take part in a panel that has can deal with settlement deeds. You may say that the got some role. At the moment it does not appear to community members need to get their act together have any role. Nobody in their right minds wants to and formulate themselves into a proper thing and I sit through two hours of discussions without any can see you nodding and saying that, I could see what positive or constructive outcome. I appreciate you you were thinking across the room, and it may be so, are probably sitting through a lot longer than that, but because there is a sense that we are being but hopefully you will have some positive outcomes! dragooned into a particular way, a particular style of setting up the Community Panel and we do not seem 3668. Basically, the Community Association is to be getting much support in getting it together, we seeking advice from you on how we can get some are having diYculties. There are very few numbers of specific undertakings that are accepted and given by us and one of the reasons there are such few numbers Crossrail, and in a way that we can actually monitor is that it is a talking shop for two hours. Once we are them. The first one is in relation to the health impact formally properly constituted, once we know what assessment that I have already raised with you. I we can do and once we know what we can influence, appreciate you have alternative ideas, but I will come once we know what our boundaries are, what we can back to what I believe should be a way forward, do, we want to go out and get as many people to those which is that Crossrail immediately engages with the meetings as possible so they can go back and present health professionals in Tower Hamlets in general, to their various organisations or as individuals to and Spitalfields in particular, to begin the process of their neighbours. We are willing to enter into a site-specific health impact assessment relating to the negotiations and we are willing to become an active proposed Hanbury Street construction site. role along with a lot of other organisations in the area to be able to engage with Crossrail in the Community 3669. Part of that site-specific health impact Liaison Panel but we do believe that there should be assessment, and in conjunction with appropriate certain conditions and we do believe that we should health professionals, should begin to formulate be recognised and treated as equal partners.We also proper and apposite mitigation plans that can be put believe that we should be recognised as active and in place once the construction begins in order to involved residents from groups which are maximise the reduction of harm from the anticipated knowledgeable about the needs, the general health impact of the Hanbury Street construction site, and well-being of our community, and in a position including the potential impact of increasing traYc to bring this all to the attention of Crossrail, and the from sites, and for that same group to reconsider local authority for that matter; that we are lorry movements to increase from 30-minute knowledgeable and capable of fully understanding stoppages through to 30-60 minutes and to what impacts the Crossrail project at the Hanbury implement some form of stoppage at lunchtime in Street site will have on the community. order that the children can be collected from and returned to school in safety. 3666. We have asked Crossrail to provide us with appropriate training in order that we can actually 3670. The second undertaking that we are asking the understand in more detail the technicalities of the Committee to help us in asking Crossrail to give to us whole project and the impact it will have on the area. today is by recognising, as I have read out earlier on, We have also asked that, perhaps, that training could treating the community as an equal partner, include us developing some skills so that we can recognising that we are knowledgeable and that we negotiate with them to introduce appropriate would bring that knowledge to the community mitigation to reduce that harm on the community. liaison panel, which will be of use to both Tower However, we would need assurances that we will be Hamlets Council and to Crossrail. We understand given the opportunity to influence decisions relating the impact Crossrail will have in the area but we do to all aspects (but I understand we are not going to need some training to help us understand the get those), that we are provided with full and technicalities and give us the skills to negotiate with appropriate information when requested and that them on mitigation, and issues such as that. We Processed: 14-08-2008 19:23:57 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401836 Unit: PAG1
320 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
11 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association would like the opportunity to influence some of the 3674. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I decisions relating to aspects of the Hanbury Street am not quite sure where to start, but I have a couple construction site. We want them to give us the of things. Are you seriously asking us to override an information when requested in reasonable time, so agreement that Crossrail has reached with the local that it can be considered. We do need some financial schools? I am really puzzled about that. They have support, as I said, and we need some with regard to been in consultation with the local schools, they had maintaining the administration of the community established the periods of activities and established liaison panel, and help us to finance information to the times that the schools feel are right, and so do the go out to people. local authority. I can understand you bringing up something they might have missed, but I really find that a very diYcult request to meet, personally.
3671. What we really want from the Committee and 3675. The other thing I cannot understand—I from Crossrail is for Spitalfields to be seen as a special suppose there have been other liaison panels that case, in these circumstances. As acknowledged in the have worked as liaison panels and it does seem to me health impact assessment, we will be one of the worst- it depends on how you are going to approach this. If I aVected areas in the project altogether and it, may just address one of your points: for instance, you therefore, needs special attention from Crossrail. want the right to seek to renegotiate the Code of Hopefully, the Committee will support that Construction Practice, which is defined in here. particular view, which you may think is personal but I am speaking on behalf of quite a wide constituency 3676. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the Committee of people. Thank you for listening to me. may feel they have to go and attend a division.
3677. MR ELVIN: Could I assist? We had been making arrangements with Ms Cove that if she did 3672. CHAIRMAN: I think the 11 emails and the not get on today she could come along first thing in CD that you received were the material that we the morning. Can I suggest we conclude this first ordinarily ask the parties to exchange before the thing tomorrow morning, before we go to the hearing. It is what Crossrail sent to you by way of the business for tomorrow? material that they were likely to rely on. I would have thought that was quite a good idea. 3678. CHAIRMAN: If Khoodeelaar are not going to come we may have a bit of time in hand.
3673. MS COVE: I am not complaining about it not 3679. MR ELVIN: We have Professor Mair as well, being a good idea, I am complaining about the fact but I think we should have time. that 13 emails were on my computer on Friday—and 3680. CHAIRMAN: There has been no response yet I was away for the weekend so I did not pick them up from Khoodeelaar. until Monday morning. I appreciate it is not your fault, Mr Elvin, but, nevertheless, the paper copies 3681. MS COVE: If I am coming back for a third arrived at 12.30, and those were the documents that time, can I ask that I am dealt with at ten o’clock, Crossrail were telling you they were going to be after normal business? relying on this week, and 12.30 on Monday morning when I am due here at 2.30 to give my evidence to you 3682. CHAIRMAN: Tomorrow ten o’clock. We will is not, in my opinion, a reasonable length of time for be here. We always are. We will want to know in documents to be delivered to me, when Crossrail terms what it is that you want. I will have to adjourn knew that we were due up here at least two weeks ago. this so that people can go. Ten o’clock tomorrow We had the programme two weeks ago. morning. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [SO] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 321
DAY ELEVEN WEDNESDAY 12 MARCH 2008
Before: Colville of Culross, V (Chairman) Jones of Cheltenham, L Brooke of Alverthorpe, L Snape, L Fookes, B Young of Norwood Green, L
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
3683. CHAIRMAN: I think we shall start. Ms 3689. CHAIRMAN: I think most of the children Cove, it is definitely your turn to complete what you will be past university by then! have to say to us. 3690. MR ELVIN: Absolutely. We are in a process 3684. MS COVE: I had thought I had finished at the minute of giving information and the yesterday, but in fact just before the division bell mechanism is there and is working perfectly well went, I think it was Lord James who was asking me and Tower Hamlets, as you know, has expressed its a question about whether the Community contentedness with the arrangements. Those matters Association wanted to do something diVerent from will be agreed in due course, but it is a little what the schools had agreed with regards to lorry premature to agree lorry routing times five years movements. Now, you may regret this, but I ahead. actually had the chance last night of looking at some of those documents I was complaining that had only 3691. CHAIRMAN: I think that is the answer. arrived on Monday and found amongst them the minutes of the Schools Sub-Group for the four 3692. MS COVE: I was not talking about lorry meetings that they have actually had. They had one routings. I was talking actually about the hours of in November 2006, one in January 2007, April 2007 stoppages. and October 2007, but the next meeting is not until May. Now, I looked at these minutes and in fact 3693. CHAIRMAN: I thought this was lorry hours. can actually find no evidence that anything has been agreed with the schools with regard to the times of 3694. MS COVE: Lorry hours. the lorries stopping in the mornings or the afternoons. What I can find is that in fact the teachers’ representatives on the Sub-Group have 3695. CHAIRMAN: That will be part of the same been told that there will be stoppages, but nothing, process, I think. as far as I can see from my copies of the minutes, in particular with regards to what the specific 3696. MS COVE: But I would like to say that this hours are. committee has in fact expressed very serious concerns about what will happen about construction and when it will start, the traYc 3685. CHAIRMAN: I thought, Mr Elvin, that this movements, the noise and the working hours and all was an arrangement made with Tower Hamlets as other perceived eVects of various proposed the local education authority. worksites close to the premises. That took one meeting. At a second meeting, a headteacher says, 3686. MR ELVIN: The Schools Group here is “There is a general feeling that many of the changes jointly the school representatives, Tower Hamlets as in AP3 and the resulting Environmental Statement the education authority and ourselves. with regards to health eVects on playgrounds from dust and noise on asthma levels have not been communicated to the community in general or the 3687. CHAIRMAN: But the timing of the lorries, schools specifically”. I thought— 3697. LORD SNAPE: Forgive me, Ms Cove, and 3688. MR ELVIN: I am not sure that that has been I am sorry to intervene so early in Ms Cove’s finally agreed, but it is part of the process because evidence, but this really is second-hand conversation of course the lorries are not going to be getting there reporting. It is not evidence before this Committee until 2011 or 2012. and, with respect, I do not think a conversation Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
322 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association which may or may not have taken place is relevant 3705. CHAIRMAN: Has the local education to put before us at this moment. authority addressed them?
3698. CHAIRMAN: I think Ms Cove is trying to 3706. MS COVE: The local education authority is inform us of how far it has got. part of this community group.
3699. MS COVE: I am quoting from recorded 3707. CHAIRMAN: You mean to say that, despite minutes of this Sub-Group. I am not reporting just what you are telling us, Tower Hamlets’ education a conversation. people have taken no part in this at all?
3700. CHAIRMAN: I am not going to try and stop 3708. MS COVE: No, there is a representative you, but the point about it is that you are telling us from the local education authority on the Sub- about the sort of things that the Committee has Group, but no hours have been discussed in that been discussing. I am not expecting you to say that Sub-Group, despite the undertaking given in the it has come to a conclusion about them because it House of Commons that it would be 9.00 to 9.30 has not. and from 3.30 in the afternoon onwards. As far as I can see, they have just said that there will be 3701. MS COVE: What I am trying to do is to say stoppages. Nobody has raised the issue of what the that it is not just us who are expressing concerns hours of the stoppages will be and that is why I am about the traYc movements and the impact that the just coming back to you again. dust, noise and pollution will have on the schoolchildren. What I am trying to say is that it is 3709. BARONESS FOOKES: This question a general concern in the area of Spitalfields that this exercised the Committee when we paid the site visit. is a potentially damaging risk to the area. 3710. MS COVE: Exactly. 3702. CHAIRMAN: I totally understand that, but I think it is for the local education authority to take 3711. BARONESS FOOKES: But my a part in this, and they are. understanding, as a result of our visit, was that the actual negotiations would be between Crossrail and 3703. MS COVE: But there is an undertaking the individual school for any particular given by Crossrail which actually talks about the requirements they had, like not being the normal specific hours and that was given in the House of school hours, outings and so forth. I specifically Commons and is recorded in the undertakings asked about this and my understanding was that it given. would be very localised between Crossrail and the individual school, but I do not think that at this time 3704. The Committee also asked yesterday why they one could possibly do that in the light of timetables felt that the schools were not petitioning, but, as I several years away. said at the very beginning of my introduction, which seems an awfully long time ago now, the 3712. MS COVE: I do understand that and I am Community Association is a Spitalfields-wide very clear that in fact they are talking about local association, we do have 185 members and we do negotiations between the contractors, not Crossrail, have many parents with children at these local but it has been specifically given as an undertaking, schools and I would like you to think that, on behalf the hours, and— of the community, we are raising wider issues of concern for our local children. One of the things I 3713. BARONESS FOOKES: Crossrail will did not get the chance to tell you yesterday was that require the contractors to act in a certain way and in fact there are 1,100 children under the age of 11 that is why it comes back to Crossrail. at these three schools and, as one of the teachers actually said, the school day does not start at 8 3714. MS COVE: I understand, but there is the o’clock and finish at 3pm, so she is talking about 8 diYculty that nobody yet has addressed which is the o’clock and not 9 o’clock, but they have after-school issue of the lunchtime matter and I am just wanting events which go on until 6 o’clock and I really do to put it on record in this Committee. think that we need to be absolutely clear that Crossrail are taking those issues on board. I hope 3715. CHAIRMAN: Well, Ms Cove, if you are that you will understand that we are raising going to have a liaison committee, it is an ongoing concerns within the community which we do not process. Nothing is going to happen for several believe Crossrail have even begun to address. You years. You will have the schools involved, you will may think otherwise and I appreciate that, but— have the parents involved, you will have the local Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 323
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association education authority involved and I do not see how 3720. The second undertaking I am asking Crossrail we can come to a certain conclusion now. We can to give is in relation to the Community Liaison certainly recommend that this should be properly Panel, and I will not go any further than read this studied and put in an enforceable position, but I do out. We ask that Crossrail engage fully with the not think we can come to a conclusion about it now. community by recognising and treating the community as equal partners in a tripartite Community Liaison Panel. Secondly, we ask that 3716. MS COVE: I would ask you to actually ask they recognise that, as active and involved residents, Crossrail to give an undertaking that this will be a we are knowledgeable about the needs and the major issue for discussion on the Schools Sub- general health and well-being of our community and Group and they need to bring that up as a concern are able, and in a position, to bring these things to that has been expressed here when they meet next the attention of Crossrail. Thirdly, we ask that they in May. recognise that we are knowledgeable of, and capable of fully understanding, what impact the Crossrail 3717. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we are going project and the Hanbury Street construction site will to talk about major issues. We are going to say that have on the community, but we are asking them to this is something which has got to be resolved. provide us with appropriate training in order to enable us to understand the specific details and technicalities of the impact of increased noise, dust, 3718. MS COVE: I would just then want to lorry movements, air pollution, increased stress conclude on this particular issue that, if the schools levels and risk of accidents, et cetera. We are asking are going to be given the opportunity to influence that they ensure that such training will also provide matters around the issues of the lorry movements, us with knowledge and skills to negotiate for and I am sorry to keep coming back to that, it seems appropriate mitigation to protect, and reduce harm to me that, as a sub-group of the Community to, the community. We ask that they give us the Liaison Panel, they are actually being given some assurances that we will be aVorded the opportunity additional benefits because we have been told very to influence decisions relating to aspects of the clearly that the Community Liaison Panel will Hanbury Street construction site by providing us monitor and will not be able to make any influence with full and appropriate information, when on any of the decisions that we would like to, so we requested. We ask that they provide the Community are very concerned about that and I would just refer Liaison Panel with some financial support in order back again to the undertakings that we would ask to engage independent experts as and when we want Crossrail to give to the Committee today with to engage them. Lastly, we ask that they provide the regards to the issues that I have raised. If you wish, Community Liaison Panel with some financial and I will read them out and I would rather like to read other support to maintain the proper administration them out so that I can get them onto the record and of the Panel so that we can produce information then hear the response from Crossrail. It will not leaflets for distribution, to hold public meetings, take me very long. There are two very specific where appropriate, and to devise other means of undertakings that we are asking for. making sure that the community remain involved and informed. With that, I will end. 3719. Firstly, we ask that Crossrail will immediately 3721. CHAIRMAN: Well, there is nothing we can engage with health professionals in Tower Hamlets do about that until we have heard what Crossrail in general and Spitalfields in particular to begin the have to say, so perhaps you can let them have the process of a site-specific health impact assessment text. relating to the proposed Hanbury Street construction site. As part of that site-specific health impact assessment, and in conjunction with the 3722. MS COVE: They have got it. appropriate health professionals, they should begin to formulate proper and apposite mitigating plans 3723. MR ELVIN: Yes, we have it, my Lord. that can be put in place once construction begins in order to maximise the reduction of harm from the 3724. CHAIRMAN: In due course, they will anticipated impact of the proposed Hanbury Street comment upon it. construction site. The third part of that is to recognise or reconsider the lorry movements are to 3725. MS COVE: We could not ask them to increase from 30-minute stoppages at 9.00 and 3.30 comment upon it today? to 60 minutes and to implement stoppages at lunchtime in order that children can be collected 3726. MR ELVIN: I am happy to comment on it from, and be returned to, school in safety. now. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
324 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association
3727. CHAIRMAN: You can comment on it now, Brooke or Lord Young remarked yesterday, deals can you? with a whole range of the issues which go to health, safety, lorry routing, all of those measures, dust 3728. MR ELVIN: Yes, I was given it yesterday. control measures, noise measures, measures to deal Indeed, my Lord, I prepared overnight a note with lorry and construction traYc. All of those responding to the various issues Ms Cove and her issues are dealt with at vast length in the Association have raised which I emailed this Construction Code. morning, and there are copies of that note ready to circulate amongst the Committee, if that is 3733. On the health impact assessment, as you will convenient to the Committee. see from my note, it is simply not true to assert that health issues have not been considered. The health 3729. CHAIRMAN: I think we would probably impact assessment is the tip of the iceberg, my Lords prefer to see it on paper and, yes, it is here. and my Lady. On pages 30 to 31 is the short summary in relation to Spitalfields. It draws back, 3730. MR ELVIN: These were notes that I was as I say in the note, to the Environmental Impact writing last night in order to deal with the issues. I Assessment which goes into enormous detail if you am happy to present it orally to help the drill back into the technical reports, which are all Association, if that will help the Committee, but I cross-referenced to air quality assessment and noise am equally happy to leave them with the Committee assessment. Those are the two key factors which in writing. I address the issues of community liaison, influence health. The issue of noise and vibration the question of health impact and the question of and dust and nitrogen oxides, those have been lorries and schools, which I think are all the main thoroughly assessed, even in the context of the old issues that Ms Cove has addressed in her proposals for the shaft which were much greater and submissions to the Committee. would have had a greater impact. We are looking at adding 16 lorries into traYc where, on the 3731. CHAIRMAN: She wants finance. Commercial Road, I think, on a daily basis there is something in excess of 3,000 and we are adding a minute amount to local traYc. We are contributing 3732. MR ELVIN: Yes, to which the answer is no, an insignificant amount to air pollution which is so far as we are concerned. Our position is set out why the assessments of the impact on air quality, in the first few paragraphs. We consider, and we which is the primary concern so far as asthma would ask the Committee to support us on this, that suVerers and the like are concerned, is very small we have given the relevant undertakings necessary indeed. Indeed, the Committee should be reassured to act reasonably and take this matter forward in that the national air quality standards, which are terms of community liaison, setting up the one-stop applied via European directives to the UK, take shop, and the undertaking with regard to schools account of the sensitivities of those with particular and lorries. As you know, the Schools Panel is up health problems, such as asthma, and those and running and is not bedevilled with the sorts of standards are not breached by Crossrail. issues that the general Community Liaison Panel is facing, and it is working and working well to the extent that neither the London Borough of Tower 3734. In addition to this note, if the Committee Hamlets nor the schools themselves, who were both wants it, we have prepared a more detailed note on Petitioners on this issue in the House of Commons, air quality which goes through a little more the are petitioning the Lords on the same issues, or details and the figures, drawing them out of the indeed at all. You have already had Tower Hamlets’ Environmental Statement and the technical reports, statement, and indeed I have quoted it in paragraph all of which have been available since 2005 when the 3 of the note, indicating that they are satisfied with Bill was first deposited, so we are happy to provide a the way in which we are taking matters forward. As further note on air quality if the Committee requires the Committee well know, the primary monitoring further reassurance, but the position in summary is body external to Crossrail is the local authority. It set out in this paper. has the power under the consents procedure under Schedule 7, paragraph 7 of the Bill to deal with 3735. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think the point matters such as lorry routing, dust, suppression is this: that I was looking overnight at the history measures and the like, particularly to protect local of the King’s Cross Liaison Group which was amenity and the environment and to deal with actually set up by Camden as the planning authority public safety, all of which will deal with these issues, and the local health authority and the everything and it has the powers which it will have in else authority because they are unitary, and the first consultation with the nominated undertaker under issue was the extended hours of working, if you the Construction Code which, as I think Lord wanted to work 24 hours a day. This plainly ran into Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 325
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association
1 great opposition locally and in fact it went to a 3739. LORD SNAPE: Mr Elvin, do you have a decision by Camden which went to appeal and the copy of the preliminary Crossrail group meeting, proposition for 24-hour working was lost. They then dated 30 November, signed by Graham Seely? resumed negotiations in the Liaison Committee and gradually an atmosphere of trust and 3740. MR ELVIN: Yes, I have that. interdependence built up and, if that does not happen here, the Liaison Committee is not going to 3741. LORD SNAPE: At the bottom of the first do any good. page under, “These questions must be answered before the Panel can be set up,” and there is a list of questions there. Can I ask you, following on the 3736. MR ELVIN: My Lord, your Lordship in a question from the Chairman, item 2, what do you sense is pushing at an open door. We would be only know of the residential groups in the King’s Cross too delighted if the panel would start to respond and area and what powers do they have? would constitute itself so that we could have the necessary discussions. 3742. MR ELVIN: As a result of that letter we wrote to Camden and in the exhibits bundle, my Lord, you will find our letter to them and our letter back explaining what the situation was. If you have 3737. Of course the construction work is not going the rather large exhibits bundle it is divider F, the to start until 2010 or thereabouts, so we are still first two letters, in particular the letter from some way oV. But, as I have said, and I repeat it in Camden, pages 2, 3 and 4, which is the response this note, we are more than happy to set up a group from Camden explaining to us about how the which is similar in structure to the Camden Group, Coopers Lane Group works. That led us to the view which had the local authority chairing it; it was that that was consistent with our undertaking to the tripartite—local authority, the Promoter, Commons. If that is a way forward that is a way we undertaker and representatives from the local will take. community. The key element in this is the local community; the local community have to make the 3743. LORD SNAPE: Can you stay with the same eVort to be engaged and appoint whom they wish letter and look at item 6 of the questions that were to be representatives and to engage. We have sought put by the preliminary Crossrail group meetings with us chairing it, that has not worked; organisation? Question 6 asks: “What arrangements we acted on London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ have been made to inform, consult and allow the request to use the independent charity Planning Aid, Panel powers in participatory decision-making over that does not seem to have worked; we were asked the Code of Construction practice?” My question to to fund and sort out the meetings and clearly doing you is do the residential groups in King’s Cross have that has now led to complaints that they are those powers? somehow partial, even though all we do is facilitate the meetings. 3744. MR ELVIN: They do not have decision- making powers, no, they are consultative only. The Construction Code has been drawn up in 3738. The complaints that are being made to this consultation by a Panel of all London local Committee are identical to the complaints that Ms authorities. It is an eVort between Crossrail, the Cove made on 30 January of last year, volume 5 Secretary of State and all the local London page 1733 and the like, in the Select Committee authorities—it is a London-wide document. But the Special Report. We can only facilitate and if the working out of the details in the individual area the community group, the panel, is consulted on the community will not seriously engage then there is working out of the details and what happens is that only so much we can do. We have been saying the the local authority who does have some decision- same thing now for two years and trying, through making powers regards the community, the liaison independent third parties, to facilitate these group, the panel, whatever they call it—although meetings. I would be only too pleased if those they are not a statutory consultee—as a necessary matters could now be taken forward and the consultee for making decisions as to how the Code Camden arrangement would fall squarely within our should apply in a particular location. So although undertaking to the Commons because there is there is not a statutory mechanism in fact the way nothing about the tripartite arrangement which is it works in practice is that the community panel is inconsistent with the undertaking we gave below. So 1 if that is the way forward we are more than happy Crossrail Group to CLRL, 30 January 2007 (TOWHLB- to take that way forward, and I say so in this note. XR5F-108) Committee Ref: A21, Correspondence from the Preliminary Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
326 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association consulted as a matter of course in the group and 3753. CHAIRMAN: I am using you as a conduit otherwise by the local authority, which then makes to address other people because there are certainly its decisions in regard to any of the Schedule 7 a lot of people in the area, as we saw when we consents or making decisions in respect of the Code. visited, who simply want it to go away.
