UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 837-xxix

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY TWENTY-NINE

Tuesday 9 May 2006

Before:

Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair

Mr Philip Hollobone

Kelvin Hopkins

Mrs Siān C James

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

Mrs Linda Riordan

Sir Peter Soulsby

 

Ordered that Counsel and Parties be called in.

7507. CHAIRMAN: Can I remind everybody here present and also the visitors who are here today that I will suspend the Committee for about ten minutes or so at 11.30 so that people can get a tea or coffee along the corridor in the upper waiting hall. Before we start today can I ask Mr Elvin to tell us about the second set of additional provisions to the Bill?

7508. MR ELVIN: Yes, sir. Today the Secretary of State will deposit or has deposited the second set of additional provisions, together with the accompanying Environmental Statement. That will also be available on the website and copies will be available of the Environmental Statement in the normal way, as has been the case with the other Environmental Statements accompanying the other parts of the Bill. The second set of additional provisions covers a number of matters: for example, it includes the provisions for the new crossover from Farringdon to Liverpool Street in substitution for those in the Bill. It includes provision for the diversion of the Abbey Mills and Wick Lane sewers, for the provision of the new road and reinstatement of the travellers' site at Alma Street in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and various other provisions.

7509. Sir, the provision as set out in a letter to the Clerk a week or so ago is that the intention, subject of course to the Committee's direction, is that the Petitions should be heard, if possible, before the summer recess; and it is also proposed, with suitable consultation, again, subject to the Committee's direction, that the rule of thumb we have been applying so far, which is that four weeks should elapse from sending out the Department's Petition Response document to the Petitioners setting out our position on their Petitions, currently four weeks from receipt of that document to any hearing date, might be reduced in order to accommodate hearing before the summer recess, again subject to any direction from the Committee.

7510. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The Committee members have had a conversation on this particular matter and we regret that there might be a slight reduction of time notice given to the Petitioners, but we are more than sure that the Promoters will do their very, very best to ensure that adequate time is given to people to make their representations, so we are happy with what you are proposing.

7511. MR ELVIN: I am grateful, sir. The important thing is that we get over to the Petitioners what our case is going to be to the Committee in good time so that they are under no doubt what our position is, because that is the whole purpose of the Petition Response document, and we will do what we can to frontload that information as early as possible to assist in that way, sir.

7512. Sir, on the first item of business this morning, Mr Taylor is handling the Petition from Mr and Mrs King; I shall only be dealing with the Greenwich Petition.

 

The Petition of Jonathan and Angela King.

The Petitioners appeared in person.

7513. MR TAYLOR: Sir, Mr and Mrs King live at 86 Fenman Gardens, Goodmayes in Essex. You have a plan that will show the location of their property. We can see that it lies just to the south of Goodmayes station and abuts the location of the proposed replacement freight loop on the Great Eastern Main Line. The proposed new loop will extend for just over two kilometres and connects with the main line to the east of Goodmayes Station and just west of Chadwell Heath Station. It runs parallel to the existing Great Eastern main line on disused track bed. The loop will enable freight trains to be overtaken by passenger trains between Shenfield and Stratford and it replaces an existing loop at Manor Park, which has to be removed as a result of work at Manor Park Station to extend the platform so as to accommodate the longer Crossrail trains. The Petitioners wish to ensure that the freight loop is not constructed because of the potential impact on their property from noise vibration and other environmental impacts, and they have asked for an alternative location to be considered. In a nutshell those are the points that Mr King is going to present to the Committee today.

7514. MR KING: Sir, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the Committee. The first thing I want to say is that we have no interest in Crossrail at all in the sense that we are for it or we are not against it. We bought a house that backed on to railway property, but there was some considerable distance between our living quarters and the express line and then the local line, and we have become accustomed to that. What we are concerned with is that all of this property that you see there, Fenman Gardens, Expressway, was actually all railway property - it was all goods yards and depots many years ago, and it was recently sold about 12 to 13 years ago for some residential development, the ribbon development along the railway line there. In between the proposed location of the loop and the actual express line is a fence all the way down and then fence again abutting our property. One of the questions we did ask our solicitors was, was there a proposal for any use or reinstatement of that railway line, and we were told no. So I think that there is a degree of slightly unethical behaviour to sell property for development and then claim that you can still build right up to the boundary when we are told that for safety reasons they had left this abutment between us and the express line. The other thing is the reason I wanted to make my statement here this morning - and I know I am the only one from Redbridge - is that there is a degree of inconsistency in statements which have been taken from the first documentation available to documentation that was most recently sent to me this weekend and in fact on Friday.

7515. It also seems that a lot of the statements in terms of the Environmental Statement are very general about the Crossrail line itself and not overly specific to us, although I know that the vibration calculations are specific to us and I would have gladly given the opportunity for someone to come round and measure the current vibration situation, which is actually worse at the front of the house than the back and actually travels through the clay underneath. So it is worse at the front than the back. They could have had some real measurements to model them rather than model the model.

7516. Noise is an issue. Whilst we are used to passing high speed trains, where it is kind of like - it is coming, it has gone, with the goods trains - and we suffer this a lot with the express line anyway - when they sit there - and they are normally diesel electric trains, and we had an instance of this all day Saturday and all day Sunday, including Saturday night - a diesel works train sitting there with its engine idling in itself is not a nuisance, that level of noise if you measured it at a given point in time; but if you then listened to it for nearly 36 hours on a hot, balmy night and you need to close your window it becomes extremely annoying. And the rattling through on the track is definitely going to have an effect on us - most definitely.

7517. It says in the Bill statement that they are going to reinstate the track but it is unclear whether they are going to reinstate one line or two lines - an up and a down. I do have one technical question - and I have not been able to ascertain the answer to it - the freight loop at Manor Park, I am not sure whether it serves the up line or the down line and I would like an answer to that, if possible, this morning because I am not convinced that we are serving like for like. My understanding is that the freight loop serves what I call the down line, the line going away from London and the freight loop where we live will serve the up line, Southend to London. The Statement says that the letter that we have recently received was that there was to be a training crossover. If there is a proposal for a training crossover - and it is difficult to make out from the picture because it actually goes down the middle of the two lines there - so that that does serve the down line and not the up line, then there is no training crossover at the other end. So how is it going to cross over the up line to get to the down line? Clearly if you are coming from the right hand side of the road to cross over to the left and you need to get back to the right hand side again you have to cross over another line, and that is not shown there. So I have strong suspicion that there will be two lines there - a very strong suspicion that there will be two lines there. There is one currently there, and it is all in bits and pieces, that abuts right up to the railwaymen's club. If you go back to the plan there is a railwaymen's club there and the line actually abuts right up to that and there is space enough for another line between that and our fence. You see 88 and 95, those two figures there, that is the railwaymen's club, and that is a brick building which in fact has afforded us some protection from the noise of the railway, and we were aware of that. So that has afforded us some protection, but of course now there is a proposal to bring that noise the other side of that building much closer to our fence.