3745. LORD SNAPE: I am sorry to emphasise 3754. MS COVE: Can I just make two final points, this, but it would be for the local authority to then, in relation to what Mr Elvin has said here? He actually be involved in the participatory decision- talked about something like 300 lorries on making and not the parties? Commercial Road. Commercial Road is a major route through London—I cannot remember whether it is the A12 or the A13, but it is a major 3746. MR ELVIN: Yes, and the local authority has A route—and it is not in Spitalfields. Secondly, he a statutory role under Schedule 7 of the Bill as well has talked about 16 lorries; we may well have 16 as under the Code of Construction. Indeed, I should lorries in and 16 lorries out, those same lorries going say that in addition to the Schools’ Panel we do out, so we are talking about 32 lorry movements have a community liaison panel which is up and and not just 16, Chair. I will finish there unless Mr running in Paddington, which is not generating Elvin says anything else. diYculties, and that is running on a consultation basis. 3755. CHAIRMAN: Tower Hamlets Council are the highway authority and they are in charge of that 3747. LORD SNAPE: I live there so I would rather sort of aspect; that is their job. you did not go down that particular route! 3756. MS COVE: I appreciate that. 3748. MR ELVIN: I live near there as well, my Lord, and I get the letters too! 3757. CHAIRMAN: And unless they are involved in these decision-making matters nobody is going to make any progress. 3749. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cove, I think the situation is very simple. You want executive powers, you 3758. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: want financial support. I think you are not going to Which brings me to ask Ms Cove, would you be get it. willing to see the Tower Hamlets Borough take the Chair? 3750. MS COVE: I think you are right. 3759. MS COVE: I am a member of the panel, I cannot make that decision; that has to be a panel 3751. CHAIRMAN: And we cannot force decision. I just do not know what the response Crossrail to provide either. What we can do is try would be to that because certainly somebody from to help you to build upon the experience at King’s Tower Hamlets did come to the very first public Cross, which has now evolved into a situation where meeting that Planning Aid organised and was there the group is positively engaged in taking useful but we have not set eyes on them since. So I do not decisions, without necessarily having executive know why they have not been part of it. We have powers. Until that stage is reached I fear that your had all sorts of people along to the two or three panel is not going to be very eVective, but it does meetings but Tower Hamlets Council has not require cooperation from the panel as opposed to consulted us. total opposition to Crossrail driving tunnels through Spitalfields. That is the situation at the moment, to be frank, because there is total 3760. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: It opposition to the whole thing—shaft, tunnels and seems that you have some legitimate points to everything. And so long as that is the attitude I do pursue but you need the mechanism, the machinery not think that any progress will be made. to pursue them. There is the machinery on oVer and the argument seems to be more about the process rather than the substance and you really have to 3752. MS COVE: I would come back on that break through on this otherwise you are really not because I have not expressed any opposition to the representing anybody at the end of the day if you tunnel project. I have talked about our concern are not having discussions with the interested about the construction site; I have not opposed it. parties. So it really is very diYcult to see how we I do believe that other people may well have done, take it forward unless you can make decisions but that is not what I have been saying here. yourself on who you are prepared to accept. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 327
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Community Association
3761. MS COVE: It is a panel decision and I will because I need to give a copy to Ms Cove if that take it to the next meeting and see what sort of were the case? response there is. 3771. CHAIRMAN: I am sure Ms Cove would 3762. CHAIRMAN: Of course it is a panel decision like it. but it is a decision that the panel is going to have to take. It is no use going on saying, “PAL is being paid by Crossrail and therefore we cannot trust 3772. MS COVE: It would be very useful. them,” or something like that. I do not know whether that is being said, but the attitude at the 3773. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: moment is one that does not reflect the successful Lord Chairman, could I make a suggestion? outcome of this process at King’s Cross, and I Looking at it, it seems to me that Crossrail usefully would think that you ought perhaps to model could provide one of their oYcials to go to them and yourselves on the later stages of the panel process take them through the documents, to all the in King’s Cross because that seems to have been appropriate points in the relevant documents much more eVective. because it is all there.
3763. MS COVE: The King’s Cross panel of course is probably ended now because that was to 3774. MR ELVIN: If I circulate the note on air do with the Channel Tunnel, but we will make some quality now and give Ms Cove a copy, if the panel contact with Paddington and see how they are are willing to meet with us we are more than happy getting on. to take them through the details. They are the same details as have been publicly available for the last 3764. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: three and a half years and we are more than happy Would you be willing to accept the borough as the to have another go at explaining them. Chair, Mr Elvin? 3775. The other issue is, as Ms Cove mentioned 3765. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I have said that in yesterday, I think, we have written formally to the the note. We regard the tripartite arrangement as panel setting out a detailed response to the questions one which falls squarely in the undertaking we have about remit, which reflects what I have said rather given to the House of Commons. The diYculty is more briefly. Would you like a copy of the letter that that Planning Aid for London thought that it would we wrote to the panel, which is not in the exhibits facilitate smoother panel meetings if the London because it went out late? We have set out our Borough of Tower Hamlets did not participate. If position formally. the panel want Tower Hamlets to participate we are happy for any mechanism which works, whether it 3776. CHAIRMAN: I think one more letter will do is with Planning Aid, Tower Hamlets or ourselves— no harm. as long as it works that is what we want.
3766. CHAIRMAN: That is about as far as we are 3777. MR ELVIN: In that case could I circulate it going to take it because it will have to go back to and give a copy to Ms Cove, and we will email it the panel for discussion. Is that everything you want to her as well. (Same handed) to say? 3778. CHAIRMAN: Ms Cove, I think it would 3767. MS COVE: I think so, you might be pleased probably be the view of my colleagues and myself to hear. that there must be a workable liaison committee to deal with the sorts of things you have been talking 3768. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry you got interrupted about; they are very important and we recognise but perhaps we made a little progress this morning that. If the present panel does not work then over and above what we would have been able to something else will have to be found that does, and do last night. it is really as simple as that, otherwise we are going to miss the opportunity to draw upon your 3769. MS COVE: It gave Mr Elvin the opportunity knowledge and experience and indeed to attempt to of producing answers. deal with your concerns because the apparatus and the machinery is not there. So perhaps the panel 3770. MR ELVIN: Just before Ms Cove goes, I did could consider that. If it does not want to do it itself say that there was a detailed note on air quality and it may be that some other organisation will have to health impact. Would the Committee like that be set up. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
328 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
3779. MS COVE: Some while ago I did actually the panel. Thank you very much; this has been very say that the Community Association welcomed the helpful to us. instructions from the House of Commons to Crossrail and we were willing participants.
3780. CHAIRMAN: You have heard what has been said this morning and I think that will be a 3781. We will go on with the Spitalfields Small trigger for you to go back and discuss it further with Business Association.
The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association.
MrMatthewHortonQC appeared as Agent.
3782. MR HORTON: Good morning my Lords and 3792. CHAIRMAN: We have the Petition and we my Lady. I appear on behalf of the Spitalfields Small have the Promoters’ response; and, what is more, we Business Association. I have, I hope, what will be a have read them. short submission to make on what is an issue of law as the Association sees it. It was presented in the other place without much success, and I am asked to 3793. MR HORTON: That is even more helpful; I revisit it here. But it is a point which I am asked to am very grateful to you. emphasise to the Committee that if it is correct would result in the Act in due course being unlawful; and I am sure the Committee would not wish, unless very 3794. The issue of law arises in relation to the route sure of its ground, to allow that situation to come alignment which is between Liverpool Street and to pass. Whitechapel Stations. I am not seeking today, although I will be appearing before the Committee again tomorrow on behalf of the Spitalfields Society, 3783. CHAIRMAN: I do not think there is any to enter with trepidation upon the question of remedy for people who say that an Act is unlawful. If whether or not you will hear anything about Parliament has passed it, it is passed. Anyway, you go alternative alignments. I assure you that today I do ahead with your submission. not want to enter on to that. 3784. MR HORTON: Subject, of course, to European law. 3795. CHAIRMAN: You have probably heard what has happened to those who have tried. 3785. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you can go oV to Luxembourg if you want; but we are not going to Luxembourg! 3796. MR HORTON: I have, but perhaps tomorrow you will at least listen to me for a few minutes— 3786. MR HORTON: No, although I have never been; I am told it is very nice! 3797. CHAIRMAN: Of course we will. 3787. CHAIRMAN: It is; I have been!
3788. MR ELVIN: It starts very early in the 3798. MR HORTON: . . . to see if I can persuade morning—eight o’clock UK time! you that so far, with great respect, the Committee has erred in that respect. 3789. CHAIRMAN: And it is in French! 3799. It concerns that route alignment. If you look at 3790. MR HORTON: My first wife is French; I am paragraph 21, you will see that there is a reference very fluent! there to alignments B and C. “The assertion is B and C perform better than the Hybrid Bill alignment.” At 3791. My Lords, my Lady, may I take you to it by 22, this is where the legal issue arises: “The referring you first to the Petition and the Promoters’ Petitioners contend that the Promoters have failed to response to the Petition? I only received these appraise these viable route alignments and in 2002 instructions last week and I am not as well organised discounted both”. They did so for reasons in relation as I would like to be. I have not come with a spare to alignment B that were incorrect. It is alignment copy of the Petition. B— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 329
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
3800. CHAIRMAN: Is that the southern route? of environmental assessment have been followed on Crossrail, in compliance with European law. The 3801. MR HORTON: It is to the south of the Bill duty to assess alternatives relates to the scheme as a alignment, but, actually, it is an intermediate route. It whole and is only a limited duty—i.e. the duty is to is not as far south as C. I do have a plan. I hope that give an outline of the main alternatives studied by the is clear. Yes. So it is between A and C. That is the one developer and an indication of the main reasons for which the Petitioners, the SSBA, favour. My Lords, this choice, taking into account the environmental for reasons which I will develop in a moment, the eVects.” Association contends that there was an error of law in relation to the requirements for an Environmental 3810. The Committee will see the words which are Impact Assessment in failing in the assessment to underlined there. The passage then continues: have studied that alignment and to have given the “Those alternatives have been assessed and are main reasons why it was rejected. contained in Volume 1, Chapter 6, of the . . . (ES).” So there, as I understand it, are, really, two 3802. CHAIRMAN: Is that what the regulations propositions: one is that the duty to assess say? alternatives relates to the scheme as a whole, and, secondly, that, anyway, all that has to be studied and 3803. MR HORTON: May I take you to the then presented with reasons for rejection are the main regulations in a moment? The Directive—I beg alternatives. your pardon. 3811. If I may take you over the page, under the 3804. CHAIRMAN: No, the Directive is one thing; heading “Alternative alignments”: “As the Promoter the regulations are the domestic version of it. explained in Select Committee in the House of Commons, the fact that they are not reported in the 3805. MR HORTON: Yes, that is right. It is helpful main Environmental Statement as ‘main alternatives’ to be able to emphasise that there is agreement does not mean that no alternative alignments between this Petitioner and the Promoter (if I have through Spitalfields were considered. Indeed, the understood the Promoter’s position correctly) that it large amount of information and reports on the did not regard alignment B as a main alternative. subject that have been provided to some Spitalfields They have made that judgment. Therefore it did not petitioners demonstrate that alternatives were study it, therefore it did not, in the Environmental considered.” Impact Assessment, refer to the study (because it had not made one) or give reasons as to why it had not 3812. Then there is a specific reference to this studied it, because the obligation is only to give alignment B, which is on the plan before the reasons in relation to main alternatives; it is not to Committee. “The alternative tunnel alignment give reasons in relation to an alternative which, at the through Spitalfields known as ‘Option B’ was one outset, is rejected. early alternative to one limb of the overall project and was not a ‘main alternative’.” So there it is, as I stated 3806. So I do not have, as I understand it this earlier, as clear as day: Option B was never regarded morning, to present this on the basis that although it as a main alternative. was a main alternative it was not dealt with in the assessment, because it is simpler than that: the 3813. The next paragraph states: “The Promoter Promoters actually assert it never was a main investigated a number of alternative alignments for alternative and therefore there was no obligation. the railway east of Liverpool Street as explained in Information Paper A1, Development of the Crossrail 3807. If I may take you to the Promoter’s response, Route. The location and alignment of Liverpool therefore, which the Committee has, it deals of course Street and Whitechapel stations at either end of this with a number of matters in relation to this issue. My section are fixed by the need to provide interchange copy is not paginated, but it is the fourth page. . . . and by the presence of deep building foundations. The alignment between the stations is defined by the 3808. CHAIRMAN: They are neither paginated nor acceptable radii of curves, which in turn are have paragraph numbers. determined by the required speed of the line and by other operational and maintenance criteria.” 3809. MR HORTON: Under the heading “Consideration of Alternatives”, may I just read this 3814. My Lords and my Lady, it is quite right (I do out and then comment? “As the Promoter explained not need to take you to them) that a number of in the Select Committee in the House of Commons alternatives east of Liverpool Street and south of the . . . ” (miss out the next four lines) “ . . . the principles hybrid Bill line have been examined. Indeed, Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
330 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association certainly some, if not the main examination, appears 3821. MR HORTON: I did not appear in the other to have been pursuant to an undertaking given in the place, my Lord. The whole point of being able to House of Commons to undertake further petition the Lords is to be able to re-present an examination. There is a document (which, again, for argument in the hope that it may be better received in reasons which I will explain in a moment, you will be this House than in the other place. relieved to know I do not need to take you to, but just to get it on the record) dated October 2007 produced 3822. CHAIRMAN: I think you want to talk about by Mott MacDonald which has been through a the EIA process. number of drafts—the first was 31 January 2005 and the final one was 13 October 2007—which is called 3823. MR HORTON: Yes, certainly. southern alignment between Liverpool Street and Whitechapel stations. It looks at a number of lines 3824. CHAIRMAN: You are not setting that in the but it does not look, as I understand it, at context of any particular alignment. It is going to end alignment B. up in the question of whether we have got any powers to do it. 3815. LORD SNAPE: Mr Horton, forgive me interrupting you for a moment, but you did say when 3825. MR HORTON: Yes, I accept that. you started your remarks that you were not going to talk about alternative alignments, for the reasons 3826. CHAIRMAN: Is that right? that you outlined, although you might do, I took you to say, tomorrow when presenting submissions on 3827. MR HORTON: It is right, my Lord. It has behalf of another one of your clients. Purely for my taken me some time, because there is so much benefit, my Lord Chairman, just reiterate the powers material, having been instructed late, to strip this this Committee has so far as alternative alignments issue down to its bare essentials. Those instructing are concerned. If we do not have any powers, is there me, as often happens with lay persons, have not seen really any point in us listening to what Mr Horton it as clearly as, I hope, I now see it and seek to present said was going to be a brief opening statement—but it, but for that purpose it is very important that you does not appear that way to me? Is there any point in should see the extent to which you can consider the us listening to evidence over which we have no issue within what is actually a framework which is control, or no powers to amend? agreed between the parties.
3816. CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether you 3828. CHAIRMAN: I think the best thing is to let want to call evidence about this. you get on with it.
3817. MR HORTON: I do not want to call evidence 3829. MR HORTON: I am grateful. I am sorry I am about it. I am making a brief opening statement, my making Lord Snape impatient; I am not renowned Lord, and I would be grateful if I could make it for being the fastest gun in the West, but I am the without aggravating your Lordship in that way, most accurate. because it will become clear, if you will allow me so to do. I have to set the scene in relation to certain 3830. LORD SNAPE: As long as you shoot straight matters. you can be as slow as you like!
3831. MR HORTON: Thank you very much. All I 3818. LORD SNAPE: About the alignment? ask you to note, because it is important to a point I have to make on the law, is that, as you can see from 3819. MR HORTON: I do not intend to put any that October 2007 study, the Promoters appear submissions before you about the merits of deliberately to have chosen to avoid at all times alternative alignments. I need your Lordship to giving any detailed consideration to alignment B, understand what has actually happened in order that even, most extraordinarily, when, following the I may put forward what is an important point of law, undertaking given in the other place, they chose to because it cannot be in the interest of this country oVer to look in more detail at alignments south of the that this Bill proceeds on a basis which, if my Bill line. One asks oneself: why have they steered submission is right, will prove in due course to result clear? That will go to a point of law I have to make in in it being contrary to European law. a moment.
3820. LORD SNAPE: Although it is the same 3832. If I may then take you to the way that Mr Elvin evidence that you put forward in the other place and approaches this, I have copied (so it can go up on the was rejected? screen to help your Lordships) a note which he Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 331
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association provided on 26 February 2007. I am afraid it has whether the documents together provide what some underlining. I apologise for that, but, Schedule4 44 . . . requires.” Then, at paragraph 203, if nonetheless, I hope it will help. I may take you to the underlined passage in the middle. It is not my underlining. I assume it is Mr 3833. MR ELVIN: What Mr Horton is incorrectly Elvin’s. referring to is a letter I wrote to the Chairman of the Commons Select Committee. Do your Lordships 3840. MR ELVIN: The typed underlining, yes. The have a copy of the Government overview of the case handwritten underlining is not mine. for Crossrail and its Environmental Impact, Command Paper 7250? I do not know whether that 3841. MR HORTON: “It is inevitable that those has been supplied. who are opposed to the development will disagree with, and criticise, the appraisal, and find topics 3834. CHAIRMAN: No. which matter to them or which can be said to matter, which have been omitted or, to some minds, 3835. MR ELVIN: It is the summary that was inadequately dealt with. Some or all of the criticism presented to the House of Commons on Third may have force on the planning merits.” Reading and this is part of a longer letter which appears at pages 67 to 77 of that Command Paper. 3842. I, of course,— Mr Horton is looking at pages 72, 73, 74, 75 and 76, I think, of the Command Paper. We will see if we can 3843. CHAIRMAN: Go on. See what the learned make sure you have copies of the Command Paper. It Judge said. is 1 March. 2 3844. MR HORTON: Certainly. “ . . . that does not 3836. MR HORTON: My Lords and my Lady, you come close to showing there is an error or law on the will see that on the first page it has got page 6 at the planning authority’s part in treating the document as top. My learned friend refers to the legal framework an Environmental Statement or that there was a and there he is only dealing with whether, in relation breach of duty in Regulation 3(2) on the local to the passage of legislation through Parliament, an authority’s part in granting permission on the basis of environmental assessment has to be undertaken. I that Environmental Statement.” need not read it out to you because, as I understand it, the Promoters accept that in this case it did have to 3845. My Lords, I did not go on because I was about be undertaken and, of course, it has been undertaken. to say that I do not dispute that, as such, although Mr 3 Justice Ouseley, of course, might—one never 3837. You then see, on page 7, the heading: knows—on a future occasion find that a higher court “Judgment as to the adequacy of an environmental or another judge did dispute it, but for my purposes statement”. The opening proposition, at paragraph before this Committee I do not dispute that, for this 5, is: “The adequacy of the ES is a matter for the obvious reason (which my Lord, Lord Chairman reasonable judgment of the decision maker, in this certainly will have a lot of familiarity with from days case Parliament.” My Lords, up to a point I do not gone by): that if you take the ordinary situation of a quarrel with that—I make it clear. Then, at planning inquiry or a motorway inquiry there can be paragraph 6, there is a reference to a decision in the an Environmental Statement into the Promoter’s High Court and a quotation from the judgment of proposal or the developer’s proposal, and they, at Mr Justice Ouseley. If you turn over to page 8— first blush, can select alternatives, if any, which they choose to examine and present in the Statement. In 3838. CHAIRMAN: Can we see, before that due course, an objector can come to the inquiry and disappears, the beginning of that quotation at the say: “Please consider a diVerent alternative”, and, up bottom of the page? to a point, may get a hearing. For example, in motorway inquiries, it used to be common-place, 3839. MR HORTON: At paragraph 199? “The when there were many, that they would be taken up, Environmental Statement, therefore, is not just a in part, with not just considering the published route document to which the developer refers as an but with alternatives to that alignment put forward Environmental Statement; it is that document plus by objectors, in whole or in part. the other information which the . . . authority thinks it should have in order for the document to be an 3846. So there obviously is a point at which that is the Environmental Statement. . . . the authority judges right remedy—I accept that. That, of course, is the 2 importance of what I will seek, with trepidation, to (SCN-20080312-002 3 4 Crossrailenvironmental Ref: P26, statement Note in (SCN-20080312-003) response to SsBA, 26 February 2008 environmental statement (SCN-20080312-004) Crossrail Ref: P26, Judement as to the adequacy of an Crossrail Ref: P26, Judement as to the adequacy of an Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
332 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association argue before your Lordships tomorrow morning, demonstrated why it is important to be very careful because that would go to whether or not you were about whether there is any legal safeguard so perhaps prepared to listen to the merits of an alternative, but I can now move on to that. this morning I am steering well clear of that. 3849. CHAIRMAN: Probably what we want you to 3847. Of course, even, however, in relation to that address is what you think we can do. approach, it is not always the case that (for example, at a planning inquiry) an inspector appointed by the 3850. MR HORTON: Yes, of course. Lord Justice Secretary of State will listen to an alternative, because Megaw asked me a question like that once and I said, the inspector may say: “I am charged with “I think, my Lord ---”, and he said, “You submit, Mr considering this proposal and, therefore, I am not Horton”, and I have never forgotten that so I shall prepared to spend much time considering something only be able to tell you what I submit rather than completely diVerent.” One never quite knows what I personally think. whether he is going to take that line. I only emphasise that to your Lordships because what it does is to focus attention upon what is potentially a very 3851. MR ELVIN: He said some other things as dangerous lacuna (if I am allowed to use the Latin well. any more) in what is meant to be protection for everybody in relation to all schemes that merit 3852. BARONESS FOOKES: We are not a law environmental assessment. At the moment, the court. situation may arise in this Committee—indeed, it does arise, by reference to the decision which, so far, 3853. MR HORTON: Do you remember it? I understand you to have taken about listening to any evidence about, for example, Option B or any other southern alignment—where the Promoters can say 3854. MR ELVIN: Yes, I do. early on: “We can see that X, Y or Z might be an alternative. For reasons of our own we only have to 3855. CHAIRMAN: Submit away. look at that to know that we do not want to go near it, so we will decide early on that it is not a main alternative; we will not study it, we will not be 3856. MR HORTON: I shall submit away. What obliged, therefore, to deal with it in our the Association asked me, of course, to invite the Environmental Statement, and once, at any rate, in Committee to do is to consider this legal submission this kind of process, on a hybrid Bill, we get to a point and take the view that at the moment the where the principle is decided, Parliament (a Environmental Impact Assessment is flawed as a Committee, at any rate) will not consider it, and at matter of law and that, therefore, it will be necessary best the only scrutiny, I suppose, might be Parliament for further consideration to be given in particular to itself on the floor of the House.” Option B. That is what it seeks. It seeks that because it does not wish, as I am sure this Committee does not wish, that a decision of that kind should have to be 3848. My Lords, you will forgive me for saying this, made through going to Luxembourg, for example. some are less impressed than others about the ability The delay is not desirable, we accept that. I have of the floor of the House to give the kind of scrutiny heard, although apparently it did not go on Hansard, to that sort of matter which will be necessary in order that in the House of Commons, I think it was the to form a sensible judgment about it and that Chairman of the Committee who said his job was to traditionally is the whole point of the committee get the Bill through. I am sure he did not mean it in stage, that you can look at matters in far greater quite those terms, but the job is to make sure that detail than they ever can be looked at on the floor of right is done having regard to the role of a select the House. I hope that the problem at least is well committee and I know this Committee will have that identified in that submission where you could get a in mind, but let me, therefore, concentrate upon that proposal as important as this which goes through legal issue. If you return please to page eight— without any proper examination of what might be— I mean I cannot put it any higher than that—a very important alternative solution. I know you will 3857. CHAIRMAN: The response? appreciate that in Spitalfields, where feelings run 5 extremely high, the belief is that if the whole fabric of 3858. MR HORTON: Of Mr Elvin’s response, yes, Spitalfields, both physical and the community fabric, you will see the heading (C) “The Requirement to is not to be seriously threatened, the line through Consider Alternatives . . . ”. Spitalfields is wrong, so it is a dramatically important 5 issue. As far as the law is concerned, I hope I have in the Environmental Statement (SCN-20080312-005) Crossrail Ref: P26, The requirement to cover main alternatives Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 333
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
3859. CHAIRMAN: Yes. 3871. MR ELVIN: It is not in the exhibits, my Lord, and we were not notified of this in advance, so Mr 3860. MR HORTON: “The obligation of the Horton has failed to comply with the Committee’s Directive with regard to alternatives is a limited one request regarding 24 hours’ notice. and does not require as a matter of European law that alternatives should actually be considered. It also 3872. CHAIRMAN: Certainly we have never seen does not require that the ES should set out a full it before. description of all the alternatives . . . ”. “What the Directive requires is that if alternatives have been 3873. MR ELVIN: I have a copy and I can look at it. considered the main ones should be summarised in outline”. I have already emphasised my 3874. MR HORTON: You will find it helpful --- My understanding of that as the case against me and I Lord, I apologise, it had not occurred to me for a accept that the Promoters took the view early on that moment that the Committee would not have this Option B was not regarded as a main alternative for document, but I apologise. whatever reason. We do not know the reason because they did not regard it as one, so they have never given 3875. CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly all right. Let us the reason, but there are some— see if we can get around it.