7518. Also we address the issue of lighting in the Petition and there was merely a reference to the lighting that exists. Yes, we cannot argue that that exists; you have to light everything up and it is no worse than Tesco's - it is just an awful situation round there, but it is no worse. However, they are proposing that there should be a walkway down this line, so my question is: is the walkway to be between my fence and the line or between the line and that workmen's affair? Is that going to be lit? And it tells me that I suspect it will be lit, but they have avoided that issue. The other thing is, we asked if the electric power cables were going to be brought up to our fence because some of these are electric freight engines, they are not all diesel. That was actually addressed in the Environmental Statement in terms of our concerns over power and its effect on our health, but that was not addressed. They are merely talking about the effects of 25 kilowatts and the distance it is at the moment, not the effect of it being that much closer to our house. Also, whilst they talk about security they do not actually tell us what the security measures are. Just to the left, as you are looking at that screen, Petition 102, number 86, just to the left is a car park there. In actual fact where that dotted line breaks there is actually a break in the fence to some sort of huge gas meter and children regularly go through that and on to the line at the back there, and whilst we try to protect it and stop the children going as far as possible we cannot do it all the time. We have phoned the railway people and you get the people saying - it is the track, it is the train operator, it is the track, it is the train operator, and so on. And we have informed the local policeman to keep his eye on them. There is a whole issue of security and access to the back of our properties.

7519. Also drainage. It is clay there and there has already been a major pipe put down the bottom of the gardens to drain that area because of problems with developing it, and they had to have this additional drainpipe in there to drain the area. My concern is that any further drainage could affect - it would be detrimental over the years, I appreciate that - clay sub-foundations that are there.

7520. The final thing that personally upset me - and I am sorry to say it, but it did personally upset me - if I could take you to the diagram that I was emailed on Friday? It is NE6(ii). I got that on Saturday, after being told that this Committee had been cancelled for the day that I was due to come here - and not being privy to that - and also asked if I was still going to petition. I am sorry, but I am the only one from Redbridge. I did not get that until Saturday and it is a little bit insulting when I have raised issues about protection, environmental and what have you, that everyone all around me, either side of me, is labelled "May be eligible for noise insulation" and all this sort of nonsense. I must be a quarter of a millimetre out of some line or something. I do not actually want that. If this thing has to go through and it cannot be built at Ilford - because if we are going to have a training crossover where we are why can we not have a training crossover at Ilford, and that is all sidings and sheds there? But one can only presume that they are going to sell that for housing because they are building a Romford depot. But they have bought lots of land down there - upset West Ham - why cannot they build the freight loop there? They have bought the land and I am sure they can put it within the confines of what is there. However, having said that, if we must have it I would ask that the Committee gives serious consideration to the requirements, that there are more substantial means of protecting us and that the fence be raised a metre - the fence that is there be raised a metre - and that there actually be a proper security fence between the fence that is there and perhaps a foot spare and a proper high security fence so that if anyone does manage to get on to the railway property they cannot get back over on to our property.

7521. Just to sum up: is it two lines or one? Which way is it going? Is it serving the up line or the down line? If it is serving the up line is there a crossover? If there is a crossover at the western end why is there not one at the eastern end? I just think that at the end of the day this has not really been fully thought out. The initial responses have slowly been improved upon over time and hopefully will be as a consequence of today. Thank you, sir.

7522. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr King. Before we start, Mr Taylor, I want to comment that I really do think it is unsatisfactory that people should be receiving documents so close to the hearing like this, and we have to do better.

7523. MR TAYLOR: Sir, the plan that you have in front of you is actually a plan from the Environmental Statement, which has been available to the members of the public for a considerable period of time and is available online.

7524. CHAIRMAN: Bearing in mind that we are coming to this hearing and bearing in mind that you had it in mind to send them this then perhaps it might be better if you sent it just a shade earlier.

7525. MR TAYLOR: I hear what you say, sir. Sir, I was proposing to call Mr Keith Berryman to explain the operation of the freight route to the Committee to deal with the concerns that Mr King has raised.

 

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled

Examined by MR TAYLOR

7526. MR TAYLOR: Mr Berryman, of course, is well known to the Committee. Mr Berryman, can you explain why Crossrail is constructing a new loop line in this location?

(Mr Berryman) A freight loop is required on this section of line to enable freight trains to be overtaken by passenger trains between Shenfield and Stratford. This is particularly the case where a freight train is running out of course, it is running late - very occasionally it runs early - and it gets out of place on the timetable, so the freight train needs to be put away somewhere. There is an existing loop at Manor Park which we will have to shorten because of the platform extension works that we are doing at Manor Park. Moreover, the loop at Manor Park is not altogether satisfactory because it links the fast lines, which are the lines normally used by freight, with the E lines - those are the lines that Crossrail are going to take over - due to the position of a flyover there. So the fact is that that loop, which is somewhat less that satisfactory already, would be shortened considerably by the Crossrail works and we need to find another location for a loop.

7527. In relation to the loop that is proposed are you proposing one or two lines?

(Mr Berryman) We are proposing one line, which will be connected to the up line, that is the line going towards London, and will be used for trains going in the up direction.

7528. Mr King raised some concerns about a crossover being provided to serve the down lines, as I understand it.

(Mr Berryman) There is certainly no intention to provide that. I have just discussed it with the permanent engineer and he tells me there is no such proposal. In any event it would be little use for loop trains which are going in the down direction because they would have to cross over the up line to get into the loop and that would present severe operational constraints if that were to be done.

7529. Are there any viable alternative sites for construction of the loop?

(Mr Berryman) No. We had a reasonably good look up and down the line for alternative sites. There are no sites where there is a loop available for the line and the length at the same time without requiring a significant amount of property. The site at Ilford would require some demolition of industrial property if that was to be considered.

7530. What additional lighting is proposed in association with the new loop?

(Mr Berryman) We are currently not proposing any lighting in association with the loop, there would be a walkway, a safe type walkway alongside the loop. We do not have any proposals at the moment for lighting. If lighting were to be provided - this is something we would need to talk Network Rail about - it would be the low-level lighting which is at foot level to shed a light onto the footpaths so people can walk along. There is certainly no intention, I can confidently say, for high level lighting that you might find in a factory situation or a supermarket.