3861. CHAIRMAN: We have had reasons for that. 3876. MR HORTON: I am trying to be helpful to Mr Elvin by conceding that an explanation was given early on, that is all, and this document happens to 3862. MR HORTON: You have and I have a help in that regard. photocopy of the document and I just ask this to be put up. I put it up without qualification. This is an 3877. CHAIRMAN: Let us have a look at it, but I extract from the Crossrail document, the title which think it is the same explanation that we have had is “Eastern Portal Bow Triangle Option”. orally in the course of these Committee hearings.
3863. MR ELVIN: My Lords, despite your 3878. MR HORTON: Very well, this gives you Lordships’ constant re-emphasis of the need to give probably the documentary origin of6 it, as I us 24 hours’ notification of documents, I do not know understand it, because you see paragraph 3.2 is what this is, we have not been provided with any headed: “Crossrail Tunnel Alignments Between documents for this Petitioner and I would like a copy Liverpool Street and Bow Triangle”. “Three and an identification of the document that is being alternative alignments, A, B and C, have been referred to. considered”, and, my Lords, the plan which I put up before you is a plan taken from this document. 3864. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have no idea what this is at all. 3879. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
3880. MR HORTON: “Two of these, A and B, will 3865. MR ELVIN: Is it a report of the exhibits? permit an additional Crossrail station at Whitechapel”, and then the next sentence: “no 3866. MR HORTON: I am so sorry, Mr Elvin, specific design has been developed for the station”, perhaps you were not listening, I have just given you and then the next paragraph: “Alignments B and C the title of the document, I can put it on the screen. would pass below known piled buildings and proposed developments just east of Bishopsgate. A planning application has recently been submitted but 3867. CHAIRMAN: Whose document is it? subsequently withdrawn for a site including Stone House and Staple Hall. This site is directly over the 3868. MR HORTON: This is a document that has westbound tunnel of Alignment B. A further site been provided to me by those instructing. immediately to the south is subject to a proposed 50- storey oYce development directly over the 3869. CHAIRMAN: Whose document is it? westbound tunnel of Alignment C that is almost entirely outside the limit of land subject to consultation in the Crossrail safeguarding direction. 3870. MR HORTON: My Lord, I beg your pardon, The Crossrail project has already indicated that it the title of it is “Crossrail Eastern Portal Bow 6 Triangle Option, I understand it to be dated 23 Option, CrossRail Tunnel Alignments between Liverpool Street March 2001 and— and Bow Triangle (SCN-20080312-006) Committee Ref: A28, CrossRail Eastern Portal—Bow Triangle Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
334 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association does not wish to comment on this planning Spitalfields have tried to provide other work to application. Currently this application has been endeavour to put more material in front of your ‘called in’. For these reasons neither of these Lordships and my Lady in that respect and if I can alignments has been considered in any detail”. I do take it that way. not know whether that corresponds to the explanation given orally to the Committee but, as I 3888. CHAIRMAN: Just get this straight. If we are understand it, seven years ago actually, that is why to look at the EIA process under the Directive, these alignments were at the outset not taken further. because I think there is no use looking at the regulations for parliamentary purposes. 3881. CHAIRMAN: That may well be said, but I think you are asking us to do something about it and 3889. MR HORTON: Certainly. what happened about these developments? 3890. CHAIRMAN: If we are going to look at it as 3882. MR HORTON: Not today I am not. I am a Directive, we need to look at it as the situation avoiding that territory as I keep emphasising. All I stands in 2008 not as it was in 2001. am pointing out to you is what, I hope, is a helpful way of identifying how long ago this decision was 3891. MR HORTON: Yes. I accept that. Yes, no taken is. For reasons given there, which will not question about that. I am sorry, I am slow. I follow surprise you I am sure, this Petitioner would, if he the point your Lordship is putting to me. The issue were ever given the opportunity, argue that at any which I seek to raise in this respect is if I can put in rate in relation to Alignment B those were not good front of you— reasons for not considering that alignment, but I am not asking you to grapple with that this morning, 3892. CHAIRMAN: Just a point in close, the although that is the Petitioner’s view, so I am buildings on Stone House and Staple Hall, which is instructed. What I am pointing out is this is the way the one that is now in the course of construction? that lacuna, as I call it, can operate. The Promoter Maybe it is not that one, there is another one referred early on finds an alignment, identifies a reason right to at the end of that paragraph. or wrong for not considering it, therefore is able to say, “It is not a main alternative, we never took it 3893. MR HORTON: It is the 50-storey oYce further, we haven’t studied it and that is the end of development, Heron Tower. the matter”. 3894. CHAIRMAN: That is now going ahead? 3883. CHAIRMAN: Mr Horton, I am not so sure. I would have thought that what you are saying to this 3895. MR HORTON: Yes. Committee is that we ought to do something about it today in 2008. For instance, we might push to 3896. CHAIRMAN: It was re-submitted and it has recommend to the House that it goes back over the been approved. question of the EIA because only the House itself can be judge of this and we would therefore, if we are 3897. MR HORTON: I am told by Ms Jordan, who going to take that course, need to know what the instructs me, that Stone House and Staple Hall are factual situation is today. Maybe you are going to still standing and they are not piled. deal with that tomorrow? 3898. CHAIRMAN: What is the Heron Tower? 3884. MR HORTON: Yes, if you will allow me to. 3899. MR HORTON: That is under construction. 3885. CHAIRMAN: Certainly by all means but can you not tell us whether these buildings will in fact 3900. CHAIRMAN:7 That is what it is all about. have been given planning permission and been built? 3901. MR ELVIN: This is from the Heron Tower 3886. MR ELVIN: The one that is referred to is the website. Heron Tower which is under construction. 8 3902. MR HORTON: My Lord, it may help to put 3887. MR HORTON: I know that. I am told that up Article 5 of the Directive in its amended form and Alignment B is not an alignment which suVers from also Annex IV. You will see that Article 5 in its being under pile foundations to an extent which 7 20080312-007) would warrant not examining it further, but that is 8 what I am told. Then tomorrow, if I am allowed to, Crossrail1985 on the Ref: assessment P23, of Map the e ofVects Heron of certain Tower public area and private (SCN- I am instructed because the various organisations of projects on the environment (SCN-200803012-008 to -009) Committee Ref: A21, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 335
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association amended form provides: “in the case of projects 3911. CHAIRMAN: It is an indication of the main which, pursuant to Article 4, must be subjected to an reasons as indicated either today or tomorrow. environmental impact assessment . . . Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the 3912. MR HORTON: That is what you would be developer supplies in an appropriate form the asking, if you were to do it, to be done. information specified in Annex IV”, and moving down to paragraph 3 this is provided that the “information to be provided by the developer in 3913. CHAIRMAN: It is no use looking at the accordance with paragraph 1 shall include . . . ” the indications that were considered in 2001. matters identified at the dagger points and you see the fourth dagger point: “an outline of the main 3914. MR HORTON: No. alternatives studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for his choice”. As a matter of language, I am sure it is apparent to your 3915. CHAIRMAN: We need to look at the ones Lordships and my Lady at first blush that is simply that are relevant today. saying that if the Promoter chooses to study an alternative which warrants the description “main 3916. MR HORTON: It must be right, in my alternative”, then he must outline that and indicate submission. the main reasons for the choice so that I readily accept, having a duty of course to this Committee as well as to the Petitioner, at first blush that language 3917. CHAIRMAN: That is for Parliament’s does not assist me. purpose as the decision-maker.
3903. CHAIRMAN: Does it assist us either? 3918. MR HORTON: Yes. You see there is an annex as well9 and information referred to Article 5(1) 3904. MR HORTON: This is the question, I am and that repeats at paragraph 2 the requirement to afraid, that I am asking the Committee to grapple outline the main alternative studies, the language is with. the same.
3905. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know, but you are going 3919. CHAIRMAN: Brussels simply said it twice. to have to tell us what you have to say about it. When do we have to take this decision upon the basis of facts? When? Normally speaking, if there is a case 3920. MR HORTON: Exactly and it is possibly that requires an EIA, the local planning authority is reiterated twice in the regulations, but we are not bound to look at the points such as you have just concerned with it. My Lord, the point which I have drawn to our attention. Now in this case Parliament to put before your Lordships is this: to avoid has so far gone ahead on the basis of such avoidance of this important safeguard these words environmental impact assessments as have been have to be construed as an obligation to have presented. I think you are asking us to do the exercise examined the main alternatives which should have over again and make a recommendation that there been studied, I can see no other way of putting it should be another look at this. before your Lordships. It has to be an objective test. A Promoter must not be allowed to avoid this 3906. MR HORTON: Yes. important obligation by simply making up his own mind, but something which on any objective view would plainly be a main alternative demanding study 3907. CHAIRMAN: That would therefore, would it in the public interest is not such because it will run – not, be based upon the facts as they are today?
3908. MR HORTON: It has to be. It would be 3921. CHAIRMAN: We are the judges of it, in so far futile. as we would recommend to Parliament to have another look at this. 3909. CHAIRMAN: It would be absolutely pointless, would it not? 3922. MR HORTON: Yes, that is how I have to put it. 3910. MR HORTON: Yes, it would and my 9 instructions, which really relate to what I will seek to 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the eVects of certain public and private projects on the environment, put before you tomorrow, do relate to today’s date, CommitteeAnnex IV—Information Ref: A21, Council Referred Directive to in 97/11/EC Article 5 of (1) 3 March(SCN- have no fear of that. 200803012-010) Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
336 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
3923. CHAIRMAN: Yes. 3937. CHAIRMAN: What has happened to Mr Schabas? 3924. MR HORTON: My Lords, I think it is unavoidable, if you are to be able to make that 3938. MR ELVIN: The Commons would not let Mr judgment, that you do have to know more about the Schabas give his evidence on alternatives. alternative. We will come to that tomorrow. It may be that because asking you to look at it will arise by 3939. CHAIRMAN: Well, they may not have done, this route, you will take the view tomorrow and it but we are not the Commons. may perhaps be helpful if I just briefly outline this now so, if you wish, you may think about it before 3940. MR ELVIN: No, my Lord, but there is a very tomorrow. important point here which is that we have not heard Mr Schabas’s evidence on the southern alignment, 3925. It may be that this is a diVerent point from the nor have we had the courtesy, as we have not had one which I understand to have given Petitioners today, of any exchange of material from these such diYculty so far, namely to do with the principle Petitioners, neither the current Petitioner nor indeed of the Bill. the Petitioner for tomorrow.
3926. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is a diVerent point. 3941. CHAIRMAN: Well, we are going to struggle on and— 3927. MR HORTON: I think so. 3942. MR ELVIN: Well, my Lord, it is more 3928. CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course it is. important than that because, if your Lordship is going to hear this material, we need some notice because we need to be able to deal with it. 3929. MR HORTON: Therefore, it may be that you can properly hear that material tomorrow, despite 3943. CHAIRMAN: I quite agree, and I will see if I what I understand you so far to have said about the can make sure that you have notice. principle of the Bill, but, subject to that, I think I have put this point as succinctly and, I hope, as clearly as I am able, unless I can help any further. 3944. MR ELVIN: I would be very grateful. 3945. CHAIRMAN: But at the present moment I 3930. CHAIRMAN: I do not know what we are am trying to get into my head what is the point of law. going to do now. The point of law, I think Mr Horton is saying, is that this Committee should look again at the criteria in 3931. MR HORTON: Well, I am not calling the EIA Directive and it is open to us, I think you are evidence in relation to this Petition. saying, to choose Route B—it will have to be, will it not—as a main alternative which ought now to be 3932. CHAIRMAN: So are you never going to call studied? any evidence? 3946. MR HORTON: Yes. 3933. MR HORTON: Well, I am watching for a swift right hook from my right because I do not know 3947. CHAIRMAN: Is that what you are saying? what notice has been given. 3948. MR HORTON: Yes, because it is an objective 3934. MR ELVIN: None at all. test. That is how I have to put it.
3935. MR HORTON: But I was told yesterday 3949. CHAIRMAN: And we would have to decide actually at a late hour that the Spitalfields Society whether this is a main alternative that ought to be would like to ask you, and I think this Committee studied and tell Parliament that that is so? Is that may have heard it before and certainly it was heard in right? the other place, to listen to Mr Schabas just to give you a factual account of this alternative. The 3950. MR HORTON: Yes, my Lord. My Lord, I Promoters are familiar with it because they have think I cannot say more. I apologise to my learned heard it before. friends and to the Committee of course. The Bar is always anxious to observe the courtesies and 3936. MR ELVIN: That is not actually right because obligations and I do not think I fully have, but, as I the Commons stopped Mr Schabas and refused to say, my instructions have been late and, as often hear him on 30 January. happens in acting for this sort of body, I have had to Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 337
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association clear out of the way an awful lot of material which 3963. CHAIRMAN: Is that right? those instructing me feel strongly about, but, I took the view, would not assist the Committee to hear. 3964. MR ELVIN: My Lord, there is a series of simple, legal answers to this and I think I can assist 3951. CHAIRMAN: Well, it is a very simple, short you further with this without seeing any further point now, is it not? documentation, other than the documentation that is already before the Committee. 3952. MR HORTON: Yes, it is. 3965. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I dare say, but I think we 3953. CHAIRMAN: I am very grateful you have have got a duty to the Petitioner to allow them to cleared everything else out of the way, but so far as produce what material they wish, provided that they concerns Crossrail and Mr Elvin, I think you are show it to you. going now to have to tell him what it is that you are proposing to put in front of us by way of evidence. 3966. MR ELVIN: My Lord, this Petitioner does not wish to put in evidence. This is a pure point of law 3954. MR HORTON: Yes. and I have a legal answer to it.
3955. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I have just had a note 3967. CHAIRMAN: Well, then what is the point of to say that in fact 200 pages have just been delivered 200 pages? to our oYces. 3968. MR ELVIN: Well, this is for the Petitioner 3956. CHAIRMAN: How nice! tomorrow.
3957. MR ELVIN: So, my Lord, I will keep quiet 3969. MR HORTON: The work has been divided any further on this because no doubt I will have up. The Spitalfields Society tomorrow adopt the legal another sleepless night ahead of me, but never mind! submissions made today and then seek to provide As your Lordship put it, we will struggle on. you with the evidential material.
3958. MR HORTON: May I say, if it is any comfort 3970. CHAIRMAN: I think the diYculty that we are to Mr Elvin, it is not 200 pages that I have seen either. going to be in is that, if it is to be treated as a main I apologise. alternative, and we are being invited to make a recommendation to the House to consider this on re- committal, as such, in accordance with the Directive, 3959. MR ELVIN: Well, I am sorry, but my learned I think we have to have some material upon the basis friend may be instructed by residents, but the agent of which we can say that it is a main alternative. who is instructing him, Ms Jones, is a partner at S J Berwin and is a development solicitor. Frankly, this sort of pleading does not really sound very well when 3971. MR HORTON: Exactly. you are dealing with a partner from a City law firm. 3972. CHAIRMAN: I do not see how we can do that 3960. MR HORTON: Well, I was not. I was dealing at the moment because we have not got any material with my own position. I have not seen this, but, as at all. soon as I go from here, I shall be speaking with Ms Jones. 3973. MR HORTON: That must be right.
3961. CHAIRMAN: I think it is perfectly simple. 3974. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I am quite happy to We cannot make any further progress on this point at give my main submissions tomorrow in respect of all. If I have identified the point correctly, and you at both Petitions, having heard the Society’s Petition least agreed that I have, I do not think we can make tomorrow, but I think it would assist the Committee any further progress on it until there has been a that the rest of the business today is for you to hear proper exchange of documents and time for them to Professor Mair and Mr Thornely-Taylor which can be considered. be comfortably accommodated within a few hours, I should imagine. If your Lordships would allow me, I 3962. MR HORTON: I think that is right, I am can at least give you some preliminary enlightenment afraid. as to what the position is. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
338 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
3975. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think that probably 3990. MR ELVIN: I do not think so. He is saying would help everybody, but it is without prejudice to that alternative B was a main alternative, it should what may emerge from the material that we have not have been referred to in the Environmental yet seen. Statement and that, because the Environmental Statement, he claims, does not refer to the main 3976. MR ELVIN: Doubtless, I can produce alternative that was studied, it is, therefore, defective something in writing overnight as well to assist the and, therefore, the Bill process is defective. There are Committee. I will have to explain it to my wife again, a series of errors which are bound up with that which but never mind! I will explain at greater length and I will put in writing for you for tomorrow, but let me just give you a 3977. CHAIRMAN: If you want to give us a foretaste. preliminary submission on what Mr Horton has said 10 now, we will listen to it. It does not mean to say that 3991. Firstly, perhaps I can just put up Article 5, my you cannot make a submission again when the copy, which is the latest version which I got from the totality of the case, including the evidence, has been Commission’s website. I will provide a proper copy placed before us. of the Directive tomorrow. My Lords, you will see the language and the first flaw in my learned friend’s 3978. MR ELVIN: I am very grateful. reasoning is that there is no duty to study alternatives. The only legal requirement is to give an 3979. CHAIRMAN: That must be all right, must it outline of the main alternatives studied, so you have not, Mr Horton, if you are coming tomorrow? to ask yourself two questions: what alternatives were studied in the process of carrying out the environmental assessment; and, secondly, what were 3980. MR HORTON: Yes, certainly. the main alternatives, if there is no duty to actually study alternatives? Where there is a duty to do 3981. CHAIRMAN: It will save a lot of time. something, it says so, so, if you look at Article 5(3), and Mr Horton referred you to it, for example, you 3982. MR HORTON: Yes. Thank you very much. have to give a description of the project with all its details. You have got to give a description of the 3983. MR ELVIN: I wonder whether Mr Hackett measures to mitigate. You have got to give the data has managed, or whether we have managed, to get to identify and assess the main eVects. If the duty had copies of the letter I wrote to Mr Meale, the been to study alternatives— Chairman of the Select Committee. Firstly, can I invite the Committee to read the annex to that in time 3992. CHAIRMAN: “An outline of the main for tomorrow because that actually sets out, in alternatives”. essence, our position. There is a fundamental flaw in Mr Horton’s submissions. 3993. MR ELVIN: Yes, the main alternatives studied by the developer. If it had been a requirement 3984. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute, it is coVee time! to study alternatives, it would have said, “a We have got this document and, with a cup of coVee description of the alternatives to the project”. What in the other hand, we will read it. it says is “an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer”, and what this is is simply a 3985. MR ELVIN: I am quite happy to provide requirement to put into the arena the environmental aspirin as well, if that would assist! information which will allow an informed decision to be made by the decision-maker, in this case 3986. CHAIRMAN: Let’s adjourn for quarter of Parliament. It is to show Parliament that some an hour. alternatives, ie the main alternatives, have been considered and to give a basic set of reasons as to why After a short break they were not pursued. There is no specific requirement to look at any alternatives and I know of 3987. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin? no legal authority from either the European Court or from this jurisdiction which says that that imposes a 3988. MR ELVIN: My Lords, my Lady, the simple duty to study alternatives as opposed to simply give point that Mr Horton is running is this: that an account of the main alternatives which you have alternative B was a main alternative. in fact studied. 10 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the 3989. CHAIRMAN: We are not concerned with eVects of certain public and private projects on the environment alternative C, are we? (SCN-20080312-011)Committee Ref: P32: Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 339
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
3994. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, this may be right, have been studied, that is, historically studied, there but, when it comes to the decision-maker, which in is a flaw in the ES. This is not about questions of the the normal case would be the local planning principle of the Bill and whether you should consider authority, they can look at the alternatives, can they alternatives now. This is whether there is a formal, not, and they can say, “Well, actually we prefer this legal defect in the Environmental Statement because one and we are not going to grant planning we did not include something in it which was done in permission for the other one”? the past. It has nothing to do with future process and it has everything to do with whether we have given a 3995. MR ELVIN: If your Lordship recalls the proper account in the Environmental Statement of principles from his earlier practice, my learned friend those alternatives which were main alternatives and is confusing two things. He is confusing alternatives which were, as a matter of fact, studied, so, my Lords, as a material planning consideration with the duty it has nothing to do with— with regard to alternatives under the Directive which is a duty to supply information and to engage in 4004. CHAIRMAN: That may be right. I would like consultation. It has nothing to do with the substance to think about it. of the issue. In planning, as your Lordship may recall, and I can give your Lordship a recent case in due course, if that will help, alternatives are not always 4005. MR ELVIN: I appreciate that, and I am going material considerations to a planning decision- to put it in writing as well. maker. They may, in some exceptional cases, be a basis for refusing planning permission, but that has 4006. CHAIRMAN: The diYculty is that no analogue in the hybrid Bill process. In the hybrid Parliament is the local planning authority. Bill process, it is for the Houses of Parliament, acting on the floor of the House, to decide whether or not to 4007. MR ELVIN: Well, it is more than that in fact. accept the Bill as proVered or whether to put forward amendments to the Bill in the usual way. 4008. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know it is, but, among 3996. CHAIRMAN: I think that is what we are other things, it is the planning authority. being invited to do. 4009. MR ELVIN: Yes. It is for Parliament to 3997. MR ELVIN: Well, my Lord, it would have choose whether or not to accept the principle of the been a matter of course for any Member of either Bill and it is for Parliament to choose whether to House to have tabled an amendment at Second make any amendments to the Bill. Reading to say, “You should not accept— 4010. CHAIRMAN: Exactly. 3998. CHAIRMAN: You cannot table amendments at Second Reading. 4011. MR ELVIN: Parliament is sovereign in this 3999. MR ELVIN: I am sorry, I do apologise, so to matter, subject only to such restraints as it accepts. table amendments at the appropriate time. 4012. CHAIRMAN: And it is not justiciable. 4000. CHAIRMAN: Well, that would be on re- committal. 4013. MR ELVIN: That is not absolutely true, my Lord, I am sorry to say. My learned friend is 4001. MR ELVIN: Well, in the Commons the absolutely right that, if there is a legal failure in the opportunity would have arisen to seek amendments environmental assessment process, the Act can be or to vote against the principle of the Bill, and there reviewed in the courts. are procedures in the Bill process for dealing with matters if Members of either House wish to have an alternative promoted. 4014. CHAIRMAN: Can it?
4002. CHAIRMAN: I quite agree, but we are now 4015. MR ELVIN: Yes. I was in a case in the Court dealing with it in this House. of Appeal called Crown v Durham County Council ex parte Huddleston and I appeared for the Secretary of 4003. MR ELVIN: But, my Lord, that is not what State where the Court of Appeal quashed part of the we are dealing with. What we are actually dealing Planning & Compensation Act, or did not quash it, with is a point of law which says that, because we but held it illegal because it did not properly comply have not given an account of the alternatives which with environmental assessment procedures. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
340 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association 13
4016. CHAIRMAN: That is news to me. 4019. Then on the eastern options you will see again the main alternatives set out. It does not go into micro detail over each and every single stretch of 4017. MR ELVIN: Mr Taylor, who sits next to me, track between each and every station. These are the was on the other side! He may grin now, but I have main alternatives to the project, which were given an had my revenge in subsequent years! It is absolutely account in the Environmental Statement in chapter 6 right, as Mr Horton says, that, because it is a and which we say plainly constitute the main European issue and, therefore, the question of the alternatives to the project. European Communities Act comes into play, there is an issue, but it does not matter for these purposes; the 4020. CHAIRMAN: They go between Liverpool point of law is the same. Street and Whitechapel in any event. My Lord, my first point, and I will put this in writing, is that there is no duty to consider alternatives. The duty is to give an account of those alternatives which 4021. MR ELVIN: Yes. No one is suggesting that it have been studied by the developer. Therefore, you should not go between Liverpool Street and have to say, “Well, what were the alternatives?” Look Whitechapel . at Article 5 again, if you would, my Lords and my Lady. We now go on to the main alternatives and you 4022. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think they are, but have to ask yourself, “Alternatives to what?” Well, never mind. the alternatives must be to the project because it is the project which is subject to assessment and you can see 4023. MR ELVIN: They have not said that in Article 5(1) the case of projects which, pursuant to expressly. It may be that Whitechapel should perhaps Article 4, must be subject to an environmental move to the middle of the road or under the hospital assessment. The project is not the stretch of line but there certainly seems to be an acceptance that between Liverpool Street and Whitechapel. The there should be some form of station at Whitechapel. project is Crossrail, that is to say, the project as defined Mr Horton is agreeing. by the Bill, so the main alternatives must, as a matter of commonsense and purpose of the provision, be the 4024. So does your Lordship see that our view of the alternatives to Crossrail, so main alternatives have to main alternatives, we would suggest, is a perfectly be judged in the light of the project. If your Lordship rational one; it is looking at the whole of the route thinks about this, of course if this duty were to apply and we have divided the consideration of alternatives to parts of projects, the duty to set out a consideration which were studied into the three segments—western, of alternatives would be almost never-ending. You central and eastern. We have given an account in can imagine that every stretch of this line has been chapter 6, which is there for your Lordships and my through a process of consideration and refinement Lady to read, and there is of course plenty of text to over the years and the main alternatives were initially go with it and we say that that amply fulfils the duties brought together and looked at by Adrian Montague of the Directive. when he analysed the business case for the Government in the Montague Report. The main 4025. We have in fact gone a step further because we alternatives which then came forward are given an did actually in response to discussions in the other account in chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement. place give some further information in some of the Can I just show your Lordships what the main supplementary Environmental Statements. If your alternatives are just so that you have a flavour? It is Lordships recall I gave your Lordships a note of my chapter 6 of the very first Environmental11 Statement of opening remarks14 on Monday, which I supplied to Mr February 2005 and perhaps we could have put up a Horton in the break. If we can put up the last page couple of plans just to show your Lordships and my you will see listed at paragraph 55 firstly main ES Lady. It is page 117 first please. You will see that this chapter 6. SES chapter 1.6 deals with the localised is the first part of the alternatives. It is the central issue of diVerent alternatives for shaft locations at route options that were considered and these were the Hanbury Street, which we said we would look at main alternatives, not every single alternative. when Tower Hamlets appeared in the Commons.
4026. Thirdly, SES 3 which in fact does refer to the 4018. The western route options appear at figure 6.212 and, again, these are what were regarded as the main southern alignment as well as alternative shaft alternatives on the western route, and you can see options. This is SES 3, section 3.5, and you will see at that there were a wide variety of options considered. 3.5.10 that the very broad issue of southern
11 alignments is referred to and the very point is made ES08-011) 13 12 14 012)Crossrail Ref: P23, Central London Route Options (LINEWD- Petitions (SCN-20080312-014) Crossrail Ref: P23, Eastern Route Options (SCN-20080312-013) Crossrail Ref: P23, Western Route Options (SCN-20080312- Crossrail Ref: P25, Promoter’s Opening Remarks—Spitalfields Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 341
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
about the15 issue of potential conflict with modern assesses these matters. As I said to your Lordships on buildings with deep foundations, which is the very Monday, it is a matter for the decision-maker—that reason why each of the southern options was is Parliament, no doubt with your advice and the rejected. So we do not say that we have to go that far advice of the Commons’ Select Committee—to judge but the Environmental Statement does contain, the adequacy of the Environmental Statement. You albeit briefly, a discussion of the reasons why the have seen the robust terms in which Mr Justice southern alignments were regarded as unacceptable, Ouseley considered this in the Arsenal football and that entirely chimes in with what you are being stadium case. shown in the report with regard to alignment B. 4037. CHAIRMAN: And Lord Justice Carnwath. 4027. CHAIRMAN: So the Environmental Statement Environmental Impact Assessment deals with the scheme as a whole? 4038. MR ELVIN: And indeed Lord Justice Carnwath. Can we look at the footnote of page 9 of 4028. MR ELVIN: It deals with the scheme as a the submissions I gave to you on Monday and Mr whole, but it— Justice Sullivan—this is not the lone voice of Mr Justice Ouseley shouting in the wilderness—in the 4029. CHAIRMAN: Although you have presented Blewett case said that: “There will be cases where the it in three chunks? document purporting to be an Environmental Statement is so deficient it could not reasonably be 4030. MR ELVIN: It is divided into the three described as an Environmental Statement but they diVerent areas and it is then divided into route are likely to be few and far between”. He says that he windows. To make it easily digestible by members of has dealt with it in some detail “ . . . because it does the public, who have to consult it, you will appreciate illustrate a tendency on the part of claimants opposed the diYculties of presenting material over such a huge to the grant of planning permission to focus upon project to the public, but what we did was to divide deficiencies in Environmental Statements, as each of the elements of the route into a route window. revealed by the consultation process . . . and to The Whitechapel segment that we are dealing with contend that because the document did not contain this week is window C8, and the information is all the information required by Schedule 4 it was tabulated by and large in the various documents by therefore not an Environmental Statement and the reference to route windows, so that can all be local planning authority had no power to grant identified. planning permission. Unless it can be said that the deficiencies are so serious that the document cannot 4031. CHAIRMAN: But any flaw in the EIA be described as, in substance, an Environmental process would relate to the totality of the scheme. Statement for the purpose of the Regulations, such an approach is in my judgment misconceived. It is 4032. MR ELVIN: Yes. important that decisions on EIA applications are made on the basis of ‘full information’, but the 4033. CHAIRMAN: And not to small individual Regulations are not based on the premise that the chunks of it, is that right? Environmental Statement will necessarily contain the full information. The process is designed to identify any deficiencies in the Environmental Statement so 4034. MR ELVIN: That is absolutely right. So, your that the planning authority has the full picture, so far Lordship has the point exactly that what is being 16 as it can be ascertained, when it comes to consider the complained about, even if my learned friend was ‘environmental information’ of which the statement right, is one flaw in one piece of information will be but a part.” regarding one element of a massive scheme.
4035. CHAIRMAN: Even then you may have done 4039. CHAIRMAN: When this comes to Parliament it because it is in 3.5.10. the Regulations are not going to help us of course.
4036. MR ELVIN: Even if your Lordships were not 4040. MR ELVIN: No. The position of the to regard my submissions on main alternatives, Directive is exactly the same. chapter 6, as being suYcient, we have covered it, albeit briefly—but we are not required to go into it in any great length but just to give a brief account. Let 4041. CHAIRMAN: But it will be the Directive that me just remind your Lordships of the way that one we look at.
15 16 Statement SES3, Southern Alignments (SCN-20080312-015) Petitions (SCN-20080312-016) Crossrail Ref: P23, Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Crossrail Ref: P25, Promoter’s Opening Remarks—Spitalfields Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
342 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
4042. MR ELVIN: It will be the Directive and you 4051. My Lord, can I just make this point on the substitute “Parliament” for the planning authority, transcript? I am not sure I got it entirely right on my because of course the way that the courts have feet and can I ask you to substitute what I said at approached this is that they take the planning paragraph 2925 of the transcript on 10 March with regulations and they construe them side by side with what is in paragraph 52 of my note? That is to say, as the Directive to which they give eVect, and that is the with the Select Committee below it is entirely a standard approach to construction these days with matter for your Lordships whether you choose to instruments transposing European legislation. advise Parliament as to whether there is a flaw in the Environmental Assessment process, but it is a matter of course for the House to decide whether or not that 4043. CHAIRMAN: But not to the extent that the is so. It is for Parliament acting as a whole. Regulations expand upon the Directive. 4052. CHAIRMAN: That was the very point that I 4044. MR ELVIN: It is just to make sure that they was seeking to make earlier, Mr Elvin—presumably are construed so that they give eVect to the Directive. on the facts as they are to date? Is it a continuing process? If we want to advise the House on this would 4045. Your Lordships ought to know that the Blewett we advise them on the facts as they are to date? case went to the Court of Appeal—this issue was not challenged before the Court of Appeal, it went to the 4053. MR ELVIN: You have to ask yourself the court on another issue. My submission is that the question did the Environmental Statement comply position that Mr Justice Ouseley set out is one which with the duty? And if it did not comply with the duty is common to the judges of the Administrative Court what must then be done? The adequacy of the considering Environmental Statements. So your statement is judged at the time that development Lordship sees from that very clear statement by Mr consent is granted and I suppose technically the grant Justice Sullivan who, as your Lordship will know, is of development consent does not come until the a very experienced planning judge that— Queen signs the Act.
4054. CHAIRMAN: Precisely, so we continue to 4046. CHAIRMAN: All three of them are. look at the factual situation up to Royal Assent.
4047. MR ELVIN: All three of them are, indeed. It 4055. MR ELVIN: And the information can be illustrates the fact that even if a flaw were identified supplemented, as indeed we have done—as you that does not invalidate the environmental know, we have four sets of additional provisions, assessment process, and I rely very much on what Mr Environmental Statements and a similar number of Justice Sullivan there says. supplementary Environmental Statements; the information has been supplemented. But, of course, 4048. So my position is this. There was no duty to if a new Environmental Statement were to be consider alignment B; in any event, it was not a main required there would have to be further consultation alternative, the main alternatives are set out in because one of the key requirements of the Directive chapter 6. In any event, we dealt very briefly with the is public consultation. It would probably require an southern alignment in SES 3. Finally, even if there amendment to Clause 10 of the Bill and it would were a flaw, as Mr Justice Sullivan says, every flaw probably require a further petitioning period. does not invalidate the Environmental Statement, and your Lordships have to look at that, with respect, 4056. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am not afraid of any of against the backdrop of the project as a whole and the these things. vast amount of information which has been made available through the Environmental Impact 4057. MR ELVIN: I am merely answering your Assessment process, and in my submission your Lordship’s question as to what the position would be. Lordships would be entirely right to reject these submissions on any of the grounds that I have 4058. CHAIRMAN: It is the timetable, as it were, advanced. that I am interested in. We would be advising the House as a whole that they ought to look at the point of law on the facts as they stand at the re-committal 4049. CHAIRMAN: Anyway, we look at it as if we stage; is that right? were the planning authority. 4059. MR ELVIN: Indeed, absolutely, because it is 4050. MR ELVIN: Parliament is in the same the point at which the decision is made when you position as the planning authority, yes. judge the adequacy of the Environmental Statement. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 343
12 March 2008 The Petition of Spitalfields Small Business Association
4060. My Lord, even if there were a problem—and I incorrectly omitted from the Environmental am not saying there is and I have given you at least Statement. five reasons why my learned friend is wrong—the final flaw in my learned friend’s approach is to say 4067. CHAIRMAN: I think that is right but as that if you are with him you have to hear the evidence eVectively the planning authority Parliament is still about the alternatives. You do not. The flaw, if there capable of looking to see whether it is a main is one, is that we did not properly report Option B as alternative, are they not? a main alternative. What it would require is a short addendum to the Environmental Statement which 4068. MR ELVIN: Of course, my Lord; of course referred to the consideration of alignment Option B it is. and why it was rejected. That is all that the duty would require because that would have assumed your 4069. CHAIRMAN: But that would be on the facts Lordships accepted that there was a main alternative, as they are to date? that that was Option B and we had not studied it and given an account of it as required. So all that would 4070. MR ELVIN: Indeed, and can I just remind be required, I suppose, would be a further your Lordship, of course, that it is not only a main Environmental Statement, as I have already alternative but a main alternative studied by the mentioned. That would have procedural and developer. timetabling consequences but it does not require your Lordships to depart from the principle of the Bill 4071. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but we know you have because the analogue to the planning authority studied it. considering alternatives, as I have already mentioned, is the question of the principle of the Bill 4072. MR ELVIN: Yes. and whether Parliament has chosen to accept the principle of the Bill or to look at alternatives which 4073. CHAIRMAN: But whether it is a main lie outside the principle of the Bill. alternative may still be open to question.
4061. CHAIRMAN: “Main alternatives” is what 4074. MR ELVIN: And that is entirely a matter the Directive talks about, and we would therefore be which can be dealt with outside of detailed able to consider whether this is a main alternative. consideration of what the alignments actually were and such like; it is a point of principle which your 4062. MR ELVIN: Yes but you would then have to Lordships can decide on the material that your decide that against whether or not it was part of the Lordships have had to date. principle of the Bill for you to consider it. 4075. CHAIRMAN: But it is a diVerent point from 4063. CHAIRMAN: It is quite diVerent from the what is within the principle of the Bill. Bill, it is whether now it is a main alternative. 4076. MR ELVIN: Of course it is, my Lord. I am sorry, I was simply responding to Mr Horton’s 4064. MR ELVIN: So far as the Environmental proposition that simply because your Lordships have Statement is concerned, of course that is absolutely to consider this issue it somehow means that you then right, my Lord. have to consider all the evidence of fact of the alternative which Mr Horton and his other client may 4065. CHAIRMAN: I hope it is because this is the wish to put before the Committee—the one does not way that my mind is working at the moment and I lead to the other. want to try to have as much clarity on this as possible. 4077. CHAIRMAN: Not necessarily, unless we ask 4066. MR ELVIN: Absolutely, but all I am saying, for it. my Lord, is that all it requires the Committee to do is to say, if it is a main alternative is there a flaw because 4078. MR ELVIN: Indeed, and it is a matter for the you have not considered it or have not reported it? Committee to decide having regard, at that stage, to And, as I have already said, there are several answers the issue of the principle of the Bill, but that is a to that. It does not require you, though, to go on and separate matter we will have to deal with tomorrow. consider matters lying outside the principle of the Bill as you may be asked to do tomorrow in terms of 4079. My Lord, I will reduce these submissions into another Petition. It is simply a question, as your writing so that your Lordships have them in as clear Lordship has put it, of deciding whether or not the a possible form as I can give them, although I did, I main alternative was studied and whether it was think, rightly foresee that this would arise in the last Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
344 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues section of my opening notes on Monday; so that does 4094. MR MOULD: Thank you very much, my also provide the structure of my submissions as well. Lord. Professor Mair, we heard yesterday from Mr Wheeler, as you know, and what I would like to do 4080. CHAIRMAN: Mr Horton, we are not going first of all, if we may, is just briefly to reset the scene to ask you to do anything about this today. You will as regards— have an opportunity, because the arguments are being adopted, are they not, by your client, 4095. CHAIRMAN: Is Mr Wheeler here? tomorrow? 4096. MR MOULD: He is not here. He was well 4081. MR HORTON: Exactly so, yes. aware that Professor Mair was going to be giving evidence today. 4082. CHAIRMAN: Therefore you will have an opportunity at the end of the proceedings tomorrow 4097. CHAIRMAN: Is anybody as part of Mr to address us about this, and you are now on notice Wheeler’s team here? about what the Promoters’ points are. 4098. MR MOULD: I notice that Mr Carpenter 4083. MR HORTON: Exactly. It is very helpful and was— I am grateful. Thank you very much my Lords and my Lady. 4099. CHAIRMAN: I am not going to allow any time to go by; somebody had better take a note of 4084. CHAIRMAN: I think that is as far as we can what happens for Mr Wheeler’s benefit. take this one today, is it not? 4100. MR MOULD: And the transcript of course 4085. MR ELVIN: My Lords, in which case I think will be available. Just to recap briefly on the context, Professor Mair and Mr Mould are sitting outside in Professor Mair, what we have here is one of a series the corridor. of three plans which I showed the Committee briefly yesterday morning and which show the lie of the running tunnels through the Spitalfields area, with 4086. CHAIRMAN: Poor things, yes. the red17 line the extent of the 10 mm settlement contour, and the Petitioners’ properties, both 4087. MR ELVIN: I was rather inclined to think unlisted and listed, in relation to the line of the your Lordships were the poor things, having to railway. Obviously, to the east there is the Hanbury endure legal submissions on European Street shaft. Can you just point out features that you environmental law, rather than sit in the corridor! would like to draw attention to? (Professor Mair) Yes. As you just said, the centre line 4088. CHAIRMAN: No, we love every minute of it! of the two tunnels are shown dashed—the eastbound tunnel this one and the westbound tunnel this one 4089. MR ELVIN: I am pleased to hear that. I (indicated). The assessment process that I described noticed the enthusiasm with which you announced when I gave evidence on 20 February involves the the coVee break! Can I check whether we are ready to prediction of settlement contours using conservative proceed with Professor Mair now? volume loss figures, and this red line on either side represents the extent of the 10 mm settlement 4090. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to do that contour. In other words, any buildings outside the because I think we must get on. two red lines would be experiencing settlements of less than 10 mm. For interest, and I know it is of 4091. Mr Elvin, I would be quite interested in seeing relevance, the Christ Church here would only be a copy of the Durham case in the Court of Appeal. experiencing about 1 mm settlement. 18 4101. If we turn very briefly to the next page, 96, this 4092. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I will provide that 19 is Ms Jones at 21 Wilkes Street and we are hearing tomorrow; in fact I will email it to Mr Hackett. from her next Tuesday, I believe. Then if we turn to page 97, we complete the picture. These are the ProfessorRobertMair, recalled Petitioners Mr Wheeler represented yesterday. Can
Examined byMrMould 17 Various properties in Spitalfields (TOWHLB-XR5A-095) 4093. CHAIRMAN: Professor Mair, you need no 18 StreetCrossrail (TOWHLB-XR5A-096) Ref: P23, Petition 22—Nicholas Morse and others— introduction. I am sorry you had to wait so long. Go 19 ahead, Mr Mould. VariousCrossrail properties Ref: P23, in Spitalfields Petition 18—Patricia (TOWHLB-XR5A-097) Jones—21 Wilkes Crossrail Ref: P23, Petition 20—Selina Mifsud and others— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 345
12 March 2008 20 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues we then, please, turn to page 94. I just want to ask impact on the tunnelling operation. In other words, you a bit about the geology. Here we have a plan the geology at the depth of tunnelling—around 35 which shows existing and proposed boreholes. That metres—would not be aVected by underground is right, is it not, Professor? rivers, which would have an eVect at a much (Professor Mair) Yes. It shows the existing boreholes, shallower depth. and the completed boreholes are the ones shown in red—the key indicates that—at the top left here, so 4105. CHAIRMAN: You do not go in for freezing that any boreholes that have been completed are in order to get the machine past the river? shown red. There is currently a scheduled borehole (Professor Mair) Not when the tunnel is at the sort of shown in green down here on the bottom left, and it depth we are talking about, no. is my understanding that there are more boreholes planned in order to have more coverage in this area, 4106. MR MOULD: Can we move on, please, to the but they have not yet been scheduled and I think three-phase settlement assessment process that the there are some permissions and some procedures to Committee has heard something on so far. Before we go through before they will be actually scheduled. turn directly to this graph, Professor, can you remind the Committee very briefly of the first two phases of 4102. Can we just say a little bit about the geology? the multi-phase assessment process that you The running tunnels are running at, broadly, what described in your presentation? depth below ground? (Professor Mair) Yes. You will recall, I hope, that the (Professor Mair) Roughly about 35 metres below first phase, Phase 1, is an elimination phase whereby ground in the Spitalfields area, and the geology is any building that is subject to settlements of less than London Clay. They are probably running at the 10 mm is excluded from further consideration. interface between the London Clay and the Buildings within the 10 mm contour, potentially underlying Lambeth Group, which are intermixed subjected to settlement of 10 mm or more, go through clays and sands. So that is the general geological to the Phase 2 process, and the Phase 2 process that I picture in the Spitalfields area. described is a method of establishing the possible maximum tensile strain in a building. The tensile 4103. You described the tunnelling process in your strain is of significance because21 it is that that masonry presentation previously as closed-face tunnel-boring buildings are sensitive to. Broadly, the higher the machines. level of tensile strain the higher the possible cracking (Professor Mair) Closed-face tunnel-boring and damage to the building. So you see here this machines, using the earth pressure balance graph— technology that I described, which is the way in which the pressurised face maintains a pressure at all times 4107. CHAIRMAN: And to its internal decorations. and the soil and water are extracted through a screw (Professor Mair) Indeed. That is correct. So you will conveyor. see here, on the left-hand axis here, maximum tensile strain established in the building, and you will see 4104. The other point, if we may just touch on it, is a that there are lines drawn across the graph. At point raised, I think yesterday, by Mr Wheeler, and increasing levels of maximum tensile strains you see that is the presence of underground rivers. We told increasing levels of potential damage. Specifically, if the Committee yesterday that we were aware of the the maximum tensile strain predicted in a building Walbrook running about 300 metres to the west in exceeds .05 per cent then the building would Spitalfields Market, which we can see is to the left- potentially experience the transition between hand side of the plan there. Do you want to say negligible damage, which is very fine cracks—hairline something about the degree to which, if any, there is cracks, almost invisible—to the very slight category, any potential for interaction between the tunnel- which is a slightly higher category of damage. This boring process at the depth you have described here graph covers, in fact, almost a kilometre of coverage and any underground water features that might be here of what we call a generic Phase 2 assessment, present? where for buildings all the way along the route (Professor Mair) Yes, I think it is safe to say that between Liverpool Street station and Hanbury Street whilst underground rivers can be, of course, of real shaft, for a variety of diVerent building lengths significance for shallower construction activity— assumed, the maximum tensile strain has been foundations of new buildings or shallow excavations calculated. I should emphasise, this is a very and that kind of construction—when a tunnel is at a conservative and safe approach. It assumes a volume depth of 35 metres, or thereabouts, below ground the loss of 1.7 per cent, which is high for modern, well- presence of underground rivers would have no controlled, earth-pressure-balanced machine
20 21 Spitalfields area (TOWHLB-XR5A-094) and Hanbury Street Shaft (TOWHLB-XR5A-092) Crossrail Ref: P23, 10mm settlement contours and boreholes— Crossrail Ref: P23, Phase 2 assessment between Liverpool Street Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
346 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues tunnelling. The actual volume loss we would expect (Professor Mair) I could perhaps come on to that a would be significantly less than that—probably only little bit later, but in principle, yes, an older building a third to a half of that figure. You will see in the may have certain finishes or features about it which Spitalfields area that the level of maximum tensile may well be why it is listed. strain that is being predicted is something in the region of about .025 per cent—that sort of region. 4112. If you are coming on to it then fine. Let us leave You would need to be at .05 per cent before the it till then. buildings were even potentially moving from the (Professor Mair) I think the answer is yes, it could it “negligible damage” category into the very “slight be more sensitive. damage” category. 4113. CHAIRMAN: The building lengths, 4108. CHAIRMAN: So the coloured lines are valid Professor, include terraces. Suppose it is 34 metres; it on the vertical axis, are they? could be several houses in a terrace.