7531. In relation to electrification, do you know what the proposals are for electrification?

(Mr Berryman) The route would be electrified at 25,000 volts. Much of the freight that comes down particularly from the container ports at Ipswich and that place Harwich is electrically hauled so we need to provide for electric benefits and the loop as well.

7532. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Berryman.

7533. CHAIRMAN: Mr King, would you like to ask some questions?

 

Cross-examined by MR KING

7534. MR KING: In the route window NE6 the things originally available, it says page 4 of NE6 7.23 "a new track will be installed including a U-turn at the eastern end of the track and a new train will crossover at the west end", so that is wrong?

(Mr Berryman) That certainly appears to not be the intention at the moment, yes.

7535. Then that picture is wrong as well which we have seen today?

(Mr Berryman) Which picture is that?

7536. The aerial photograph.

(Mr Berryman) The aerial photograph does not show where Crossrail goes, does it?

7537. It is confusing.

(Mr Berryman) The yellow line on the right‑hand side of the travel area is intended to represent the loop. The short bit of junction with the existing up main line is shown, towards the bottom of the picture there is a straight yellow line.

7538. It is actually in the middle, is not it? It is joining the up main line?

(Mr Berryman) It is joining the up main line.

7539. I am not quite sure what your position is, Mr Berryman, but what about in terms of increasing the height of the fence and putting in additional security fencing?

(Mr Berryman) I think that is a matter which obviously will be formed as part of the detailed design. It goes without saying there is an obligation on us and on Network Rail to keep the railway secure and the appropriate measures will be taken to do that.

7540. Obviously there is another time for design, and I would ask the Committee to bear that in mind for our interest. Also in relation to that, perhaps we would be considered for whatever colour this is on the coloured diagram in terms of compensation. Our property is and properties are nearer to the railway than those that are there do not seem to be considered for all that.

(Mr Berryman) I think others would be better qualified in being asked to give evidence at that point.

7541. CHAIRMAN: Just one thing, I know it is unusual for a Committee, there was mention about a power source which was there which is open at the moment, and I hope we can pass on that information so that the area where children are getting through near to the lines can be dealt with.

(Mr Berryman) That is news to me, as you probably realise, and I will make sure Network Rail are informed of that.

7542. MR TAYLOR: I do not have any re-examination of Mr Berryman. I was proposing also to call Mr Thornley-Taylor to deal very briefly with the noise and vibration aspects.

 

The witness withdrew

 

Mr Thornley-Taylor, recalled

Examined by MR TAYLOR

7543. MR TAYLOR: Again, Mr Thornley-Taylor is well known to the Committee and has given evidence in relation to noise matters previously. Mr Thornley-Taylor, can you indicate to the Committee what assessment has been carried out of the likely impact of the operation of the freight loop upon Mr and Mrs King's property?

(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Mr and Mrs King's property forms part of the assessment that has been made all along the operating railway. Two kinds of assessment have been made: one relates to airborne noise from the operation of the railway using the statutory method of calculation called "calculation of railway lines". This predicts the existing and future noise levels due to the operation of the railway with and without Crossrail. Some baseline noise measurements were also made in that area. This showed there would not be a change to constitute a significant effect using the methodology of environmental statement. The second calculation related to the change in vibration. Mr King mentioned there is existing vibration from the railway and that calls into play the assessment criterion that there would be a significant effect if the vibration dose value increased by 40 per cent in this area, though there would be a small increase, it would not be above that level and, therefore, does not produce a significant effect using the methodologies in the environmental statement.

7544. If we turn to page five in the Petitioner's response document and look at paragraph six for a moment. That refers to consideration of whether or not Mr and Mrs King would be likely to be eligible under the noise insulation regulations of 1996. Can you explain what has been done with regard to those regulations?

(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, it is another facet of the same process. The calculation of railway noise procedure is instituted primarily for the purpose of discovering whether or not a house is eligible for statutory noise insulation and that assessment comes out of the same results I have referred to and the conclusion is there would be no eligibility for noise insulation according to those statutory provisions.

7545. CHAIRMAN: There was an offer for tests to be carried out at the Petitioner's property, would you be able to arrange that?

(Mr Thornley-Taylor) It certainly could be done, sir. It would show a smaller effect from the Crossrail proposals probably than the assumptions done in the environmental statement because I get the impression from Mr King's evidence there was more existing vibration there than one might expect he was indicating, more vibration at the front of the house than at the back. Since the procedure for assessing significance of vibration when there is vibration is to look at the percentage change in the future compared with now, that would produce a smaller percentage change than has been assumed.

7546. Mr King?

Cross-examined by MR KING

7547. MR KING: Sir, this may not be a question for you, but what if subsequently the vibration value increases by more than 40 per cent in reality? What is outcome of that for me?

(Mr Thornley-Taylor) There is a general approach to the commitments which have been given in this House that are broadly covered by the information papers on operational noise and vibration. If there was an error made, then clearly steps would have to be taken to put that right; if there was no error made, then there is a small possibility of some geotechnical feature in the area which causes unpredictable vibration, but it is unlikely that would be different in the future compared with the present situation. If there is a slightly greater amount of vibration at that address than one might expect, then there will be a slightly greater vibration than one might expect and there is no way that the railway operator can deal with the problem which is outside the railway line.

7548. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

The witness withdrew

7549. MR TAYLOR: Sir, I shall make a brief proposal on Mr and Mrs King's Petition?

7550. CHAIRMAN: On the matter of compensation between one dwelling and the rest, might you re‑examine that and give us a note at some point?

7551. MR TAYLOR: I was going to touch on compensation in the proposal briefly. In short, the new freight loop has to be provided to allow for the continued operation of the Great Eastern mainline and the connection to it. If it is not provided, timetable delays will be caused. Alternatives have been investigated; there are very few locations between Shenfield and Stratford where a new loop could be provided. The old railway yard was partly investigated was too short to provide the loop, the area around the Ilford depot is very constrained and surrounded by housing industrial units. The new loop cannot be constructed within the existing railway corridor at Ilford, so it requires a position beyond the railway boundary. By contrast the proposed loop would run on disused railway land and the line within the current railway boundary would not require the acquisition of land outside the railway boundary. The impact of the new loop was assessed in the environmental statement produced by the Promoters, and that concludes the changes to the railway infrastructure and operations during the operation of the freight loop will not give rise to significant increases in noise or vibration at the Petitioner's property. The potential impact of electromagnetic field associated with the overhead electrifications is being examined and that is set out in the RD. Again no significant impacts would arise. No additional lighting is proposed in association with the freight loop. So far as compensation is concerned, if a claim does arise under the national compensation code, then obviously compensation will be payable. Claims for compensation relating to the reduction of the value of land arising from physical factors caused by the use of public works, and that includes noise and vibration, may be made under part 1 of the Land and Compensation Act. If a claim arises under part 1 of the Land and Compensation Act, because of the operation of the freight, then Mr and Mrs King may be able to make a claim under those provisions. That is my proposal in closing.