(Professor Mair) That is right. Exactly so. These are (Professor Mair) Indeed, indeed. 22 simply for diVerent chainages along the tunnel route; the calculated maximum tensile strain on the 4114. MR MOULD: I wonder if it might be helpful vertical axis. at this point just to put up RMJ01-032 . I thought we might just show the Committee the table that you 4109. Of course, it takes account of the depth of the produced as part of your presentation, do you tunnel at that point. remember, which tied the agreed tensile strain to the (Professor Mair) Indeed. It takes account of the depth likely occurrence of damage. Is it helpful just to look of the tunnel and it also looks at the eVect of diVerent at this now? building lengths. You will see that the strain that is (Professor Mair) Yes, I think that is helpful. It calculated changes a bit but not very much, for a very reinforces the point that I made just a minute or two wide range of building lengths, which is an important ago that here we have the diVerent damage risk point to note. categories, starting with the category zero to negligible, where the range of tensile strain would be 4110. MR MOULD: A point arising in relation to from 0-0.05 per cent, and what was shown in the that last answer: yesterday Mr Wheeler expressed previous slide was, in the Spitalfields area, that the concern that a number of the listed buildings within maximum tensile strain was about half of that— the Spitalfields area, whose owners he represented, about 0.025 per cent. had not been listed strictly by individual address. Do you remember that? He pointed out, for example, 4115. On a conservative assumption as to volume that numbers 17 to 21 Wilkes Street, to which we will loss. be turning in a moment, was listed as a group of (Professor Mair) On a conservative assumption of the addresses in that way. Does this graph answer that volume loss at 1.7 per cent, being a conservative concern or enable us to answer that concern? figure, yes. (Professor Mair) Yes, it does because one can see that if one takes a group of buildings, I think the example 4116. We can see that what is expected to result from you have just used, 17 to 21 Wilkes Street, in total that in terms of typical damage is hairline cracks, of represents about 35 metres’ length of terraced less than about .1 of a millimetre. building, whereas any individual address might only (Professor Mair) I think I could add that hairline represent, perhaps, 8 metres or possibly even less— cracks of less than about .1 of a millimetre are they are quite narrow houses—and you can see that actually extremely diYcult to see. They really are very the diVerence between an 8-metre and a 32-metre much hairline cracks and you would need to look structure in this assessment process is very small. The very closely to see them. actual calculated level of tensile strain is not very sensitive to the length of the structure assumed. 4117. CHAIRMAN: One of the points raised yesterday was there are cornices and decorative 4111. LORD SNAPE: On that point, my Lord plasterwork ceilings which might be aVected. They Chairman (forgive me, Mr Mould), looking at 25 are not specifically dealt with on this table. Princeletth Street, it seemed to be the view of the (Professor Mair) In terms of how the building in Spitalfields Residents’ Association that (and I quote general will respond, this table is absolutely the right from their description): “the structures are very early table to be using. There could be specifically sensitive 18 Century, double-fronted, four-storey plus features that might need to be taken into account in basement town houses.” In your experience, addition to this general approach. That I will describe Professor Mair, would such a building be more 22 susceptible to damage than a more modern building? Potential aesthetic significance only (LINEWD-RJM01-032) Crossrail Ref: P6, Definition of Damage Risk Categories— Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 347
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues in a few minutes. So there is a way in which the kind moments, but this is the page which summarises the of feature that you referred to is taken into account overall result and the building response just above the as well. table here is the important part to look at, which summarises that the maximum settlement that is 4118. CHAIRMAN: Of course you need to have assessed is 26mm. That is saying that if found out for the event whether there are such conservatively—and that is a very important point— features. the 1.7 volume loss were to occur, by the time both (Professor Mair) Yes, that is correct. tunnels had been constructed, the maximum settlement predicted would be 26mm and the 4119. MR MOULD: That thought, I think, brings maximum tensile strain, which is the really critical us neatly, does it not, to the next phase in the parameter, would be 0.024 per cent. That, if you assessment process, which is Phase 3, first stage, or recall, was also shown on the graph I showed a few minutes ago for the Spitalfields area as being a first iteration as it has been23 described. For that purpose I think we are going to turn to a specific general maximum tensile strain predicted for a group of buildings, are we not, which is the Wilkes building. So 0.024 per cent being the maximum Street buildings, page 61. This is a page from the tensile strain predicted, you can see that is well within Phase 3 Stage 1 assessment report for the Spitalfields the negligible category of damage because the tensile area which shows 17 to, I think it is, 25 Wilkes Street strain falls within range between 0 and 0.05 per cent, on plan. Do you want to comment on this? about halfway along that range. (Professor Mair) Yes. What you can see here in the 25 lower half of the page is the terrace of buildings 4122. MR MOULD: Thank you. We now turn to between 17 and 25. They are shaded in colour here two cross-sections I think which you want to and you can see the plan of the eastbound tunnel comment on. First, page 64. which runs beneath the structure and the westbound (Professor Mair) This is going into more detail in the tunnel which runs to one side of the structure and the report and I will not trouble you with every number photograph above is taken standing in Wilkes Street on the table at the bottom, but it illustrates in the top looking at one of the addresses, I believe it is 21. That part of the page a highly exaggerated scale, I should sets the scene. What we are now beginning to look at emphasise, of the settlement plotted. This is the is the Phase 3 Stage 1 assessment, which all listed settlement scale on the right-hand side and it shows buildings will have. the building, which is 17 to 25 Wilkes Street, is just over 30m in length, that is the terrace of houses, and 4120. What we characterise as an individual you can see the two tunnels where they lie. This is the assessment of buildings of that character, yes? depth plotted on the left-hand side, so they lie around (Professor Mair) Yes, that is correct. about 35m below ground level and the red line in a highly exaggerated form is plotting the total 4121. My Lord, may I interject here. A question arose settlement arising from both tunnels having been yesterday as to when these Phase 3 Stage 1 reports in constructed, assuming the conservative figure of relation to listed buildings in Spitalfields had been volume loss of 1.7 per cent, which you can see is in the sent to Petitioners. I have asked for instructions on table listed down here, 1.7 per cent for tunnels that and the information which we have is that Phase number one and tunnels number two. This shows in 3 Stage 1 reports in relation to listed buildings in the this case the maximum tensile strain predicted in the Spitalfields area were sent to Mr Carpenter in his building is 0.019 per cent and you might recall that capacity as the24 Chair of the Woodseer and Hanbury the overall maximum value predicted26 in the Street Residents Association on 3 November 2004. assessment of this building is higher, 0.024 per cent I Professor Mair, can we then, please, turn to the next mentioned, and there is a reason for this, which I page, page 62. I think it is probably best if I leave you think is best illustrated in the next slide. In some to pick out the points in relation to this page of the ways it may seem counter-intuitive, the building is report which you think are significant. subjected to a slightly higher maximum tensile strain (Professor Mair) Yes, what I am going to do now is when there is only one tunnel having been describe the essential features of the Phase 3 Stage 1 constructed and if this tunnel was constructed first, assessment and we are using here as an example the the building is more subjected to hogging 17 to 25 Wilkes Street structure. What I want to draw deformation. You may recall I described the your attention to here is really this is the summary diVerence between hogging and sagging sheet. We will go into a bit more depth in a few deformations and in this case when there is a single
23 25 listed Building Assessments, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB- Configuration—Both Tunnels (TOWHLB-XR5A-064) XR5A-061) 26 24 Crossrail Ref: P23, 17—25 Wilkes Street, View and Location, Configuration—WestboundCrossrail Ref: P23, Settlement Tunnel Analysis Only (TOWHLB-XR5A- Summary, Final Assessments, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-XR5A-062) 066) Crossrail Ref: P23, Settlement Analysis Summary, Critical Crossrail Ref: P23, 17—25 Wilkes Street, listed Building Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
348 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues tunnel only and if this one was the one constructed After a short adjournment first, the building would suVer a very slightly higher maximum tensile strain of 0.024 per cent compared 4130. CHAIRMAN: If there is anybody from the with 0.019 per cent when both tunnels had been Spitalfields community who wants to listen to this, constructed. This is simply to illustrate that this there are a number of points taken in the Petitions assessment process is quite detailed. It looks at the about the funding for Crossrail and consequent eVect of not just both tunnels having been blight if it does not happen. I am told that the constructed, but it looks at whether or not it might be Chancellor has just said that the funding for Crossrail critical, or more critical, if only one tunnel is is secure, as part of his Budget speech, so I fancy we constructed and this happens to be the case in this will not be troubled with that point in the Petitions. example. On with Professor Mair, please.
4123. CHAIRMAN: But both the tunnels are not 4131. MR ELVIN: Could I just raise one short built at the same time? matter before Mr Mould and Professor Mair resume. (Professor Mair) No, indeed. Just with regard to the programme for tomorrow, your Lordship and the Committee have been very 4124. So there is going to be a period between them clear to exclude evidence so far on alternative before the full impact occurs? alignments. We have a clear statement from Mr (Professor Mair) That is correct and what this shows Horton for tomorrow that he is going to call Mr is that if this tunnel was constructed first as opposed Schabas to do precisely what the Committee has to the other one, that is going to be over here and I excluded to date. If Mr Schabas is to give evidence, I should say that the sequence has not yet been am slightly concerned about inconsistency with those determined and that is a matter for the detailed that have been excluded. It is a matter for the design. If this one was constructed first, the building Committee at the end of the day, but the Committee would suVer a maximum tensile strain. The highest have excluded those who wanted to raise those value it would ever experience—I am talking about matters in very firm terms up until now. If Mr very low values of strain here—would be immediately Schabas is to give evidence— after the construction of the first tunnel and when the second tunnel was constructed it actually alleviates 4132. CHAIRMAN: I have got no idea what he is that strain, which I think you can probably imagine going to say. it causes the building to go more into the sagging mode and less into the hogging mode. That is 4133. MR ELVIN: Well, I do because I have seen a probably the simplest way to explain it. recent email from him. He is going to promote the southern alignment. 4125. CHAIRMAN: The damage is likely to be so slight that there is not a particular problem about it, 4134. CHAIRMAN: How? but if it was going to be much worse, you would not do repairs in between the two tunnels? 4135. MR ELVIN: Well, I do not know. I simply (Professor Mair) Probably correct, yes. That is raise that, and of course I will have to deal with it in right, yes. Mr Horton’s presence when he is here tomorrow. The reason I raise it is that we have a slight potential 4126. MR MOULD: My Lord, I notice the time. practical diYculty. Mr Berryman unfortunately has had to take to his bed. He has a chest infection. He hopes to be here tomorrow, but, for reasons I will not 4127. CHAIRMAN: Have I missed it again? trouble the Committee with now, he needs to be here if Mr Schabas is giving evidence. Can I report back 4128. MR MOULD: I mention it now because this to the Committee later on this afternoon when I have evidence really falls into two parts. The first is what more news? we have just had, which is really scene-setting in relation to Mr Wheeler’s point, and we are now going 4136. CHAIRMAN: I do not want to rule witnesses to come on and address his principal point which, as out in advance before I have heard what they say. you will recall, is to do with the question of internal inspection. 4137. MR ELVIN: I appreciate that, my Lord, and I would not ask you to do so in Mr Horton’s absence 4129. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I think it is a good in any event. I just flag it up now because we have a moment to break and we will come back at half potential problem for tomorrow, but I hope we can past two. resolve that before the end of the afternoon. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 349
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues
4138. CHAIRMAN: Well, tell us how it gets on. special or vulnerable features and finishes, which in Now, more points for Professor Mair. this particular case has given the score zero. The total of the three scores are then added up to give the final total score which in this case is one, and again the 4139. MR MOULD: Professor Mair, we are now significance of that I will go on to describe, but this is going to turn correctly to the issue which was raised really by way of introducing the point that, in the case yesterday by Mr Wheeler, that is to say, the of listed buildings, there are these two extra criteria consideration of the sensitivity of listed buildings which are taken into account, the sensitivity of the within the Spitalfields area as part of our settlement structure as a whole and the sensitivity of any assessment process in the reports which were particular features and finishes within it. prepared by Alan Baxter and Mott MacDonald in conjunction. Yes? (Professor Mair) Yes. 4141. Now, in order to explain those two matters, that is to28 say, the structure and particular features, we 27 need to go to a table which is to be found at page 11 of 4140. What we have here is that part of the Phase 3, information paper D12. We have got that up on the Stage 1 Settlement Assessment Report in respect of screen. My Lords, it is in your red pack of 17 to 25 Wilkes Street. We have put this up because information papers, as you saw yesterday, in the D my understanding is that Mr Wheeler owns a divider, so29 you have hard copies of it as well. I am so property within this group and this page is sorry, this is not the right one, is it? summarising findings in relation to structural (Professor Mair) I think you need table 2 which is the sensitivity, sensitivity of particular features and next page. This table explains in some more detail finishes, and other matters in relation to that what I have just been describing. This is, if you like, building. Can you just tell the Committee what you the special scoring system for the sensitivity of listed get from this information please? buildings and there are two separate groups. The left- (Professor Mair) Yes, what I described before lunch hand column is the sensitivity of the structure as a was essentially the engineering analysis part which is whole to ground movements and sensitivity to shown here and I explained that that led to the interaction with its neighbouring buildings, and the conclusion for this particular set of buildings that the scoring system for that is zero, one or two in terms of maximum tensile strain was estimated to be 0.024 per really increasing sensitivity or severity, so, if it gets a cent which itself is a very conservative estimate, and zero score, that would be saying that it is a masonry that would put it in the ‘negligible damage’ category, building with lime mortar, not surrounded by other zero. That is the engineering part of the assessment as buildings, with uniform fac¸ades with no particular far as settlement and potential tensile strain is large openings. If that was the case, that would get concerned, but there is also, and this is of particular the score zero. If the buildings were of delicate relevance for listed buildings, the question of the structural form or buildings sandwiched between sensitivity of the building in terms of two aspects, and modern framed buildings, which themselves are I will enlarge upon these. One aspect is divided really much stiVer, and perhaps itself the building has one into two parts, the sensitivity of the structure, and, by or two more significant openings, that would make it that, I mean the sensitivity of the building to tolerate somewhat more vulnerable, so it would get the score movement without significant distress, and there is an of one. Then, in cases where the buildings which, by additional consideration given to that which itself has their own structural form, will tend to concentrate all a score. There is a second part which is the sensitivity of the movements in one location, that is potentially of particular features and finishes within the building of more concern and that would get the score of two. and the question as to how vulnerable or sensitive That is how the sensitivity of the structure in terms of those features are, and that also has a score. The table the overall way it might respond gets scored. Then, shown near the bottom of this page summarises the on the right-hand side there is a separate grouping position and, first of all, you will see the sensitivity, which is to do with the sensitivity to movement of the ‘predicted damage’ category, which is the third particular features within the building and again the line down, and there you will see the score zero, which scoring system is applied so that, in cases where there corresponds to the ‘negligible’ category in terms of were no particular sensitive features, if that judgment the engineering analysis leading to the tensile strain. was made, there would be a score of zero. If there You will see that there are two other scores, one, the were brittle finishes, for example, faiences or tight- sensitivity of the building structure, which in this case jointed stonework which are most susceptible to has given the score one, and I will elaborate a bit movement, even small movements, and diYcult to more about what the significance of the scores are, repair, then they would be given the score of one. If and there is also the question of the sensitivity of any 28 27 http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-IPD12-011) Assessments, Phase 3 Iteration 1 Reports, Mott MacDonald 29 (TOWHLB-XR5A-056) http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.ukCrossrail Information Paper D12—Ground (LINEWD-IPD12-012) Settlement, Table 1, Crossrail Ref: P23, 17—25 Wilkes Street, listed Building Crossrail Information Paper D12—Ground Settlement, Table 2, Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
350 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues there were finishes, and this is a most important under consideration, did or did not merit any higher, point, which, if damaged, would have a significant for example, than category one in this table? eVect on the heritage of that building, for example, (Professor Mair) Yes, they would not merit any cracks through frescos, that kind of example, that higher category than category one and arguably they would get the higher scoring of two. The whole could even be in category zero. purpose of this additional sensitivity scoring for listed buildings is to take into account the heritage 4148. MR MOULD: I am raising points which are aspects of the buildings in question. I was going to moving towards the expertise of Alan Baxter, but I ask, Mr Mould, if we could perhaps go back to that think it is helpful to flag these points up with the front-sheet example for 17-25— Committee and I am grateful to you for your assistance on that. 4142. Just before we do, my Lord, Lord Colville, put the question just before the short adjournment in 4149. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: relation to cornicing and we see that that, I think, is Yesterday there was a lot of focus from one of the a feature which would fall to be considered on the Petitioners, Mr Wheeler, on the fact that he right-hand side of the table. questioned, if you like, the integrity of the assessment (Professor Mair) Yes, that is correct. that had been made, the scores, because there had not been in every case an internal survey. When I look at 4143. Insofar as it was a particularly sensitive feature, this background document and how you allocate the it would fall within the right-hand side of the table, scores it would seem to be that that is necessary. But and one can see that the most vulnerable, if I can put that may be an assumption too far that I am making; it this way, category in relation to the right-hand side can you clarify that? of the table, category two, focuses upon elements which are of significance to the heritage of the 4150. MR MOULD: My Lord, forgive me, but we building. Do you see that? are going to come on to explain the significance of the (Professor Mair) That is exactly correct. inspections that we carried out with this process in a very few moments. Would it be convenient to deal with it that way because we have a logic here and I 4144. MR MOULD: I do not know if you feel able would like to stick with it, if we may? If we have not to comment on this but if one was focusing, for dealt with it to your satisfaction when we come to it, example, on a building which had corniced ceilings is then by all means we will deal with any further it right that one of the questions one would need to points arising. ask as to where the existence of that feature placed the building in this table, would be whether that 4151. CHAIRMAN: If you have not dealt with it by element of the building was or was not of importance the time you come to the end of Professor Mair’s to its heritage value? evidence I am going to ask anyway.
4145. (Professor Mair) Yes, I think what you are 4152. MR MOULD: I did not think we would get asking me is the significance of the diVerence really away with it! between the category one and the category two for the right hand column, for finishes? 4153. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: And it will be more penetrating! 4146. Yes. (Professor Mair) I think that if there was something 4154. MR MOULD: I am very grateful for that that was identified clearly as being part of the indulgence. Professor Mair, I took you a little out of heritage of the building, such as a very important your way, for which I apologise, but I hope it was fresco or some feature like that, which was an helpful. Now we want to go back to page 58, is that identified aspect of its heritage, and if that was right? present then that would be appropriate to be scored (Professor Mair) That is right. under the category two. 4155. Is that right? 4147. But theth corollary is, if one thinks of buildings (Professor Mair) That is the page, I think just briefly, of more than a certain age cornice ceilings are a and then I think we will need to go on to another one. relatively typical feature of many buildings older This is the summary page—we will go into more than the 20 century, for example, and features of detail shortly—for this particular structure, which that kind, which, if you will, are no more than typical, results in the total score of one, there essentially being the question would need to be asked, would it not, three elements—the predicted damage category from whether such features, albeit present in the building the calculation of the engineering strain, the tensile Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 351
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues strain; and then the other two categories, the (Professor Mair) I can comment on that. I think sensitivity of the building as a structure and then the actually that comment was made about this row of sensitivity of features or finishes. buildings, if I am not mistaken.
4156. If we look at the top of the page and with our 4160. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: Yes. minds cast back to the table you showed us a moment (Professor Mair) The principal structure here are the ago, in relation to the left hand side of the table we three masonry storeys that you see here and there is can see under the heading “sensitivity of structure” a very flexible attic structure on top. It is not the score of one given there and an explanation for illustrated well in this photograph but I believe there that. Then as regards to the right hand side we can see have been other photographs shown to you, which the issue of sensitivity in particular of features and show the nature of the historically interesting but structurally not very robust weavers’ attics on top of finishes is dealt with, a score of30 nil. And we know that Lord Young wants us to explain how that is arrived the building, which, in terms of the way these at given the level of inspection that was undertaken. buildings will behave as far as the tensile strain So we go on then to page 58. calculation is concerned, that is a really rather small (Professor Mair) The heading of this page is “historic consequence, the attic part. The height that has been buildings and features” and this really sets out a lot assumed in these calculations is, I believe, the correct of the details of the building in terms of its heritage. height when one is trying to assess the overall It first and most importantly makes the point that the performance of this building. date of the building is 1723—we see that four lines down—which sets the scene for the experts who are 4161. MR MOULD: While we are on this page and assessing the type of building and its vulnerability to a related point, would you mind dealing now with movement. The very fact that it is 1723 immediately foundations and explaining the assumption made in flags up that we are talking here about early Georgian relation to that? buildings. A bit further down you see other (Professor Mair) Towards the bottom of the page you important features. The site of the building is see the heading “foundations” and the likely important; it is shown here to be three stories plus construction is described as “corbelled brick strip cellars, plus the weavers’ attics. You cannot quite see footings approximately two to two and a half metres those in the photograph but above the building there below road level” and that is an assessment that is is an attic as well—or there are attics along the appropriate for Georgian buildings with cellars, that building. Then in much more detail—and I will not the foundations would be very close, just a short go through all of what is written here—this is the distance below the cellar door, which essentially is assessment of the building in terms of its description what has been stated there. of what kind of building it is—any special features, how it has been constructed—and below that 4162. And this page is the work of Alan Baxter paragraph you will see the title, “significant or Associates; that is right, is it not? potentially vulnerable features”, and there are (Professor Mair) As I understand it that is correct, various points listed down here about that. yes.