7552. MR KING: Just finally to say, sir, if the Committee does choose to allow this to proceed the scheduled works that applies to this freight loop is detailed and takes into consideration all the points I have raised in terms of reducing the environmental impact and security and lighting et cetera.

7553. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr King. We will now move on to the Petition from the London Borough of Greenwich. Mr Elvin?

7554. MR ELVIN: Sir, the Committee has next the Petition from the London Borough of Greenwich which is scheduled for a number of days. Sir, there a number of issues including some smaller issues; the principal issues which arise in Greenwich's case are as follows. The main one is whether or not there should be a Crossrail station at Woolwich. There is no station proposed in the Bill scheme and none proposed by the Secretary of State. I will come back and explain the Secretary of State's position to you in a moment, because there has been an exchange of correspondence with Mr Raynsford over this in the last few days. You ought to see the letter, which I will show you in a moment.

7555. There is also a subsidiary issue about implications for public transport, car parking and the like and highways at Abbey Wood, which is the terminus of Crossrail within the scheme and the Bill. There is no issue with Greenwich over the appropriateness of Crossrail generally; they support it, nor is there an issue raised by Greenwich, although there will be by Bexley next week about whether Crossrail could be extended beyond that point, but that is for a future occasion. It is Woolwich and, to a lesser extent, Abbey Wood which the Petition focuses on.

7556. There are some smaller issues, but I will not trouble you with those at the moment. It would help the Committee by using the environmental statement on what is currently proposed to run through Greenwich. If we can start with the key, this is from volume 4 B of the environmental statement. This is the key plan and effectively the area that the Committee are concerned with runs from SE5 where Crossrail comes into the borough and runs to SE8, the border lines of SE7 and SE8. Perhaps we can look at those in a little more detail. SE15, please. You will see here the Crossrail line, the dotted line, showing the tunnels coming under the Thames from the London Borough of Newham and they go just to the north side of Woolwich town centre and through the area shown in yellow, which is conservation area which is the Woolwich Arsenal, partly listed buildings and partly a major site for regeneration and redevelopment. The line then continues to the east. If we could go to SE 52, you will see just below the bottom yellow box which says "visual amenity" a small green box showing the proposed DLR station. That station is under construction at the moment and proposed to be open in 2009.

7557. Perhaps if I could focus in on the DLR and just to the right of that, you will see the main lines of Woolwich Arsenal station. You can see that at the bottom left‑hand corner of the screen. If we could then move further to the southeast, SE 61, please. The line then runs through Plumstead and emerges from the Plumstead Portal in about the centre of the screen and then going further east SE 71, you will see at the far right just crossing the borough boundaries between Greenwich and Bexley, which is shown by the dotted pink-purple line at the far right of the screen, the Abbey Wood station. This is currently there as a mainline station. It is proposed to rebuild the station with Crossrail platforms so interchange between passengers at Abbey Wood between main line and Crossrail is simply achieved by walking across the platform at the new station. The rest is shown on the Bexley side in SE 81, that is effectively the Bexley side. The Abbey Wood station straddles the borough boundary, so there are also issues on Abbey Wood which Greenwich raises and there are also issues raised by Bexley next week.

7558. If I could then show the Committee where it is said that a Crossrail station should be, or rather at the location where the Crossrail station would be if Greenwich's suggestions were met. Perhaps we could look at the Promoter's exhibits at page 106 and 107, please.

7559. You see via an aerial photograph the Woolwich Arsenal area in the upper part of the photograph, the Crossrail tunnels coming from Newham and the Thames and the location where a Crossrail station would have to be if there were to be a Crossrail station in Greenwich is shown in yellow with a station entrance on the south side of the A206 which is shown to the bottom of that.

7560. If we could go to 107, it shows slightly better the relationship between the existing stations, the DLR and Crossrail - I will come back to this when asking questions of one of the witnesses. What it shows is the relationship of the proposed stations and what we will draw attention to in due course is the lack of real interchange between a Crossrail station, given the location of the tunnels, and the other stations both existing, the Woolwich Arsenal station and the DLR station which is proposed and the Committee will see the relationship between the DLR and the main line station is much closer and much better than that with a location for a Crossrail station.

7561. There is no dispute between the London Borough of Greenwich and the Secretary of State that a Crossrail station at Woolwich would have some regeneration benefits. Woolwich is an area targeted in policy terms for regeneration and growth, there is no issue between us on that, and Crossrail would, to an extent at least, facilitate that process. There is also no issue between the Secretary of State and the London Borough of Greenwich that a new station would cost in the order of £260 million to £270 million. It is also not in dispute that in terms of technical assessments of a benefits cost ratio, the benefits cost ratio would be at or in excess of two but, as you will hear from witnesses and our submissions in due course, we say that is not the end of the matter.

7562. Our position is this: firstly, our position on the regeneration benefits is that although we accept there are regeneration benefits if a station were put in Woolwich, Greenwich overstates the case for the effect of Crossrail and under-plays the regeneration which can take place without Woolwich station, particularly bearing in mind the transport infrastructure which is already proposed, that is to say the DLR and the Greenwich waterfront transit. Perhaps the Committee can be shown our exhibit 12 and this is a futuristic public transport map and expanded tube map showing what the situation might be in the future for the various schemes now under construction and proposed came about, it is a map produced by the Mayor. Could we focus in, please, on Woolwich, the bottom right hand corner.

7563. At the moment, of course, Woolwich is only connected by the main line station and 'bus routes You will see from here that the DLR proposal, which is under construction and which, as I say, will be opening about 2009, will connect Woolwich Arsenal with the DLR system and you see that this will create a crossing of the Thames which is a significant venture and, secondly, that the brown dotted line is the Greenwich waterfront transit which will also provide connections within the area of Greenwich and the peninsula and provide connections throughout the borough and to the Jubilee line in North Greenwich. Crossrail you can see in purple does not propose under the Bill scheme to stop at Greenwich, but goes through from Custom House to Abbey Wood.

7564. The Secretary of State's position, therefore, is that there are important infrastructure improvements already in the pipeline for Woolwich which will provide significant changes in terms of regeneration and that Crossrail should not be over-stated in terms of its regenerative effect and, in any event, the approach which has been taken by Greenwich is to overstate the growth both in population and in economic terms well above the projections which are used London-wide by the GLA. Perhaps I can just illustrate that very briefly with one bar chart and could you go to our exhibit 18, please? This just shows you the comparative position as to what has been estimated.

7565. As the Committee will know, forecasting for future growth and employment, population, growth and the like is always a difficult question of judgment. What we have produced in the bar chart gives you a ready comparison between a number of scenarios This is for the borough as a whole. You will see on the left hand side the current London plan showing population and employment The Crossrail High Growth Scenario you will see next. You will then see the greatest extent in terms of population forecasting is the data that EDAW has prepared for the London Borough of Greenwich. That even outstrips the latest forecasts from the GLA which were published last year in the Housing Capacity Study. Greenwich is starting from a base in the presentation of its case which is well in excess of the Crossrail High Growth Scenario and the GLA's latest forecasts.

7566. Can we then, please, go back to page 17? If one looks at the immediate catchment of the proposed Woolwich station that effectively is more exaggerated because Greenwich see the majority of the growth targeted in the area of the station and you see there it is the same four groups of columns. You see the same disparity between the EDAW Greenwich data and the GLA and Crossrail High Growth Forecasts is exaggerated because the greater proportion of population growth is estimated or forecast by Greenwich for the station catchment. We say there is an imbalance between the forecasting that Greenwich is using and the that which the GLA is using based on its most recent data; that is a matter, no doubt, which witnesses will cover.

7567. Finally, and most importantly, the position so far as the Secretary of State is concerned on all of this is a very simple one Apart from the issues I have mentioned, the simple position of the Secretary of State is that Crossrail is already a very expensive project. Efforts are being made to drive down the cost of the project to make it more affordable. The project simply cannot afford another station as expensive as Woolwich however well it performs in terms of benefit cost ratio, the extra £260 million to £270 million is simply, I am afraid, going in the wrong direction so far as cost is concerned and that point is made very clear in an exchange of correspondence recently which is in our exhibits.

7568. If we could go, please, first to page 143 of our exhibits. You will see there a letter from Mr Raynsford to Mr Twigg, the Minister, raising the cost benefit issue and drawing attention to the fact. He says that Woolwich demonstrates a better cost ratio than the Crossrail scheme as a whole and he sends some information to the Minister.

7569. If we also look at the previous page, page 142, letter sent on 2 May in which Mr Raynsford sends the EDAW report which is in evidence by Greenwich so we have not included it, it is already before the Committee if the Committee wishes to look at it and again raising the importance of the regeneration issue before the Minister.

7570. Then, finally, at pages 144 to 145 the Minister's response and there you will see that Mr Twigg writes to Mr Raynsford last Friday and you will see from the first main paragraph that there have been discussions: "I have to inform you our position remains that a station in Woolwich should not be added to the scope of the Crossrail project. I know this will come as a disappointment to you and other supporters of Woolwich's inclusion, but this would add a significant additional cost". Records the fact there is no real disagreement over the costs. "It is a very substantial amount of money and it is important to ensure that Crossrail is affordable, that is why, under the leadership of Doug Oakervee, CLRL are re-examining all elements of the project in detail to find ways to drive down the cost to more affordable levels".

7571. He deals then with the question of the cost benefit ratio and he notes at the bottom of that page: "While a benefit cost ratio is a building bock in any value for money assessment, it is important to stress that the value for money of a scheme is only one part of any appraisal method and does not provide a simple answer as to whether a scheme, in whole or in part, should be built". Then over the page it is for Greenwich to put its case to the Committee, but the Government considers that it is not a good use of limited resources and do not want to add to the costs of the project. The letter was copied to the Mayor and to Mr Hendy.

7572. Sir, the Secretary of State's position is clear, yes, there are benefits for a station at Woolwich, those benefits should not be overstated because there are already improvements in Woolwich, but the base position of the Secretary of State is simply that the cost is too great to add to the project.

7573. Sir, that is our position and I hope it helps to clarify that at the outset, because although there are some questions to be asked during the course of Greenwich's evidence, we have had disclosure of a substantial amount of material from them that we are going to present to the Committee. It is a matter of degree only, the real issue which the Secretary of State puts before the Committee is that this is not a project which can afford to have additional major components added to it.

7574. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jones, would you like to start your case.

7575. MR JONES: I will, thank you, Sir. There is an opening in fact prepared before that letter that you have just been taken to was delivered to me that is being circulated and an electronic version can be e-mailed to an appropriate address.

7576. CHAIRMAN: For the record if we could have this down as A83.

7577. MR JONES: Thank you, Sir. Sir, as you will realise, the London Borough of Greenwich is in south-east London. Its petition is mainly concerned with the south-eastern section of Crossrail. Its area contains areas of social deprivation, particularly in the Woolwich/Thamesmead area which Crossrail would go beneath.

7578. Greenwich's petition raises a number of issues. One matter is, however, of overwhelming concern to the Council, to its members, and to the residents and businesses of the Borough, that is the need for a station in Woolwich.

7579. May I depart from my text there just to refer very briefly to a matter to which Mr Elvin mentioned in opening. The interesting transport map that he took you to at page 12 which has been provided by the Promoters might give an unduly rosy picture of the likely position in the vicinity of Woolwich. You have there a familiar transport map showing underground and overground rail service and also showing two of the various 'bus ways there will be in London, Greenwich waterside transit and east London transit, but not other bus ways The result is a skewing of the impression that is created. If one removes the 'bus ways of Greenwich Waterway transit which is a browny/orange colour in the south-east and east London transit a light blue, one gains a fair comparison across the whole of London than that particular diagram shows.

7580. If I may return to my text, Sir. Woolwich is the main town centre in the Borough and has been identified in the London Plan as both one of London's main town centres and as an area for intensification, yet it is under-performing across a number of socio-economic indicators. The west, south and east of Woolwich town centre there is a crescent of housing estates that suffer multiple deprivation. To the north, the River Thames constitutes a barrier to movement restricting the area in which local people can seek work and the catchment area for local businesses Woolwich cries out for regeneration and I am pleased that that has been recognised by the Promoters The Crossrail Bill could seize the opportunity to assist that regeneration or it could pass by and not provide the assistance that Woolwich needs

7581. The proposed route of Crossrail goes beneath Woolwich town centre, but the station that would have served Woolwich has been deleted from the scheme. It may have not been apparent from the opening that you have just heard, but Woolwich was originally within the scheme. Faced with a desire to save costs, it has been a deprived community that needs regeneration that has suffered the cut.