4157. MR MOULD: Just in relation to the question 4163. MR MOULD: The Committee heard about of height, Mr Wheeler had a point on that yesterday. their work in this field yesterday and I do not think Can you explain to the Committee what are the that is a point in issue in itself. significant factors as regards height for the purposes of this assessment? 4164. BARONESS FOOKES: Before we go on could I just clarify this question of the height of the building because a lot was made of it yesterday. As I 4158. CHAIRMAN: These are all things you can see understand it, what you are saying is that the attic from the outside, are they? I would expect so. structure above is of insignificant importance and (Professor Mair) These are principally the things that therefore does not need to be taken into account could be seen from the outside, that is correct, yes. when looking at the height, is that right? Otherwise there is a discrepancy which I do not follow? 4159. LORD BROOKE OF ALVETHORPE: (Professor Mair) I perhaps would not go as far as Yesterday it was claimed that the report did not in saying that the attic is of no importance but it is not fact give the true height of the building and that this part of the main masonry structure of the building. would have an impact that was not being recognised. 30 4165. And that is the part that counts when you are Features, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-XR5A-058) looking at strain? Crossrail Ref: P23, 17—25 Wilkes Street, Historic Building and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
352 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues
(Professor Mair) That is correct. buildings but, in particular, they know a great deal about heritage buildings—listed buildings. The point 4166. That would account for the discrepancy noted that I was describing a few minutes ago, on the by one of the witnesses? scoring system, is that if there is a building that has a heritage feature—some really important and (Professor Mair)31 It would account for that, yes. extremely delicate internal feature—that would be 4167. MR MOULD: So we move on to the next almost certainly known about and stated, and would page, please. There are two things with which I be part of the assessment. The highest score, 2, which would like you to help us on this. First of all we can I described, which was in cases where finishes which, see at the bottom of this page, which is a series of if damaged, would have a significant eVect on the photographs of the buildings at 17—25 Wilkes heritage of the building (and an example was given of Street, we see references and reference to the Survey a fresco or something like that) then that fresco of London, and I think you can help the Committee would be known about, would be documented and with the source information that Baxter Associates would have been part of the assessment. had available to them when they were compiling this and indeed other reports in relation to listed 4170. CHAIRMAN: It can be isolated, can it not, if buildings in the Spitalfields area. necessary? If the damage is likely to be more severe (Professor Mair) As I understand it the information than you are talking about, plasterwork and such like that Alan Baxter has assembled for these buildings is can be isolated from the immediately adjoining all publicly available information. There is the structures. Survey of London; there is also Pevsner’s Buildings of (Professor Mair) There are techniques for doing that, England; there also the English Heritage statutory that is right. It requires highly specialist knowledge to lists of such buildings. So all that information was do that and to do that in the right way, but that is obtained from those sources. These six photographs sometimes done, yes. would have been taken by Alan Baxter as part of their assessment and on the previous page we noted 4171. LORD SNAPE: I am still confused, before various vulnerable features that they had listed. All of you go on, Mr Mould, about how you can tell these these photographs have special significance but the features exist if you do not actually go into the one on the bottom right is probably the easiest one to building. You mentioned earlier on cornice ceilings, see. You can see clearly some brickwork that has got for example. Professor Mair, can you tell us: do you slightly out of alignment there. There is some recognise a cornice ceiling from across the street (I evidence of movement. hesitate to use that phrase but it was used by one of the witnesses) on a second-gear drive-past? If you do 4168. That is the way in which Alan Baxter have not look inside these buildings how do you know assessed some of the features of the building. what features they have? However, particularly, those sources of Survey of (Professor Mair) I think the answer to that question London, Pevsner’s Buildings of England and the is that you might not know about some unusual English Heritage list would also highlight very special feature, but my understanding is that a firm like Alan heritage features, both within and outside the Baxter, who knows these kinds of buildings building. extremely well, would identify if there was something particularly delicate and unusual—not least because 4169. MR MOULD: We might at this point just it would be documented. I guess what we are pick up on Lord Young’s point. You told the distinguishing here is between very special features Committee what you understand to have been the and perhaps a not-so-special feature. range of information available to Alan Baxter’s and we have heard about their experience and expertise in relation to this kind of work. Have you raised with 4172. Ordinary features. (Professor Mair) them the logic, if you will, of their reliance on that Ordinary features, yes. information as opposed to, as we know, not undertaking internal inspections of these buildings as 4173. When we put this point to Mr Berryman and being an appropriate and suYcient source of said: “If you just do an external examination it must information for the purposes of the exercise you have surely reflect on these scores”—the 1, 2 and 3 that you described to the Committee? have gone into today, he said: “This was a (Professor Mair) I will say, first and foremost, that preliminary” (I paraphrase) “or the first time we had Alan Baxter are pre-eminent in this field; they are looked at these and if there were some greater detail extremely well-known as experts on all kinds of then we would go back and look again.” Let us go 31 back to Mr Mould’s description of a cornice ceiling. Features, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-XR5A-059) You did wax—as lyrical as you do, Mr Mould— Crossrail Ref: P23, 17—25 Wilkes Street, Historic Building and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 353
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues about cornice ceilings. How can you tell they exist if day-in, day-out with this kind of structure will, armed you have never actually been in the building? with that information, be able to form a pretty clear sense of whether there are any features that might be 4174. MR MOULD: My Lord, my point really is within. Ultimately, one has to form a judgment as to this: the emphasis of the right-hand side of the table how far one needs to go in order to form a reliable that we were looking at a few moments ago, is to understanding of the sensitive aspects of buildings of identify as being of greater sensitivity those features this kind, in order to inform the exercise that is set out which add significantly to the heritage value of the in these tables before you. building in question. What this is about is about applying a particular methodology to buildings 4177. Of course, it is the combination of what we which are on the statutory list, and which are there know about the engineering—Professor Mair has precisely because they have some special explained how very limited is the risk in that architectural or historic feature of importance. That respect—and the sensitivity of the structures to which may be an external or it may be an internal feature, that very limited risk is being applied. One has to or both. The point—and here I echo what Professor form a judgment as to how far one needs to go down Mair has just said to you—is that, as I understand it, the line of inspections of structures of that kind with one can be reasonably confident that where such the information one does have in order to complete features exist they will be documented and recorded, that exercise reliably. Both Mott MacDonald and either on the statutory list or in one of the learned Alan Baxter are extremely experienced in doing this journals—that is to say, Pevsner’s guide, or indeed in kind of work. My instructions are that these reports the Survey of London. Those sources of material do are informed by a considerable amount of cross- not simply confine themselves to external features. fertilisation of thinking between the two of them; so The statutory list, for example (and I say this from they have obviously looked critically—they have experience of dealing with this kind of work in cross-validated each other’s work—and what you see practice; I am a lawyer, not a building surveyor), is in relation to Wilkes Street, the coloured sheet, page that the statutory lists in relation to even the greatest 56, is a table which reflects that careful process of section of listed buildings—that is to say, Grade II individual and collaborative consideration. buildings, as your Lordship appreciates—is often set out in considerable detail as to both external and internal features. 4178. The question arises, notwithstanding all that, ought there to have been an internal inspection in any event at the stage when these reports were being 4175. We have been focusing on 17 to 25 Wilkes prepared? We would say, with respect, no that was Street because Mr Wheeler, understandably, focused not necessary, and the judgment that was taken that on that property because it includes his own that was not necessary was one which was a proper property, so understandably he is concerned about and sensible one, and indeed the right one. That is the the fate of that building, but your Lordships may case we make in relation to this point. have glanced through some of the descriptions which we have included in relation to other properties, that is to say the corresponding description of features of 4179. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, I may be out of particular interest or sensitivity, and you will find date, but the listing system used to identify notable that they do include, from time to time, not only interiors as two-star. I do not know whether that still external features but, also, internal features. The persists. Are there any two-stars? source for that, because, as we know, there were no internal inspections carried out when these reports 4180. MR MOULD: I believe there is one two-star were being undertaken, is, perforce, the information along this part of the route. What, I am afraid, I that was available from the specialist documents cannot do oV the top of my head, is identify which. record that I have mentioned. I think it is 19 Princelet Street. My Lord, the honest answer to your question is I am afraid I do not know 4176. Also—and this is of some considerable whether there is that direct relationship between two- importance—picking up, again, on the second point star and notable interiors. that Professor Mair has made, the expertise which Alan Baxter Associates have in surveying buildings in 4181. CHAIRMAN: There is, because that is the this class and category, armed as they are with the whole point of having two stars—or it used to be. sources of information I have just described, and having carried out an external inspection of these buildings one-by-one, of which these photographs 4182. MR MOULD: Certainly two stars reflects a are a little bit of an illustration, as you will appreciate much smaller sub-group of buildings of historic and the skilled and experienced professional who deals architectural importance. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
354 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues
4183. CHAIRMAN: It relates particularly to internal finishes and features of listed buildings, their interiors. knowledge of this type of Georgian terrace, they could assess the external, have knowledge of any 4184. MR MOULD: I am very grateful for that. special features because of the reference, as you say, to London Survey, Pevsner and their own records, 4185. CHAIRMAN: That will be part of the which would enable them to make what you say is a information available publicly. reliable assessment of the building and put it in the right category. Am I right in that? 4186. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: (Professor Mair) Yes. Could you say just how many buildings we are actually talking about? We have never been given 4196. I do not mean to paraphrase. the number. (Professor Mair) That is paraphrased very well.
4187. MR MOULD: It is about 20 along this part of 4197. The only other point that I was recalling from the route, but, of course, along the route as a whole Mr Wheeler that I want to be sure on, is that he said: the figure is much larger—it is about 360. “Well, for instance, suppose they had gone into the basement of one of these buildings and they had 4188. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: We converted the cellar and put a concrete raft in, are talking about Petitioners appealing to us and the underpinned or done something.” Would that have number that they are appealing. an eVect on assessment? (Professor Mair) It is a little hard to answer that 4189. MR MOULD: We are, yes. question as a generality, but my reaction would be that if they had gone in and done some underpinning 4190. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: or some improvement in some sort of way, as you That is 20. describe, that would probably make the building less vulnerable and remove a possible sensitive or 4191. BARONESS FOOKES: My understanding vulnerable feature. from yesterday, or the day before, was that at some stage later on there will be an internal assessment 4198. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: mainly for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the Thank you very much. building against any claims by the proprietors subsequent to the building of the tunnel showing 4199. MR MOULD: I shall come back to this, damage. because one thing I would like to do, if I am allowed a few moments to do so this afternoon, is to show you 4192. MR MOULD: My Lady, that is absolutely one or two detailed aspects of the Settlement Deed I right. I was going, at some stage during this mentioned yesterday because I think it is important afternoon’s presentation, to remind the Committee that you understand how that works in a little more of what comes next, as it were, because this, as your detail. I would like to continue with Professor Mair, Ladyship has in mind, is very much part of an if I may. What we would like to show you, finally, is ongoing process. If it is convenient I can reiterate that some relevant extracts from the Alan Baxter now or I can come to that when Professor Mair has Associates report which formed part of the technical completed his evidence—whichever is convenient to background material to the Crossrail Environmental you. Statement. I hope we have provided you with some extracts of that in hard copy. I think what I shall do, 4193. BARONESS FOOKES: I will leave that to Professor Mair, if it is convenient to you, is I will you, my Lord Chairman, as to when we deal with hand over to you to explain the significance of this. this, as long as it is dealt with. Thank you. 32 (Professor Mair) Yes, I would like to have, if we 4194. CHAIRMAN: For the moment, Lord Young could, page 25, please, of that report? I hope that you also has a question on this point. all are able to see this page 25. This deals with Phase 3 essentially, which is what we are talking about, of 4195. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I the assessment process. What this specifically relates just want to finish what we have started. Thank you, to is the question of how historic buildings, listed because I am much more confident now about the buildings, are dealt with and it describes in the fourth validity of the survey now that you have explained paragraph—and I will not obviously read every word the process. As I understand it, armed with the of that—how the assessment incorporates these two professional reputation of Baxter, which is 32 acknowledged by both sides, their access to all the Associates (SCN-20080312-017) Scope and Methodology, Para 4.3.1.1 Phase 3, Alan Baxter Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 355
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues extra scores, one score for the behaviour of the Spitalfields area, so if we run down the zero column, building and another score for the question of you will see that the total scores are simply the same finishes, and how they may respond. It makes the as the building sensitivity score. In other words, if the point that the scores can range from zero for a robust building sensitivity total score was one, then the total building with no significant features up to four for a is also one because the building damage classification delicate building with very fine features because that is zero. would give a two and a two, which together would make the four. At the bottom of the page is a table 4201. CHAIRMAN: On the previous page, which just recaps what I described earlier,33 which is Professor, 25, I now see to my joy there are II* the sensitivity classification to do with the structure buildings not necessarily here but in the general as to34 how the whole structure might behave and that approach and SAM is presumably “Statutory is the scoring system, zero, one or two. Then the Ancient Monuments”? following page, if we could go to that, please, page 26. The top of that page has a second table which 4202. MR MOULD: Scheduled Ancient relates to the second part of the scoring system which Monuments. is the features and the finishes on which we have already spent some time. Again, I have described that 4203. CHAIRMAN: And there is none of the Grade and that also shows the zero, the one, and the two II* or Scheduled Ancient Monuments that we are scoring. The way in which this is all finally put35 talking about in this part of Spitalfields? together is illustrated at the bottom of the page where you see a grid with colours and you will see along the 4204. MR MOULD: I think I said there was one top the words “Building Damage Classification”. Grade II*. Those are the categories of building damage which are related directly to the tensile strain calculation and you will see zero, one, two, three and four, the 4205. CHAIRMAN: You are going to check up on increasing severity of potential damage from the this? building classification and that work was all carried out by Mott McDonald. In a sense, you can imagine 4206. MR MOULD: Yes, 19 Princelet Street is a the row going across is the work by Mott McDonald Grade II *. in calculating the maximum tensile strain that the (Professor Mair) If I can return to this table at the building might experience. bottom here there is colour-coding. You will see that if the total score is two or less, that is shaded green and you will see the key at the bottom of the table 4200. CHAIRMAN: That is structural? describes that impact because it is the total score that (Professor Mair) That is structural, precisely, my is the impact. If it is green, then it is determined to be Lord, precisely. Down the left-hand side is the low magnitude. If it is yellow, which scores above two building sensitivity which is the work done by Alan but below six, it is a moderate magnitude and the red Baxter. The point has already been made that they zones correspond to total scores in excess of six or are, of course, working closely with each other, Alan greater. These represent the magnitude of the impact. Baxter and Mott McDonald, but Alan Baxter have What I want to take you36 to now is the following page been, as experts in their field, primarily responsible as to what that means. If we go to the bottom of page for the building sensitivity scoring. What you see 27 there is a table there, table 4.5, which is titled “The down the left-hand side is the total building Evaluation Matrix”. What you see on the left-hand sensitivity score ranging from zero up to the side as the level of input, so there you have the three maximum of four, remembering that the building levels of impact, the low magnitude impact, the sensitivity is divided into two parts, the structure moderate magnitude impact or the high magnitude sensitivity and the finishes. The colours or the impact, corresponding respectively to the green, remaining numbers are simply the addition of the yellow or red shaded zones from the previous table building damage classification to the building we were looking at and the right-hand two columns sensitivity score, so you can simply see that, for show the meaning of that impact depending on the example, if the building damage classification is zero, kind of building with one exception, which we have which is the case for all of the buildings in the just heard of, we are dealing here with Grade II 33 buildings in the Spitalfields area. You can see that if it Classification—Structure, Alan Baxter Associates (SCN- is of low magnitude impact, in other words the green 20080312-018) 34 Scope and Methodology, Table 4.2 Building Sensitivity shading with a total score of two or less, and if it is a Classification—Features and Finishes, Alan Baxter Associates Grade II building it has the word “NSig” written (SCN-20080312-019) there which stands for “Non-Significant impact”. If it 35 Scope and Methodology, Table 4.3 Building Sensitivity Magnitude of Impact, Alan Baxter Associates (SCN- 36 20080312-020) Baxter Associates (SCN-20080312-021) Scope and Methodology, Table 4.4 Matrix for Assessment of Scope and Methodology, Table 4.5 Evaluation Matrix, Alan Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
356 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues is in the yellow shading, which is the moderate followed for the Jubilee Line Extension and the magnitude impact, then the Grade II buildings go Channel Tunnel Rail Link. It has been refined as we into a slightly higher category of either non- learn with experience from previous projects, but it is significant impact or significant impact.37 The last page pretty similar, yes. I would like to take you to is the meaning of “significant impact”, what that leads to in this 4208. MR MOULD: Now, Professor Mair, there is process and that is on page 29. The title of this just one thing we ought to make clear to the section is “Buildings with Potentially Significant Committee in relation to this which, as you have Impacts (Sig.)”, and we should always remember that pointed out, is setting out in detail the scope and the word “potential” potentially is important here methodology for assessment in relation to listed because all of this assessment has been done buildings and the potential impacts upon them of the assuming conservative values of volume loss, in other ground movement from the tunnelling works. It has words knowing that the actual tunneling will produce been prepared by Alan Baxter, as is apparent from significantly smaller movements than have been the front sheet that the noble Lords have in front of assumed in this assessment process. The word them, but there is this point also, that this scope and “potentially” is important, but it is acknowledging methodology was shared with English Heritage prior this is a conservative and safe process. What it is to being finalised. That is right, is it not? saying is, if I take you to the second sentence of this (Professor Mair) I believe that is correct, yes. paragraph of the first paragraph: “Once the details of the construction and the techniques and equipment 4209. My understanding is that English Heritage to be used have been fully determined, one or more of expressed their approval of this approach. the following will be carried, as appropriate”, and (Professor Mair) That is also my understanding. then there are three bullet points. The first bullet point: “a more detailed settlement assessment, more closely modelling the likely behaviour of the building 4210. That of course would include the page that you and the ground”. The second bullet point, I believe have just been looking at which, amongst other this is particularly relevant to the questions that have things, sets a stage at which internal inspections may been asked: “an internal inspection of the building to be necessary. The other point I would wish to draw to reassess the sensitivity of the finishes and other the attention of the Committee while we have this in features [that have been assumed] in order to front of us, picking up on another concern expressed establish if the scoring needs to be revised up or by Mr Wheeler yesterday, is that, if one turns back to down”. The third bullet point is an “inspection of the page 27, Mr Wheeler, you will recall, expressed buildings to assess further the condition and concern as to whether the methodology that had been structural sensitivity”. Those last two bullet points followed in terms of assessing potential impacts on listed buildings has been guided by the process set out relate to the two kinds of scoring that were done and the considerations set out in national planning earlier in the assessment process. What this all leads 38 policy guidance in relation to the historic to is this is all part of the very well thought-out and environment, that is to say, Planning Policy considered process nearer the time of the project Guidance 15 or PPG15. As the Committee will see, actually starting when much more detail is known it is quite clear that relevant guidance in that about the sequencing of the tunneling, of the actual document did indeed inform the development of this tunneling techniques. If a building had been in the method and of this assessment process, so I hope that yellow shading, in other words had got into the gives some reassurance. Now, Professor Mair, we position of being potentially of significant impact, have focused on explaining in some little detail the then this process would be followed which would nuts and bolts of the assessment method and the entail definitely an internal inspection to be thinking behind it in order to explain why the absolutely checking out on all of the assumptions judgment was that the sources of information that that had been made prior to that point. were available as regards the particularly sensitive features of the buildings in Spitalfields, those 20-odd 4207. CHAIRMAN: Professor Mair, there is buildings that live over the running tunnels, have nothing special about this is there in relation to been followed in the way that they have and why that Crossrail tunnels? This is the sort of process that did not at this stage involve internal inspection of always goes on with subsidence engineering, is it not? those buildings. Having done that, the Committee (Professor Mair) Yes, that is absolutely correct. I has the extracts of the reports in relation to those think it is fair to say that is an evolving methodology. buildings in front of them, but is there anything more This is pretty much the methodology that was you would wish to add in evidence in relation to
37 this point? Potentially Significant Impacts (Sig.), Alan Baxter Associates 38 (SCN-20080312-021) 20080312-021) Scope and Methodology, Para 5.2.2 Table 4.5 Buildings with Scope and Methodology, p27, Alan Baxter Associates (SCN- Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 357
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues
(Professor Mair) No, I do not think there is. 4218. MR MOULD: Yes, indeed.
4211. MR MOULD: Then all I need to ask you now, 4219. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: for my part, and you are completing your evidence They have not been so far. today, is just to turn to Mr Wheeler’s second point which was his concern that there were buildings, 4220. MR MOULD: That is why I was at pains, I individual listed structures, within the Spitalfields hope, to point out a few moments ago, that this has area which had not actually been identified for been, and I had in mind to use the word “validated”, assessment. Can you comment briefly on that? but that can sometimes carry technical connotations, so perhaps that would not be quite the right word to 4212. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: use, but certainly I think it is fair to say, as I think Before we get to that and before we conclude on the Professor Mair confirmed, that this methodology has first aspect, if I may, you say this methodology has been approved by English Heritage at the time when been used before and has now been developed in the the Bill was being prepared. light of experience. 4221. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:I 4213. MR MOULD: Yes. was thinking particularly of the extent to which English Heritage have been involved in previous 4214. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: projects. Has it encountered the same opposition that we have had put to us on this occasion? 4222. MR MOULD: I do not know whether you are (Professor Mair) My recollection with the Jubilee able to answer that, Professor Mair. If not, I can ask Line Extension was that there were a number of listed for instructions on that. I would be very, very buildings that were to be tunnelled under and there surprised if it was not, but I do not want to go ahead was some concern expressed by the residents. I would of myself and say something which I do not know for hesitate to compare the reactions of the diVerent a fact. Can I come back to you on that because I am residents, but I think it was certainly an issue and it afraid I just do not know. was dealt with and their concerns were alleviated in (Professor Mair) Perhaps I could add that I have a very much a similar way that I have described today, clear recollection of English Heritage showing a close and the project was undertaken and there was no interest in the Jubilee Line Extension and obviously damage of any consequence to any of those a particularly close interest in the eVects on listed buildings. buildings.
4215. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:I 4223. MR MOULD: I have just been reminded that was just wondering whether in fact the residents who there was a building of some sensitivity not many have been petitioning us have had knowledge of this. yards away from this room which was of interest to Have they had knowledge of this, that this has been English Heritage, namely Big Ben, and I believe that used before and that, in the event, people afterwards they took quite a close interest. have been reasonably happy with the outcome?
4224. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:I 4216. MR MOULD: Well, the information that they was thinking of more modest buildings. have had provided to them both through correspondence with Crossrail, but also, more particularly of course, the presentations given by 4225. MR MOULD: Of course, but you will recall Professor Mair both in another place and to your of course, and this is not the point, but it is perhaps Lordships ought to have alerted them to the fact that of some relevance, that Professor Mair explained to the settlement assessment processes that we have you in some little detail when he gave his presentation described to your Lordships have been applied the successful experience in relation to the successfully in relation to the Jubilee Line Extension construction of the Jubilee Line Extension in relation construction. That is the best I can say in answer to to a residential building in, I think, the East End. that, I am afraid. (Professor Mair) That is correct, in Bermondsey.
4217. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: 4226. Yes. Now, I am not sure that that was a listed And presumably English Heritage have followed this structure, but it gives an indication of what the through, have they, because it seems to me that they experience is, I think, in relation to masonry can be seen as a trusted independent observer that structures and the sort of tunnelling activities that we perhaps could have been utilised to some extent? are talking about. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:07 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
358 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues
(Professor Mair) Could I just add to that and say that, 4235. MR MOULD: Of course. One of the purposes at the conclusion of the Jubilee Line Extension of inviting Professor Mair to come and give evidence project, there was a major set of volumes produced, to you in relation to these matters was not only to and I was involved in the production of those along enable him to explain the position to you, but also to with colleagues at Imperial College and also allow Petitioners who might wish to question him to engineers at London Underground, summarising all do so. I think we have made clear through remarks of the experience of a very wide range of buildings, made to, and by, my Lord, Lord Colville, during the many of which are listed, of many diVerent ages, course of the week that Professor Mair would be diVerent kinds of structures, masonry buildings, giving his evidence today. modern, steel-framed, reinforced concrete buildings, a huge compendium of all that had happened during 4236. CHAIRMAN: Also, we tried to get hold of the Jubilee Line Extension, and that is in the public him during the lunchtime adjournment and domain and is very well-known. The message that somebody said he might turn up. Did you have clearly evolved from that experience was that there anything else? was very little damage to any buildings and that the assessment processes followed by the Jubilee Line 4237. MR MOULD: Well, I did have one other Extension project were very successful in identifying question and we just wanted to touch briefly on the those buildings that might need special protection, other point Mr Wheeler raised and, for that purpose, and that was done in some cases, but the overall perhaps we can remind you of this photograph that outcome was very successful in terms of extremely he showed you yesterday. It was to do with rear little damage being caused. extensions. Professor Mair, do you want to say something about this? You have the point that Mr 4227. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE:I Wheeler took in relation to extensions and that he think it is a pity that Mr Wheeler is not present today suggested that there had been an absence of to hear these exchanges, and perhaps we, one way or consideration of such features, and we put up this39 another, should ensure that he sees them. which is the photograph of the rear elevation of 17- 25 Wilkes Street and we can see that there are a number of rear extensions to that range of buildings. 4228. CHAIRMAN: Well, he had better read the Do you want to comment on that? transcript. (Professor Mair) Yes, I think it might or it could be said that, if there is an extension, it somehow in the 4229. MR MOULD: I spoke to him briefly outside engineering process needs to be taken into account. I the room yesterday after he had completed his think it is a little bit like the attic point that I evidence and he told me that he was going to take a addressed earlier, that the engineering assessment, close interest in what was said today, albeit he did which involves the calculation of the maximum explain that it was unlikely that he would be able to tensile strain, idealises the structure. There is no be here to hear it in person, so I think he certainly is doubt about that. It idealises the structure to certain going to take a close interest in it. dimensions, a certain height, a certain length, a certain width, and all of our experience is that the 4230. LORD SNAPE: On that point then, Mr tensile strain that is calculated in that structure is not Mould, is it a fact that, if he or any of the other very sensitive to changes in dimension. You may Petitioners who have given evidence over the past remember earlier that I showed that in terms of couple of days had been present today, they would diVerent lengths of buildings and it did not make very have had the opportunity to cross-examine Professor much diVerence to the maximum tensile strain that Mair both about his expertise and his evidence? was calculated. There seem to be two extensions here and the one in the foreground of the photograph is a low-rise, single-storey extension, and the one in the 4231. MR MOULD: He would have done certainly. background of the photograph is a two-storey extension. My view on this is that the presence of 4232. LORD SNAPE: Any of them any would those two extensions would not make very much have done? diVerence to the assessed maximum tensile strain in the structure.