7582. Paragraph five of my opening, Sir, was written before the receipt of the letter from the Minister on the fifth of this month and you will therefore need slight alteration. If the disadvantaged were suffering because their case for a Woolwich station was weak, it would be understandable. However, the opposite is the case While the benefit cost ratio for Crossrail as a whole is 1.88:1, the Promoters have now accepted revised estimates of benefits which give Woolwich station a benefit cost ratio of between 2:1 and 3.9:1. A Woolwich station would raise Crossrail's overall benefit cost ratio If economies have to be made, it should surely be in respect of an element of the scheme with a below average of benefit cost ratio, not at the expense of a disadvantaged community.

7583. Transport, sir: the current form of the Bill would leave only one major town along the whole Crossrail route without a station and that would be Woolwich. There would be a 7.55 kilometre stationless gap between Custom House and Abbey Wood leaving a substantial disadvantaged area unserved

7584. Woolwich is not only a main town centre, it is also a major transport hub served by over 90 'buses per house. By 2031 100,000 people will live within a 20 minute 'bus journey of the town centre. It is the only major transport hub along the whole of the Crossrail route not to be allocated a station.

7585. The Bill in its current form will give south-east London only one Crossrail station. That would not be in a town centre and it would not be at a major transport hub. Rather, it would be in the overwhelmingly residential area of Abbey Wood at a location that does not and will not have anything like the high level of local feeder public transport connections that Woolwich can offer.

7586. One of the proposals of some Petitioners before the Committee could be implemented at a later stage, the construction of a Woolwich station is likely to be now or never. The cost of constructing a station once Crossrail is operating would be prohibitive and the disruption of services would be great.

7587. Housing: Woolwich lies at the heart of the London Thames gateway area where significant residential and economic growth is anticipated into the future. Such growth will only be achieved with investment in infrastructure.

7588. Your Petitioner will adduce evidence that a Woolwich Crossrail station would be directly responsible for 4,350 more new homes in the London Thames gateway. May I again interpose there. It has been suggested that Greenwich is overstating its case. Greenwich has, on previous occasions, been told it is doing that. When North Greenwich station was allowed it was estimated that 1,000 new homes would be built on the Greenwich peninsula It is now known that it will be 14,000 new homes on the Greenwich peninsula. I can imagine what would have been said if Greenwich had said 14,000 new homes were anticipated when the position of North Greenwich station was being considered.

7589. Regeneration: you will hear evidence of the very considerable needs of local people. At this point I shall draw attention to just one statistic. 21 per cent of Woolwich residents are within the lowest level of subsistence, more than twice the UK average of 10 per cent. A Woolwich Crossrail station would directly create new employment opportunities, whilst also greatly improving access to the Isle of Dogs, the City and the West End The Council's evidence will show that a Woolwich Crossrail station could create over 2,000 net additional jobs, excluding substantial extra construction employment. A Woolwich Crossrail station would enhance the image of Woolwich. The town centre would be able to attract major inward retail and other commercial investment and provide a good location for back offices for businesses in high-rent locations further west along the route of Crossrail.

7590. Your Petitioners, sir, strongly believe that selecting Woolwich station to be cut showed the wrong priorities. An element of the original scheme that helped the most needy in society and has a high verified benefit cost ratio should surely have been retained.

7591. Sir, I intend to call five witnesses: Mr David McCollum, the Deputy Chief Executive, to give an overview of the Council's position; Mr Andrew Jones to deal with regeneration; Mr Nicholas Lambert to deal with the property market case; Mrs Helen Bowkett to deal with the benefit cost ratio; and Mr Bob Chard to deal with transport planning and to deal with other outstanding elements of Greenwich's Petition. There is also, sir, a five-minute film which has been made available which summarises the Council's case, and I invite the Committee to look at that at whatever stage is convenient. Perhaps I could move to my first witness.

7592. CHAIRMAN: We have a difficulty about the film. I will come back to you on that at a later stage, but perhaps you would like to deal with your first witness.

7593. MR JONES: Indeed, yes. The first witness is Mr David McCollum, the Deputy Chief Executive of the Council.

 

MR DAVID McCOLLUM, Sworn

Examined by MR JONES

7594. MR JONES: Mr McCollum, I wonder if you could read your proof please, starting at 1.1.

(Mr McCollum): My name is David McCollum and I am Deputy Chief Executive at Greenwich Council. For 11 years until 2005 I was Director of Strategic Planning at the Council and since 1990 I have been responsible for delivering the regeneration agenda in Greenwich on behalf of the Council. I am currently responsible for delivering the Council's £750 million modernisation programme. My task today, sir, is to set out the high-level economic and strategic context in which Woolwich finds itself. To do so, it is necessary to go back a bit. By 1993, Woolwich, as an economic entity, had virtually come to the end of its useful life. This was the result of years of progressive and catastrophic decline.

7595. I think we can move to the second slide and that is a historic photograph, is it not, showing Woolwich? You can see in the foreground the vacant land and that is the Royal Arsenal site, is it not?

(Mr McCollum): That is correct. In the foreground is the Royal Arsenal site and you can see the raised beach of the Greenwich waterfront taking you through now to the Dome. This picture was taken around about 2000. We can see in the case of the Royal Arsenal still decontamination work going on and you see there the 81/2 miles of Greenwich waterfront.

7596. On the river we can see what appears to be a pier. Are there any developments relevant to transport in respect of piers?

(Mr McCollum): Yes, what you can actually see there going backwards and forwards is the Woolwich ferry, the Woolwich free ferry, the historic ferry, car ferry going between the two piers of Woolwich and North Woolwich. In addition to that, there has been constructed in more or less exactly the centre of that picture, which does not show the pier which has recently been constructed, but it shows that what has been constructed is a new pier which is a passenger ferry pier which is close to the intended site of the Crossrail station and that pier is already operating as a passenger pier, taking passengers to Canary Wharf and to central London.

7597. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jones, could we list this document as A84. (The same marked).

7598. MR JONES: Just while we are on that photograph, we can see the Woolwich Royal Arsenal site and we can see immediately to the left of that a dual-carriageway. What is that?

(Mr McCollum): That is the South Thames Express Route. That is the dual-carriageway which links the Blackwall Tunnel to the M25 and the Dartford Tunnel. It is the A205 in number terms and it links with the South Circular in Woolwich.

7599. Slightly to the left of the dual-carriageway, there is an area containing several tall buildings. It is the town centre, is it not?

(Mr McCollum): That is correct.

7600. Then beyond that we can see typical high-rise blocks of flats.

(Mr McCollum): Yes, those were the first high-rise flats built in Woolwich in the 1960s.

7601. Then at the time of this photograph we can see the Dome and we can also see the Greenwich Peninsula to a substantial extent undeveloped at that time.

(Mr McCollum): That is correct.

7602. Can you return to your proof of evidence and read from 1.3 please.

(Mr McCollum): In the early part of the 20^th Century, the Greenwich waterfront, which centred around Woolwich, was one of the great manufacturing workshops of the world, at its peak providing 150,000 industrial and manufacturing jobs along the 81/2 miles of riverfront. Following the Second World War, this manufacturing base, which underpinned the economy of south-east London, totally collapsed. Greenwich suffered a fall in employment worse than any other London borough. It entered a steep spiral of decline and by the early 1990s the number of industrial jobs had fallen from 150,000 to 6,000, so over 140,000 jobs had been lost, 80,000 of those in a single factory in Woolwich. Woolwich, with the Royal Arsenal at its centre and as a main contributor to its economic and social vibrancy, was particularly affected. On the main social-economic indicators of deprivation of unemployment, income, health and skills, Woolwich compared very unfavourably with the rest of London. Male unemployment in 1992 in Woolwich reached 60 per cent. The Royal Arsenal finally ceased to function in 1993. Woolwich, although a riverside town, had effectively been cut off from the river by the Royal Arsenal site which had now become redundant. By now the area overall had been left with a legacy of 1,100 acres of contaminated land, more at that time than in either Newham or Tower Hamlets. An additional and significant contributory factor for the failure in vitality and success of Woolwich has been the proportion and type of social housing in the area. This housing was largely built in the 1960s and 1970s by the Council and it suffers from the problems of bad planning and bad design indicative of this type of development of the time. Social housing still makes up a disproportionately large part of the housing stock in the residential areas around Woolwich. Woolwich still has three wards among the most deprived wards in the country, that is, three wards in the 10 per cent most deprived wards and two wards in the nation's 5 per cent most deprived wards. Woolwich is the major riverside town centre in the Thames Gateway of London, yet the reasons which underlay its original settlement which flow from the topography and geography of the area still hold true today. Since the 1990s the decline of the town centre has been checked and the regeneration of the Royal Arsenal is slowly progressing. The town is now at a significant stage in its history in terms of its own development and regional contribution as it pursues a post-industrial identity as the premier town of the Thames Gateway London south. For over ten years the Council has orchestrated one of the largest regeneration programmes in the land across north Greenwich as a whole. Vast areas of derelict land have been remediated and are now the focus for new investment and development. The economic decline of past decades has been halted and the foundations for a new economic base are in place. The Greenwich Waterfront Partnership, which was created in the 1990s, and other local partnerships were created to bring together the Council, local community and businesses to develop a joint approach to bringing investment through government funding streams and to attract private investors to the borough. Greenwich has secured government funding, including Single Regeneration Budget, Neighbourhood Renewal, and significant European funds to take forward both social and physical regeneration. The borough is now attracting a significant level of private sector inward investment and is seeing record housing development. In 2004 Greenwich has more new residential planning approvals than Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth put together. The potential for development is vast. It has major sites close to central London. This potential is wholly dependent on continuing improvements to the infrastructure.

7603. We can move to slide 3 and I think there are matters you particularly wish to draw attention to on this slide, Mr McCollum.

(Mr McCollum): That is a plan really of Woolwich which we have already seen several times this morning. That plan of Woolwich, the areas set out in pink colouring, shows all those areas of Woolwich that are subject to redevelopment, but have become redundant, which are about to be, are in the process of, or will be in the future, subject to redevelopment. This is merely to emphasise what I have been saying about the complete decline of the town centre, its reason for being and the whole redevelopment that needs to take place, some of which in the northern part of the Royal Arsenal is taking place, but very little of which has taken place in the bottom two thirds of that plan.

7604. Just to relate the plan to what we have seen already, the Royal Arsenal is the largest single block of pink, is it not, in the top right-hand corner?

(Mr McCollum): Yes, that is right, along the river.

7605. We can see what is obviously the pier of the ferry in the top left-hand corner and the A206, the main road from the Blackwall Tunnel eastwards immediately to the south of the Woolwich Arsenal.

(Mr McCollum): Yes, the highway there and at the top left-hand corner of the picture there is a big roundabout. That is the roundabout at which the South Circular meets the North Thames Express Route which carries on there in a slightly circuitous route, travelling east towards the M25.

7606. Return to your proof please, paragraph 1.11.

(Mr McCollum): Much of the borough's development is on brownfield sites along the riverfront. The Greenwich Peninsula, with up to 14,000 homes planned and a state-of-the-art entertainment centre, is the largest of these developments. It was brought forward by the Jubilee Line extension to North Greenwich in 1999. In Woolwich the development of the Royal Arsenal will provide over 4,000 dwellings as part of a mixed-use development. This will include entertainment, leisure and community facilities. It is close to Woolwich town centre, but separated by a major highway and very little development has taken place in the town itself, yet much of Woolwich is available for development, as we can see. Key to the success of development is the integration of the physical and social infrastructure. The most critical of these is transport and the largest single factor will be a Crossrail station in Woolwich. So as to further the regeneration of Woolwich, building on the Royal Arsenal development, the Council has, with support from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the London Development Agency, established the Woolwich Regeneration Agency as the local delivery vehicle for this part of the Thames Gateway. Berkeley Homes, Tilfen Land and Powis Street Estates represent the private sector on the Board of the Agency. The Docklands Light Railway is also a Board member. The Woolwich Regeneration Agency will oversee and co-ordinate the continued regeneration of Woolwich. Its range of partners will provide the required mix of public and private sector skills to address the regeneration challenges faced by Woolwich. Woolwich, as an historic town centre, has begun to undergo major change and significant development. Whilst some of this development is confirmed and under way, the impact of Crossrail will add hugely to this development potential. Key development opportunities are provided by: firstly, plans for a major new town centre development in Woolwich, involving the provision of a new civic office and 10,000 square metres of retail, a Tesco store, up to 1,000 new homes and a new public library; secondly, the development of a key part of the high street with the provision of 25,000 square metres of commercial, retail and residential development; thirdly, the potential for significant mixed-use development around the new DLR station at Woolwich; and, fourthly, addressing the impact of poor and over-concentrated social housing through the demolition and redevelopment of a large part of the town's housing estates.