4233. MR MOULD: Indeed, that is right. 4238. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:I was just interested that you used that word “idealise”. 4234. LORD SNAPE: You would have been quite If I use my word, and you tell me if I have got it happy for any of them to cross-examine Professor 39 Mair? Street (TOWHLB-20 5-013) Crossrail Ref: P23, View of the rear elevation of 17-25 Wilkes Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 359
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues wrong, what you are sort of saying to me is that, if the tunnel without causing any movement of the you take into account the height of the masonry of ground around it. Ten or 20 years ago volume losses the main building and various other things you know were two per cent, sometimes even three per cent. about the main building, it does not really matter in Nowadays with the technique of closed face terms of calculating that strain? It does not really pressurised tunnelling, which will be used on matter if you have a loft on the top or there is a two- Crossrail, the volume losses are much smaller and storey extension at the back as that will not you can see on the slide shown now the earth pressure materially aVect the result? balance machine for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Professor Mair) That is correct. and for the Jubilee Line Extension and for the recent DLR Woolwich Extension are between 0.5 and 1 per 4239. MR MOULD: Just to complete the picture, I cent. Those are the observed measured volume losses. think you alluded a moment ago to this graph, did Just to remind us, the assessment that Crossrail has you not? used in the Environmental Statement for all of these (Professor Mair) That is right. That is the graph building damage assessments has been 1.7 per cent which I showed and spoke about earlier where a very and it is directly proportionate. So if the volume loss wide variety of building lengths were considered and is in fact only 0.5 per cent it will mean that the actual the diVerence in the calculated strain is really rather settlement and the actual strain the building will small with really rather big diVerences in dimensions experience will be less than a third of that calculated of the building. It is a related point to the question in the assessment process, and that is the meaning of about extensions, that the presence of an extension, the word “conservative”. as you have just put it very well, would not have a material eVect on the calculated maximum tensile 4242. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: strain. Thank you, that was very informative.
4240. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 4243. CHAIRMAN: Some lay people like myself You said that the figures you arrived at for strain at talk about ground movement; it is the same thing, is 0.024 were a conservative assessment. It makes me it? think that you measured it and you came up with a (Professor Mair) It is exactly the same thing, my figure that said 0.012 and you thought, “Right, we are Lord. We use volume loss as a rather tunnelling going to be really safe on here so we will double40 it.” orientated way of describing ground movement. How do you arrive at that description “conservative assessment”? How did you make that allowance? 4244. BARONESS FOOKES: Could I briefly raise (Professor Mair) I think I can explain that. The a related matter? I think it was Mr Berryman who assessment methodology that arrives at that said that London Clay was inclined to move anyway, calculated tensile strain starts with an assumption so that all these buildings which have been up for a about the volume loss that the tunnel itself causes, very long time would have been subject to which is another way of saying how much settlement movements which might have been greater than is the process of the tunnel construction actually would be caused by the tunnel building. I hope I have causing? That assumption for this whole exercise has it right but could you comment on it? been 1.7 per cent for the volume loss. That is the (Professor Mair) Yes, you do have it right. What Mr conservatism; in other words, that is a very safe Berryman was saying is exactly right. There are two assumption in that all of the experience from the points to make here. One is that seasonally there is a Jubilee Line Extension and from the Channel Tunnel surprising amount of movement of buildings on Rail Link tunnelling has been that the kind of ground such as London Clay. In other words, a hot tunnelling technique that will be used for Crossrail is summer, if we have such things, where it does not rain most unlikely to cause volume losses greater than one very much it is well known that buildings on ground per cent and probably more like 0.5 per cent. such as London Clay can rise certainly by 10 mm. Correspondingly, when the wet winter arrives they 4241. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: can settle again of that order. So there is quite as lot Is volume loss earth displaced that creates the void? of seasonal movement of buildings, and of course if Can you explain that bit? buildings are old, such as the Georgian buildings in (Professor Mair) Volume loss is soil displaced; it is, if the Spitalfields area, there is a remarkable amount of you like, during the actual act of creating the tunnel settlement of the buildings due to the foundations the ground is moving towards and into the tunnel. If perhaps not being as robust as modern foundations, you had zero volume loss—it is the Holy Grail for and one can see that by simply walking around the tunnelling—it would mean that you actually created city; one can see evidence of movement of buildings. 40 But the seasonal movement is an important and (LINEWD-RJM01-038) regular occurrence. Then there is another point, that Crossrail Ref: P6, Summary of Volume Loss Experience Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
360 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Settlement Issues since about 1800 there has been very substantial Is anybody here who wants to ask questions of industrial pumping from the deep aqua flow, from Professor Mair, because I do not know that there is the chalk, to extract water, and this had been going going to be another opportunity. No. on—it is now not happening as much—and for about 100 years and possibly longer than that London 4252. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: settled by a very substantial amount, by about 200 My Lord, if I could have the opportunity, as I have mm—by about eight inches—simply because water not had the opportunity of benefiting from your was being extracted in large amounts from the chalk tutorials before? I have been looking through the deep down, and it is a very well known phenomenon ground settlement information paper; are you that if you pump water out from the ground the familiar with that? ground will settle. So Keith Berryman’s point about (Professor Mair) Yes, I am. buildings having experienced movement is absolutely right on two counts. Firstly, seasonal movement, 4253. In terms of a process and a methodology how which makes buildings go up and down by around would you rate that? about 10 mm quite happily, and sometimes more; (Professor Mair) I would rate it very highly, but I secondly, that the whole of London has experienced would, would I not? Quite a lot of it is based on my very large movements, and I must point out that that work. I can say that it is adopted in many parts of the large movement caused little or no distress. So world; this process is currently being used in London settled by 200 mm without the buildings Singapore, in Hong Kong, in many other countries. experiencing damage, mainly because that was a very uniform eVect—it just all went down uniformly. 4254. Would I be right in saying that this 4245. BARONESS FOOKES: Do you have to take incorporates best practice? the seasonal movement into account with the (Professor Mair) You would certainly be right, yes. tunnelling or is it negligible? (Professor Mair) We do not explicitly take it into 4255. MR MOULD: Perhaps another way of account but in a sense we are allowing for it in that putting it, if we turn to page 10 we see that although, you will recall that in the Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 as Professor Mair has just pointed out, he is one41 of process I have described we eliminate all buildings those who is listed under the references section of this which are outside the 10 mm contour, and one of the paper, he is in the company of others and, Professor reasons we do that is that 10 mm is within the normal Mair, no doubt those names are familiar to you? movement seasonally. So, in a sense, we are taking (Professor Mair) Yes, they are; certainly my account of the fact that buildings rise and fall by colleague, Professor Burland, who is now an about that sort of quantity seasonally. So in that Emeritus Professor of Imperial College has had a sense it is taken into account. great deal to do with this assessment methodology as well. 4246. CHAIRMAN: Did you get it right that clay swells when it is wet and contracts when it is dry? 4256. So it is fair that the methodology, the process (Professor Mair) Did I say it the other way round? which you set out in this information paper is one that has been informed not only by your own work 4247. CHAIRMAN: I think you said it the other but also by the work of your peers around the world? way around. (Professor Mair) Yes, that is correct. (Professor Mair) You have corrected me, that during the summer there will be a settlement. I am so sorry, 4257. MR MOULD: My Lord, I am conscious that I confused everybody including myself and I I have an outstanding request from my Lady. I am in apologise. your hands. We shall be making some short closing submissions about this and I would be very happy at 4248. MR MOULD: My Lord, unless there are any that stage just to summarise what happens hereafter, other questions? as it were, in relation to the continuing assessment of listed buildings. Alternatively, I can touch on that 4249. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler is not here? now. I am conscious of the fact that we have Mr Thornely-Taylor here. 4250. MR MOULD: No. 4258. CHAIRMAN: I have been seeing Mr 4251. CHAIRMAN: He is the Parliamentary Agent Thornely-Taylor sitting patiently at the back of the for a number of Petitioners, including Selena Mifsud room. and a whole list of others. Is there anybody from that 41 group who wants to ask questions? It is Petition 20. billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-IPD12-010) Crossrail Information Paper D12—Ground Settlement, http:// Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 361
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
4259. BARONESS FOOKES: So long as it is dealt construction traYc noise; lastly, noise issues relating with at some stage I am quite happy for the timing to to the operation of the vent shaft once constructed. be left to you. So, Mr Thornely-Taylor, perhaps we can begin by addressing the question of groundborne noise issues. 4260. MR MOULD: I am very grateful. We shall A number of Petitioners from Spitalfields are asking certainly deal with it and I should very much like to for a noise limit to be imposed upon the operation of say more about the Settlement Deed as well. In that the railway to provide them with 25 dB L 42 within case unless there are any other questions I shall ask their residential properties. I wonder if weAm canax start, Professor Mair to leave. please, by looking at page 2 of the Information Paper D10, which addresses groundborne noise.43 It is 4261. CHAIRMAN: I think the only thing that we coming up on the screen now. Here we have Table 1 can do is to thank Professor Mair very much and if in the Information Paper, headed “Construction and the Petitioners of Petition 20 do not turn up to ask Operation of groundborne noise criteria.” Can you him questions it may very well be that they will not explain, please, to the Committee what is shown in get another chance. this table? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. This table shows the 4262. MR MOULD: That is certainly right. targets which are applied according to diVerent types of building along the route. The general objective 4263. CHAIRMAN: And they had better read the from tunnel to tunnel is that nowhere does the transcript. maximum noise level go above 40, and that applies particularly to residential buildings. However, 4264. MR MOULD: I am grateful for that. certain types of building do have a need for lower levels, and we see courts, lecture theatres, small 4265. CHAIRMAN: I have no intention of calling auditoria, halls and places of meeting for religious you back unless it is an emergency. We will have to worship have a 35 target. Sound-recording studios see how things go, but I think you have told us have an even lower target of 30 and large auditoria everything that we need to know. Thank you very such as the Barbican Hall have a target of 25. I think much. your Lordships will appreciate that, in the light of the experience we had in the Chancery Court Hotel, we The witness withdrew are eVectively talking about silence when we get down to those levels. MrRupertThornely-Taylor, recalled Examined byMrTaylor 4272. Thank you. Just to place the 25 dB L that has been requested by Petitioners into someAm context,ax 4266. CHAIRMAN: Mr Thornely-Taylor, I think we can see that that is 5 decibels below the measures everybody in the room is part of the Crossrail team being proposed for sound-recording studios. except us, the shorthand writers and our clerk, so I think you need not be introduced again. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it is. Indeed, it is lower than probably the background noise in many of the 4267. MR TAYLOR: My Lords, it is the first time I houses concerned. get to stand on my feet and address you. Good afternoon. I am calling Mr Thornely-Taylor to 4273. I was going to ask you about that, if I may. address you on four issues in relation to noise aspects What is the likelihood of noises being experienced of the Spitalfields Petitions. above 25 dB L in residential properties at night at present? Amax 4268. CHAIRMAN: Which Petition are we dealing (Mr Thornely-Taylor) We discovered on the site visit with at the moment? that merely raising an arm and rustling a jacket disturbed our noise measurements. In fact, 20 people 4269. MR TAYLOR: We are dealing with all of the in the room we found were actually contributing to noise aspects raised in all of the Spitalfields Petitions. the background noise level just by standing there and breathing. Any event in a room which is other than in 4270. CHAIRMAN: So there is nobody here from a wilderness is significantly more than 25. any of them? 42 Vibration, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD- 4271. MR TAYLOR: There is not. There are four IPD10-002) aspects on which we are going to address you: firstly, 43 Crossrail Information Paper D10—Groundborne Noise and Vibration, Table 1 Construction and Operation of groundborne ground borne noise; secondly construction noise noise criteria, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD- from the Hanbury Street worksite; thirdly, IPD10-003)Crossrail Information Paper D10—Groundborne Noise and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
362 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
4274. So what do you say about the appropriateness Line. As you rightly say, my Lord, that kind of track of adopting a noise criterion of 25 dB L for has many things in it, including joints, which will not residential properties in Spitalfields? Amax be present in Crossrail track; it will be both (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is not necessary. It goes far continuously welded rail, aligned very precisely and beyond reasonable requirements for the balance resiliently supported, and not directly fixed to between engineering design, cost and necessity and hardwood blocks, as is the traditional, old-fashioned the design of an underground railway. method of track support that the existing Tubes (apart from the Jubilee Line Extension) have. 44 4275. I am going to have put on the screen some of the groundborne noise contour mapping that was 4277. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: produced in the Noise Technical Report. We are Just on the site visit, and I recognise you will not be zooming in here on the map for the Hanbury Street/ able to answer this, but we were accompanied by Princelet Street area in Spitalfields. Can you explain independent assessors who, when prompted, decided to the Committee, please, what the contours show to turn on their recording machines. They are not here? here today and I just wonder if we anticipate they are (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. The starting point for the going to be coming back later. contours is an assumption made about the general system of track support that is selected from tunnel to tunnel. It is not going to be the case that the track will 4278. MR TAYLOR: My Lord, I think the parties be chosen so that we just bump along the 40 figure as you are referring to were there representing the we go along, putting in cheaper track form because British Board of Film Classification, who have a the noise levels are lower. The approach will be to Petition coming up, I think, in two weeks’ time, and select a form of rail support which will, in nearly all also Grand Central Recording Studios, who also cases, achieve these targets from end to end, and the have a Petition coming up in the same week. same basic track form will be used for that purpose. We will need an enhanced track form in special 4279. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: locations, which we will be hearing about later in the Will we have the pleasure of your company on that proceedings, but it follows from that that, if a rail occasion? support system is selected which achieves these (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Of course, my Lord. Those criteria in nearly all cases, there will be many Petitioners, of course, will enjoy the much lower noise locations when, for a variety of reasons, particularly targets that we saw in that table because, in the one if the tunnel is particularly low relative to the surface, case, they have a film theatre in the basement and in if train speeds are low locally, the predictions come the other they have a recording studio in the out much better than the target. The Hanbury Street basement, and in both cases there will be floating slab area is no exception. Whereas the residential track and noise levels will be much, much lower. In properties there, strictly speaking, are subject to the fact, their interest in our site visit is a little unclear 40 L figure we saw in the table we have just been because there is no question of 40 dB(A) L or lookingAmax, at,S these predictions, which are an extract anything approaching that occurring inAma theirx from a set of contours that run from tunnel portal to properties. tunnel portal, show actually what is likely to be the groundborne noise level in this area. They are a little bit like airport noise contours, except that aircraft are 4280. MR TAYLOR: That is for another time. I am flying through the ground, if you understand what I sure we will be coming back to that. mean. The lowest contour represents a groundborne noise level of 25 and each contour is a 1 dB(A) increase. We do not, in fact, get above about 28. If I 4281. CHAIRMAN: Forty-one was the loudest say conservatively that we are below 30 in this area, train, was it not? we can compare that with trains that are quieter than (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is right, my Lord, yes. the quietest ones we were hearing on the site visit. 4282. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 4276. CHAIRMAN: Just on that, the ones we heard How did the Spitalfields residents arrive at the figure on the site visit were going on jointed track, were of 25? Did they want to hear falling leaves in their they not? houses? I am puzzled. Where did they get that (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, they were running on the figure from? old-style track support system of the Central Line (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I think, my Lord, you may be and the quieter ones were probably on the Piccadilly right. They may have looked at one of those scales 44 which show what noise levels amount to and have Princelet Street area (SCN-20080312-023) picked a number which meant no noise at all. Crossrail Ref: P23, Noise Technical Report, Hanbury Street/ Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 363
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
4283. MR TAYLOR: From what I have read of the concerned is already subject to from existing London Petition, there is no explanation as to how that Underground tunnels. number is selected. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is true to say that in that 4286. CHAIRMAN: That train will not be taking area, particularly in the Spital Square area, the away the spoil, will it, it is going on a conveyor belt? Central Line runs beneath some properties, and (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The spoil will go by conveyor following a site visit which I made I was advised to go and that will be— and visit a building in Spital Square where you can hear the Central Line, and it is very noisy—it was 4287. Does the conveyor make any noise? about 47, I remember. That may have given rise to (Mr Thornely-Taylor) A well-maintained conveyor the unfounded worry that there was going to be a is negligible from that point of view, my Lord. groundborne noise problem from Crossrail. As the layman, understandably, they would not necessarily 4288. MR TAYLOR: If we pass down the page we appreciate the enormous improvements that have get to paragraph 2.9, which sets out the approach to been made in track support. be adopted in relation to the permanent track support system and groundborne noise during 4284. CHAIRMAN: Is there any validity in a operation. Can you take the Committee through that requirement that noise levels from the operating of paragraph, please? the trains does not exceed 25 dB? Whatever sort of dB (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. This is the point that I and where we do not know, but this is what they say. briefly mentioned a moment ago, and that is that we (Mr Thornely-Taylor) My Lord, it is quite will not have a railway where the track is supported unnecessary. It would involve a substantial increase by just good enough methods to get just below 40 along the railway. The nominated undertaker will be in cost and engineering complexity and it is not required to design a system-wide track support required. system, which means that, if it is achieving 40 in the worst cases, or almost all the worst cases, as I said 4285. MR TAYLOR: If I may move on, I was going when describing the Hanbury Street area, it does to take the Committee to the mechanism that45 is much better in most other locations. The essential proposed for the control of groundborne noise in thing about this approach is that we do not focus on IPD 10, just so that we can clarify that, because this purely the numbers; it is an approach to procuring a is the first opportunity we have had to take you to it. very well-engineered railway and a quiet-running Starting, firstly, with paragraph 2.7 of IPD 10, it sets railway through a mechanism which comes right out the approach to be taken to the operation of the through the specification of track support systems temporary construction railway. Can you explain, that goes to the tenderers and to implementation of for the benefit of the Committee, Mr Thornely- that in the construction of the railway. We know Taylor, what is proposed? from the very successful experience of the Jubilee (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. Behind the tunnel-boring Line Extension that it works as a process, apart from machine, as it advances, there will be laid a just the high-level business of selecting the right temporary railway to enable a train to bring tunnel- numbers. mining segments up to the tunnel-boring machine and, indeed, to bring construction workers up to the 4289. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: face. This will be a long, slow train which runs What about the rolling stock specification? nothing like as frequently as an operational Crossrail (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The rolling stock specification train, but, of course, the track will be of a temporary is also important, my Lord, and particularly what is nature; it will not have the high standards that we will important is the maintenance of the condition of the have with the permanent track. There will be some wheel treads of the rolling stock, because both the rail groundborne noise from the temporary railway, and roughness profile and the condition of the wheel that indeed was the experience of the Channel Tunnel treads is important in minimising groundborne noise, Rail Link; I think the main thing that has been heard and that is all part of the process to which I refer of from that was the temporary railway passing procuring a quiet-running railway. through, bringing tunnel lining segments and other materials to the face. That also is subject to noise 4290. MR TAYLOR: On that point, if we look at targets, as set out in the Information Paper D10, paragraph 2.10 in IPD 10, which is on the same page, which are the higher of the numbers we looked at a you can see that the policy is that the nominated short while ago or the noise levels which the property undertaker will put in place measures that will ensure
45 that the track of the underground section and the Vibration, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD- wheels of the vehicles operating are maintained in a IPD10-004) state which, under all reasonably foreseeable Crossrail Information Paper D10—Groundborne Noise and Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
364 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues circumstances, will lead to adequate control of 4295. CHAIRMAN: Just before you do, as the groundborne noise and vibration arising from the Petitioners are not here and I do not know whether railway. they are going to come, I want to ask you one point (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is right and it is very that has been raised in two of the Petitions. There is a important. vertical deviation allowed under the Bill which would enable the tunnels to be bored nearer the surface. What, if any, diVerence would that make to the level 4291. MR TAYLOR: If we turn over the page to 11 of groundborne vibration noise? Obviously it we see that the nominated undertaking will ensure depends how much the deviation is used but can you that the rails of the underground sections are give us an indication of how it works? conditioned by grinding or other suitable means and 46 (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, my Lord. I think I am are appropriately maintained thereafter as well, so right in saying for most locations three metres is the the matters that Lord Young was asking about are maximum deviation vertically. already addressed in the Information Paper? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) They are indeed, yes. 4296. MR TAYLOR: Yes. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is only of significant interest 4292. MR TAYLOR: Just before we leave the issue where there are buildings with piled foundations of groundborne noise there is one last matter we because the toes of the piles are possibly much closer ought to address for completeness’ sake which is in to the tunnel crown than the foundations of an older paragraph 2.4 on page two of the IP and that relates 47 building without piled foundations and the change to the passage of the tunnel-boring machine and the takes the tunnel relatively closer to the pile toes than way in which that relates to the noise criteria, that is it would to the surface. Based on comparative set at table 1. Can you explain the position, please? modelling work that I have done on buildings, in (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. The tunnel-boring those circumstances, the most that I have found in machine makes a noise as it excavates the tunnel the case of a building on piled foundations very close under houses and that will be clearly audible and to the tunnel is a change of about 3 or 4 dB on the some people may be briefly disturbed by it. It is of L scale as a result of moving the tunnel to the relatively short duration. The tunnel-boring machine Amax,S advances at a reasonably fast rate, I think about 90 absolute maximum that is allowable under limits of metres a week is the current assumption which means the deviation in the Bill. this will be heard for a couple of weeks, of that order. Experience in the past has been, certainly with the 4297. CHAIRMAN: And it is transferred through Jubilee Line Extension, I am not aware of any the piles? significant disturbance because tunnelling in the (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is only in the case of a London Clay is relatively quiet. There may be some building with piled foundations. It does not apply areas where the tunnel-boring machine is working in here in this location. None of the Petitioners, as far as a soil which is less easy to excavate than London I am aware, occupies a building of piled foundations, Clay, where it will be more audible, and there will be but there are one or two locations where that does some disturbance and there was some disturbance arise and that is the order of magnitude of a potential with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link tunnel boring change in alignment right to the limit of limits of machine for a short time. deviation. For practical reasons there are very few locations where that could be achieved because in 4293. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: many cases stations are fixed now in their position What sort of level are we talking about? and you cannot change the tunnel alignment very (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The most likely level is in the much and tie into the stations so it is most unlikely upper 40s. It has been described to me by somebody that the whole of that limit of deviation would ever be who has heard it as if there was a washing machine used up. running in another room, that sort of level of noise. 4298. If it is not a pileborne structure, and they go up 4294. MR TAYLOR: Thank you. If we can turn to the maximum challenge of limits of deviation— away from groundborne noise— (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Less than 1 dB.
46 Vibration, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD- IPD10-005) 4299. --- on an ordinary house, what eVect would 47 Crossrail Information Paper D10—Groundborne Noise and that have? Vibration, Table 1 Construction and Operation of groundborne noise criteria, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD- (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The eVect would be less than IPD10-003)Crossrail Information Paper D10—Groundborne Noise and 1 dB, my Lord. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 365
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
4300. CHAIRMAN: dB(A). 4304. BARONESS FOOKES: Thank you. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. 4305. MR TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr Thornely- Taylor. I was going to move on to noise from the construction worksite at Hanbury Street and we have 4301. BARONESS FOOKES: I am looking at the got in front us on the screen a map showing the operation of the trains. You will, of course, be 48 location for the residents represented in Petitions 18, familiar with Portcullis House. 20 and 22 and we have also got on site indicated the (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Very familiar. location of Hanbury Street worksite. Can I ask you this, Mr Thornely-Taylor, what impact will there be arising on the residents in the property shown on this 4302. Which I think has the Jubilee Line and possibly plan from construction activity on the worksite at other lines running under it or very close to it? I am Hanbury Street? not sure about that. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) All these Petitioners are far (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, my Lady, the District too far from the worksite which is here (Indicating) to and Circle Lines eVectively run through the basement have any eVect at all from the construction activity of Portcullis House. When the Jubilee Line Extension on the worksite. was constructed, that enormous cavern of a station for the deep station was excavated by an amazing 4306. In terms of the impacts that have been engineering achievement. The District and Circle identified from the worksite, can you just explain Lines were kept running over the top of that cavern. what those are in noise terms, please? If the passenger standing on the platform had seen (Mr Thornely-Taylor) We are left with significant what they were standing above, they would have been eVects for this facade here and I understand that the very alarmed because it was a very deep excavation. Promoter has oVered to purchase those properties What has been constructed eVectively is a new bridge and, if all goes according to plan, they will not be as part of the lower levels of Portcullis House which occupied during the construction works at this site. carries the District and Circle Lines on floating track slab. The consultants who designed Portcullis House, 4307. Thank you. Can you just explain, please, the Arups, placed very stringent vibration limits on the consequences in noise terms of the retention of received vibration within the building and, on the Britannia House and, indeed, the properties you have engineering side, we were charged with designing a just referred to? track form which both could be installed while the (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, this is one of several trains continued to run, which was not easy, but also diVerences between the scheme that was in the achieve these extremely stringent vibration limits original Environmental Statement when this was which Arups placed. It has been very successful, even going to be a site for the launch of the tunnel-boring though, as I mentioned in the teach-in, I think we machine with a very much larger worksite and much called it, the rails have deteriorated in their surface greater activity and that would have involved the roughness to some extent which is why you hear that demolition of Britannia House which is this building rumble when you are standing on the Westminster (Indicating). That will now be retained because of the Station platform but even with that, as far as I know, reduced requirement of the site. It is a very there is no part of Portcullis House where you can substantial building, as those who visited the site will have noticed. It is a high building, as indeed is this hear the District and Circle Lines. building which has residential occupancy and I have just mentioned has been the subject of an oVer to purchase, but the fact that those buildings will remain 4303. I have certainly heard nothing myself and I do in place means they will perform as very eVective not think MPs who use it on a regular basis have ever noise barriers for the residential facades on the south complained or spoken about noise levels to the best side of Princelet Street. 49 of my knowledge and belief. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I am very glad to hear that, my 4308. Thank you very much. I was going to move on Lady, and I believe it to be the case that it has been, then next to noise from construction traYc. We have and remains, extremely successful. It is a very good heard for the nine-month peak period it is proposed example of the performance of floating track slab of there would be 16 HGV movements a day. How the kind that will be installed under Grand Central significant is that in noise terms, please? Studios that we mentioned earlier, under the 48 Barbican Hall and a series of other very sensitive Petitions 18, 20 & 22 in relation to Hanbury Street worksite and noise impacts (TOWHLB-XR5D-001) installations for the studios in Soho and locations of 49 Crossrail Ref: P23, Location of residents represented by that kind. (TOWHLB-XR5E-001) Crossrail Ref: P23, Hanbury Street—Proposed Lorry Routes Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
366 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The way that is assessed is to (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, I frequently visit sites of include the additional lorries that are predicted to be this kind and the contractors involved in very large serving the construction site in the baseline numbers civil engineering projects are drawn from a relatively of vehicles that are using the roads concerned and small list of major international organisations which then you can do a comparative calculation of the are extremely experienced and eVective, not only in noise index with the construction lorries and managing their own work and its eVect on the compare it with the noise index without them. When environment but controlling subcontractors’ vehicles that is done the result is an insignificant change in the visiting the site. I am sure, my Lords, if you made the value of a noise index, about 1.5 dB. same kind of visit, you would be as impressed, as I am, with the high standard of modern control that 4309. MR TAYLOR: Thank you very much indeed. you find on these sites.
4310. BARONESS FOOKES: Could we be clear 4316. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: about numbers because I seem to recall this morning Can I just pursue the lorry movements. Looking at it was suggested that, although it might be 16 going the diagram, eVectively they will only get 16 in, would it not also mean 16 going out? movements past them in a day. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is 16 entering and leaving (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is right, my Lord. the worksite each day. 4317. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 4311. BARONESS FOOKES: But it makes double, Because of this— 32 movements, which is what the residents are naturally interested in. 4318. CHAIRMAN: The gyratory system. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) But, my Lady, they are on a continual route, they do not turn the same way when 4319. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: they leave as the way they enter. They enter from one Yes, that is right, the gyratory system. direction and leave from another. 4320. MR TAYLOR: Past any one point on the 4312. LORD SNAPE: In your experience, Mr lorry route, the most you will have is 16 movements Thornely-Taylor, have you known such restrictions per day during the peak period, as we can see from as the ones being proposed here being applied on this proposed lorry route. previous schemes? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Do you mean restrictions on 4321. LORD SNAPE: Would this gyratory system construction? be used by other Heavy Goods Vehicles? Is it a normal route or are most HGVs confined to the main 4313. No, on Heavy Goods Vehicle movements, the through road? way it is proposed here. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) My Lord, there are HGVs (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it is quite common, yes, using these roads and, in fact, in a 2005 traYc count I my Lord. think about 18 Heavy Goods Vehicles were measured during the three-hour morning peak period alone and 4314. Again, in your experience, once restrictions are that is one of the reasons for the insignificant eVect of laid down, are they observed by contractors, adding 16 over a whole day to the baseline traYc subcontractors, et cetera? plans. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) They are most certainly observed. The feature of modern construction work 4322. They of course are subject to no such is very high quality environmental control and restriction? management of all issues that aVect both noise and (Professor Mair) None at all, no. other environmental issues. The sophistication of the control which contractors apply in enforcing and 4323. BARONESS FOOKES: Of course from the ensuring enforcement of all the obligations that are point of view of the residents, they are going to be placed on them is most impressive if you visit a conscious of the cumulative eVect, are they not, not modern large civil engineering site. whether it is Crossrail’s quiet ones or others which may be noisier? 4315. LORD SNAPE: That was a point raised by, I (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Well, I do not think so, my think it was, Ms Cove on behalf of the Petitioners, Lady. The methods that are used for assessing the that for these lorry drivers, subcontractors, there eVects of lorries are well-established. There have been would not be the sort of insistence on abiding by the many major public inquiries fought solely on the regulations as you implied would exist. Can you give eVect of lorry movements, and the methods that are us some assurance on that? used for doing these assessments are tried and tested Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 367
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues and established as being an accurate way of 4328. In the Speaker’s chair in the Commons, yes. evaluating the impact. Certainly if people are (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I have no idea what caused particularly upset about a project and anything they that, but I think it is probably true to say that in can detect that is associated with a project that is general it was not an intrusive piece of work and it really worrying them, then they may get anxious was a very, very large civil engineering project. about anything that is associated with something that they wish had never happened, and that may occur 4329. MR TAYLOR: Mr Thornely-Taylor, you said because, as we know, as I think it was said in Mr that the increase in noise would be about 1 to 1.5 dB, Berryman’s evidence, this is not a popular project in I think. this area, so there may be people who will be (Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is using the index for disturbed by anything identifiable as being associated highway noise assessment which has been so well- with it. However, in objective terms, the methods of established in many public inquiries. assessing the environmental impact of lorry movements are so well-tested and established that we 4330. How would anybody perceive that change in can rely on them. the decibel level comparing the situation without the Crossrail construction occurring at Hanbury Street 4324. But the total volume of noise, if I can put it in and with it? layman’s terms, will, from the residents’ point of (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Well, it will be perceived view, have to include the unregulated lorries as well simply as more lorries rather than louder lorries, so as the Crossrail ones. They are not necessarily going the 1.5 is actually representing the capability of these to be able to distinguish, are they? noise indices to account for numbers as well as noise (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Not necessarily, no. It is not level, and the 1.5 is actually just accounting for the so much the volume of noise, just the number of times greater numbers of lorries, and not a very much a vehicle passes and 16 vehicles and 16 lorries a day greater number, rather than an increase in loudness. is only in any one hour just a few, one or two, in any Only if a lorry visiting the Crossrail site happened to one hour, so, for example, it is not a steady flow of be right behind a lorry that was on that road for lorries going to a site one after the other, it is just an another reason would there be an increase in occasional extra lorry added into the base flows on loudness because you would hear both at the same that street and road network. time.
4325. Is there anywhere we could conveniently visit 4331. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: such a major building site or construction site where What is the maximum number of lorries per hour, you said we would be very impressed? given that there is some restriction, is there not? We (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The works going on at King’s have got the schools imposing some restrictions, do Cross Underground Station are very large indeed we not? with enormous underground excavations taking (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I cannot give an answer to place, but it would not be possible to visit it because that, my Lord, and I am not even sure that a you need to climb large depths to get down inside maximum figure per hour is available, but, based on the project. 16 for a whole day, it is not a high number. 4326. LORD SNAPE: We are not as decrepit as we look! 4332. MR TAYLOR: I will have to take instructions on that and, if I can find out the answer, I will come back and give it to the Committee. My understanding 4327. BARONESS FOOKES: I was thinking of the is, as Mr Thornely-Taylor has just confirmed, that we lorry movements on the surface. do not have an hourly figure. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It might not be a very good example in the context of Spitalfields because King’s Cross is obviously on the edge of a very heavily 4333. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: traYcked road. It may be possible to come up with an No, but the Petitioner talks about huge numbers of alternative which is slightly more relevant, but there lorry movements being required and I just wanted to have been through the last couple of decades many try and get some perspective into this. Given that major civil engineering projects in central London. there are only 16 a day, I cannot see that there are When the Jubilee Line Extension was being built, likely to be more than three or four an hour. Westminster Station was a much larger site than this (Mr Thornely-Taylor) I am sure your assumption is is and I am sure your Lordships saw it all from a reasonable one, my Lord. beginning to end and I suspect you might not have heard it from beginning to end. I know, my Lady, you 4334. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: For said that you had felt some vibration at one stage. how many months will this be used? Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
368 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The 16 a day is for a period of (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The first thing that came from about nine months and the number per day drops to those Regulations was the creation of what are about six lorries a day for the remaining part of the known as ‘noise maps’. My own practice project- construction period. managed the London TraYc Noise Map which is available on the web and has been for some years. 4335. How far do you tunnel at that time? Nine That is being followed by noise maps for railway months’ tunnelling must certainly take you a long noise and aircraft noise and we are very close to way away from Spitalfields. seeing them published by Defra. The next (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it does, my Lord. requirement will be for—
4336. How does the spoil get back to the exit? 4342. CHAIRMAN: Do those maps show a limit? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The lorries are not involved in (Mr Thornely-Taylor) No, they are simply snapshots spoil removal. The lorries are simply for dealing with of what the noise is in any location in London in the construction work at this site, the construction which you have an interest. You can go on to the web and sinking of the shaft, bringing in lining segments and click on a location and find out what the noise for the shaft, installing the concrete slab over the level produced by modelling, not by measurement, I shaft and generally construction work locally. It is should say, actually is. not a site where spoil is removed. 4343. BARONESS FOOKES: But it is factual? 4337. So where does the spoil go? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is factual. It is intended to (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The spoil goes by conveyer to form the basis of the next stage required by the Paddington and is removed by rail. Directive which is for governments to formulate action plans. These are plans to reduce noise if 4338. MR TAYLOR: I think we will move on to the governments consider it is necessary. There is no last point, Mr Thornely-Taylor, about the mandatory requirement to reduce noise and some ventilation shaft itself, when it is actually operating, governments will do things. For example, in and it is fan noise in particular we are concerned with. continental Europe, they have a problem which we A number of Petitioners, including the coalition of do not have of a particularly noisy kind of freight residents and Petitioners of Woodseer Street and the wagon on the railways and they can reduce it by Hanbury Street residents, have requested in their changing the type of brake-blocks that are used. We Petitions “the provision of noise requirements that do not use that type of brake-block and it does not meet the standards of the EC Environmental Noise arise here, but that is something that will be in the Directive”. Now, can you help the Committee please action plans of many European countries as far as as to what standards does the EC Environmental railway noise is concerned. But we do not know what Noise Directive prescribe? DEFRA are going to do in terms of their action plan. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) None. It is not a Directive for According to the Directive they have until July this prescribing noise standards. It is a Directive for year to issue their proposals and we will see what they achieving certain strategic actions on the part of come up with, but there is no indication that they member governments, for example, noise mapping, propose noise limits of any kind and they are not the formation of noise action plans and measures of required to under the Directive or the regulations that kind. It leads to individual Member State that implement the Directive. governments’ decisions as to what noise limits they should locally apply. 4344. CHAIRMAN: So, Mr Thornely-Taylor, when one of the Petitioners says that the Directive provides 4339. CHAIRMAN: This is 2002/49, is it not? the framework for noise mapping on railways to (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, my Lord. ensure the imposition of standards designed to protect residents, is that an accurate description of 4340. MR TAYLOR: That Directive, as I the Directive? understand it, has been transposed into England in (Mr Thornely-Taylor) No, it is to enable the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations governments to formulate limits if they consider 2006. them necessary; there is no mandatory requirement. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes. 4345. MR TAYLOR: What indication has the UK 4341. Can you just explain briefly please what those government given as to whether it will be introducing Regulations require the Secretary of State to do and limit values? whether they define noise limit values that are (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The indications are that it will appropriate to apply in respect of anything? not be introducing limit values. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 369
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
4346. MR TAYLOR: I do not know if it would help 40 L upper limit for the operation of trains and the Committee but we have in the course of tunnelsAmax so,S the policy is that the marginal conclusion preparation a note relating to the Environmental where the rating level is five above background is the Noise Directive and how it is being transposed into upper limit. But in most cases, for the same sorts of UK law, which we can provide, if that would be of reasons, the application of acoustical engineering to assistance on this point, because it really is rather a the design of the shafts and the fans will produce matter of submission rather than evidence. much better than that, and in fact the Petitioners in the Hanbury Street area have been given the report 4347. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we could not hear prepared for Crossrail showing that in many cases you. the noise level from a shaft will be much, much better than that—we only need to retain that as an upper 4348. MR TAYLOR: I beg your pardon. We have in limit for the few cases where space constraints, the course of preparation a note relating to the way engineering diYculty, proximity of the movers to the in which the EC Noise Directive is being transposed windows concerned is very short. And even then into UK legislation, which may assist the Committee there are still acceptable noise limits as a result of the in its consideration of this issue. Obviously I am in application of this policy. your hands as to whether or not you want to receive that. 4354. CHAIRMAN: Just before we leave 4142, I remember one of Petitioners saying that it is not very 4349. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman, robust, it is all based upon people complaining and if there are no particular limitations or directions it there may be lots of people who do not bother to may be of academic rather than practical interest. complain and so therefore there is no validity in it. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is a valid criticism to say 4350. MR TAYLOR: Which is actually what the that complaints are not a complete measure of note concludes! I am in your hands on that. people’s response to something, but it is also true to say that as a policy and as an approach it is the same 4351. CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. It will turn up one that has been applied to the Jubilee Line in the form of some sort of regulation in due course. Extension and to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, It will go to the Merits of Statutory Instruments which also has ventilation shafts, and there is Committee, who may or may not remark upon it; it absolutely no indication of any problem, whether may get debated in the Chamber. through complaints or general rumours or information or indications of any kind, that there is 4352. MR TAYLOR: I am obliged. Moving away a noise problem from these shafts. I think your from the European Noise Directive, Mr Thornely- Lordships and your Ladyship will not be surprised, Taylor, what is the approach that is going to be having had the experience of visiting the Culling adopted to the control of noise from the shaft that is Road shaft, this is not an intrusive kind of noise; it is proposed at Hanbury Street? not the kind of source that you would expect to give (Mr Thornely-Taylor) The approach is to use the rise to complaints or to other eVects which do not British standard which exists for the design of fixed necessarily come through as complaints. installations, as I refer to them. It can be used more widely than that, but in the Crossrail context that 4355. MR TAYLOR: In that vein, Mr Thornely- means fixed plant such as ventilation shafts. This is Taylor, to counter criticisms of the adoption of based on a means of predicting whether or not BS4142, current planning guidance policy on noise is complaints are likely. found in PPG24, I believe. (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it is. 4353. CHAIRMAN: This is 4142? (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is, my Lord. There is a 4356. What does that planning guidance suggest system which I explained on day one, which leads to should be used as a methodology for assessing the a conclusion that at a level where the rating level impact of noise from industrial sources? exceeds the background by around ten you can (Mr Thornely-Taylor) It recommends the use of expect complaints; if the rating level exceeds the BS4142, and I do not think there is any better background by around five it is marginal as regards alternative. In fact, we as a country are ahead of most complaints; and then it says, quite rightly, that if it is of the rest of the world in taking the approach that ten below the background that it is a positive you get in BS4142 where you compare the noise with indication that complaints are unlikely and the the background. Most countries, such as France, reason is that the noise would be completely other European countries, just set a limit whether or inaudible. The Crossrail approach is rather like the not the background is high or low and I think we are groundborne noise approach where just as there is a actually ahead of the game in this country. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [E] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
370 committee on the crossrail bill: evidence
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
4357. BARONESS FOOKES: I think residents are way impaired by the disapplication. As I think your entitled to very high standards, and I think in Lordships will be aware, there were some hearings in Spitalfields and elsewhere they are also. Can you say court about construction noise issues on the Channel that if you set this down in Millionaire’s Row or Tunnel Rail Link. As far as I am aware, the law somewhere that they would have no cause for operated totally satisfactorily; from the point of the complaint, because what would be acceptable for residents I do not think anybody was disadvantaged them should be also the entitlement of the residents as a result of any disapplication. It means that having of Spitalfields? settled with the local authority what are the best (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, my Lady. In fact practicable means, possibly even settled through an Millionaire’s Row is likely to suVer worse than appeal process, the contractor then has certainty as people of lower means because they can aVord air to what he has to do, what he shall do and what he conditioning and they are the people who have shall not do. The opportunity for a single person to outside their bedroom windows next door’s air cool go direct to a magistrates’ court—that provision is condenser running, running their air conditioning, not necessary and the uncertainty that it could and that is quite as problem. But it is perfectly true to produce makes it very diYcult to have an orderly say that all residents are entitled to expect modern, management of the noise and vibration of a project high standards of design, and that is indeed what such as this. Crossrail will achieve.
4358. MR TAYLOR: I have no further questions of 4360. That is the clause 20 disapplication. There is Mr Thornely-Taylor. also another one which provides a defence if there are proceedings brought for statutory nuisance for noise. 4359. CHAIRMAN: May I ask you one thing, Mr This is clause 21. There is a defence if it relates to Thornely-Taylor? I am trying to pick up the points in works which are permitted by the Bill. I imagine that these petitions because there is nobody here and I is a common form too. must try and do my best to cover the ground. In this (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, and indeed it is very Bill there is a disapplication of certain controls by similar to the defence which arises from the grant of local authorities and one disapplication is noise. I a Section 61 application. I was a member of Sir Hilary have little doubt that this is common practice with Scott’s Committee, back in the early-1970s which projects of this sort where there is private legislation drafted that part of the Control of Pollution Act or hybrid legislation. Have you any experience of 1974, and it has been in operation since then, other cases—it must have been so with the Jubilee increasingly so in recent years, quite apart from any Line Extension and the Channel Tunnel, I would specific disapplications in specific Acts. If you have have thought—where there has been a disapplication got a Section 61 consent it is a defence against of the statutory controls under the Control of statutory nuisance procedures that you have Pollution Act and the local authorities’ enforcement complied with the terms of the consent. It is only the powers. What has actually happened? removal of the direct route to a magistrates’ court (Mr Thornely-Taylor) My Lord, I can think of two that arises from the disapplication. disapplications. One is the right to go direct to a magistrate for statutory nuisance. Is that the one you had in mind? That appears in almost all modern Bills 4361. So is clause 21 a common form, providing for and Transport and Works Orders, simply because the a defence? uncertainty involved is very diYcult to manage. The (Mr Thornely-Taylor) In my experience of being an process which occurs for construction noise involves expert in Bills in Parliament, Transport and Works applying to a local authority for consent under Orders and Harbour Revision Orders, these Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act for disapplications come through in all those cases. carrying out construction works, and you have to prove that you would use the best practicable means to control noise. A local authority can either refuse the application or approve it with conditions. One of 4362. What do the local authorities say? the other disapplications is to do with the method of (Mr Thornely-Taylor) In recent years I think they appeal—appeals go to the Secretary of State instead have recognised them as normal for very large, civil- of to a magistrates’ court. Both these disapplications engineering projects. It is true to say that when this were in the Jubilee Line Act and in the Thameslink first appeared, at the time, I think, of the Jubilee Line Transport and Works Orders and the Channel Extension, there was some concern, but I am Tunnel Rail Link Act. I imagine, though I cannot say unaware of local authorities being concerned now, for sure, the East London Line is in a similar position. given the widespread practice of including these What has happened as a result has not been in any provisions in Bills and Orders. Processed: 14-08-2008 19:29:08 Page Layout: LOENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 401848 Unit: PAG1
committee on the crossrail bill: evidence 371
12 March 2008 Spitalfields—Noise Issues
4363. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 4373. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Yes, we are grateful. 4364. MR TAYLOR: My Lords, I find myself in the same position that Mr Mould found himself in a 4374. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again for your help. short while ago. I have got submissions that I can (Mr Thornely-Taylor) Thank you, my Lord. make about the noise issues in relation to the Spitalfields Petitions, which I can do now very briefly, 4375. MR TAYLOR: Thank you. or I can do it at a later date if you would prefer that. The witness withdrew 4365. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to go through 4376. MR ELVIN: Just before the Committee rises points in the Petitions? for the day, I promised, in response to a question earlier in the week, two of the latest project bulletins 4366. MR TAYLOR: I was not going to go which are circulated to residents. I said I would through points. provide the Committee with two examples. I will give them to Mr Hackett for circulation to the 4367. CHAIRMAN: Not with Mr Thornely-Taylor. Committee.
4368. MR TAYLOR: Not with Mr Thornely- 4377. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Elvin. Taylor. I was rather just going to summarise what our position is on the noise issues. 4378. MR ELVIN: Can I also say that the latest message I have had suggests that Mr Berryman is 4369. CHAIRMAN: It does not matter. The point is feeling better and that he expects to be able to attend that I do not want to keep Mr Thornely-Taylor here tomorrow. if he is not going to be needed for answering questions. You can address us tomorrow. 4379. CHAIRMAN: So the Spitalfields Society and Mr Berryman to answer questions from them.
4370. MR TAYLOR: I can indeed. 4380. MR ELVIN: There will be the issue of alternative alignments raised, I am sure, but that will 4371. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody want to ask Mr come in the morning, along with Mr Schabas and Thornely-Taylor any questions? Mr Horton.
4372. BARONESS FOOKES: You have been 4381. CHAIRMAN: In that case we will reassemble extraordinarily helpful. at 10 tomorrow.
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery OYce Limited 8/2008 401848 19585