7607. We can move to figure 4.

(Mr McCollum): None of those developments is yet committed or secured. The combined total of planned developments will provide significant impact on the Thames Gateway agenda over the next 20 years. The scale of development outlined above is not certain and much of it remains fragile and sensitive to local, regional and national markets. The developments already taking place and the overall ambition for the area require, and deserve, a regional transport infrastructure which adds economic viability and vibrancy. The DLR at Woolwich is welcome and will provide an important transport link on a local basis, as will the Greenwich Waterfront Transit.

7608. If we can just pause there, first of all, as far as DLR is concerned, obviously Mr Chard will deal with it in detail, but will it provide anything like the service that a Crossrail station at Woolwich will provide?

(Mr McCollum): It is quite a different service. Perhaps I can describe some of the residential development which is taking place at Woolwich which is the primary town centre in this part of south-east London. There are major employment opportunities being created, not so much now south of the river, although some, but particularly at the Isle of Dogs and Canary Wharf. The DLR from Woolwich to Canary Wharf will take about 35 minutes, whereas Crossrail from Woolwich to Canary Wharf would take about eight minutes, so we believe that illustrates a substantial difference of nature between a highly valued, local transport system, which is the DLR. It will hugely improve and change our links with Newham, with the Royal Docks, with London City Airport and with the DLR system as a whole, but the DLR is a light-rail system and it is a slow system. Here what we are talking about is the ability to carry large numbers of people quickly into the London travel-to-work area which has historically been Woolwich's problem, that it has been a local industrial area, which was not a problem as long as that was viable, but as soon as that stopped being viable, the fact that it was not in the London travel-to-work area became a complete issue for us.

7609. As I say, Mr Chard will deal with the details about the Greenwich Waterfront Transit, but, from your perspective, how does the Greenwich Waterfront Transit compare with Crossrail?

(Mr McCollum): As I have described, the Greenwich Waterfront Transit will be a highly valued, local service. It largely has a different route, but the Waterfront Transit system, which is an intermediate mode, known as a bus, it is a bus route that will link Woolwich with North Greenwich Station. It is called an 'intermediate mode' rather than a bus, although I think people in Woolwich would tend to think of it as a bus because in certain places it has got a dedicated route, but it is a bus service. It will carry people to North Greenwich Station. The people at the North Greenwich Station can then get on to the Jubilee Line and go to Canary Wharf which again will take about 35 minutes, so again it is a very valued local transport system. Greenwich has negotiated funding into it, has very much supported it and continues to do so, but it is not a strategic London-wide system which will put this major town of south-east London on to that London map.

7610. If you could return to your proof, we are at the very last line of page 4.

(Mr McCollum): The Crossrail Station at the heart of Woolwich would reinforce the town as the regional hub for this part of south-east London. Failure so to provide will create ambiguity and potentially market uncertainty. The Council and its partners are committed to transforming Woolwich into a place that meets the aspirations of the Sustainable Communities Plan, integrating the existing communities with the new and addressing the deprivation and social inequality that currently characterise large parts of the town. Our track record at Greenwich Peninsula, the Royal Arsenal and the estate renewal of the 1,900-home Ferrier Estate at Kidbrooke, which is being demolished and rebuilt with 4,500 dwellings, demonstrate that we have the skills and resources to further these aspirations. The Council is fully supportive of the Crossrail project. It recognises that it will provide a huge step change necessary for the regeneration of the Thames Gateway. We believe that a Crossrail link south of the river is an essential element of the scheme. It would be perverse, in our view, if the only town centre on the Crossrail route south of the river did not have a station if, as is proposed, trains went through the town without stopping. When the Council was advised that the Woolwich station had been removed from the scheme, there was unanimous all-party support to lobby for this decision to be reviewed and reversed. You will see from our evidence that there is large public and business support for our Petition.

7611. We move to figure 5 please.

(Mr McCollum): I have described how, before the Crossrail Bill was deposited, the Council took steps to address serious economic and social decline in Woolwich and the surrounding area. The evidence we will put to you builds on that aspiration. A Crossrail station at Woolwich will cement the nascent, but fragile regeneration of this part of south-east London. Woolwich is the natural central place for the sub-region. It is the centre of commerce and of the whole sub-regional transport network. It has the potential to make a huge contribution to the Gateway and to the prosperity of London and the nation.

7612. Mr McCollum, I wonder if you could now deal with some of the documents we received yesterday afternoon from the Promoter, and we move to the Promoter's exhibit H3 please, which is three slides relating to the Greenwich Peninsula. We can see in the first one the Greenwich Peninsula before redevelopment on it took place. Then, if we could move to page 2, we can see the Dome and some new roads and then, finally, perhaps we could move to page 21, which is the future proposals for the Greenwich Peninsula. Firstly, Mr McCollum, have you been involved with the development of the Greenwich Peninsula since 1990?

(Mr McCollum): I have, yes. I have been very closely involved with the development since 1990.

7613. Can we deal with the change in terms of numbers of dwellings that have been intended for the Greenwich Peninsula as that scheme has progressed?

(Mr McCollum): When we were campaigning for the station at North Greenwich, which was finally agreed in 1994, but which had been prior to that time dropped from the proposals for the extension of the Jubilee Line, it would go through North Greenwich and a station box would be developed underground, but the station would not be fitted out. Now, it was clear to us that this was the key to developing the Greenwich Peninsula, so we campaigned very hard for it. When that development was agreed, there were plans at that time, and I spent the next two years discussing with British Gas plans for the development of, as it was earlier, 1,000 dwellings and in fact it is 3,000 dwellings on the Greenwich Peninsula.

7614. Yes, I must correct my opening in respect of that. That is the problem with taking instructions on materials that have just been received. My instructions are that it is 3,000, not 1,000.

(Mr McCollum): At that time a planning application was submitted by British Gas for 3,000 dwellings and indeed we were certainly minded to approve of that proposal and, as the development proceeded, as the station has proceeded, in fact those early expectations and aspirations, although we realised it was the key to success, were greatly understated and today there is approved planning permission for about 14,000 dwellings on the Greenwich Peninsula which is a huge rise and it is a lot of people, but that is what happened. The aspiration at that time was that there would be a business district and there would be an entertainment centre of some sort and there would be residential development of 3,000. Now, there is an entertainment centre of some sort, which is the Arena which will open next year ---

7615. The Arena is of course the Dome?

(Mr McCollum): Yes, it is now the O2, but the Dome to all of us in Greenwich, with the 26,000-capacity Arena which will open early next year, so there is an entertainment centre, and there is a central business district, but the 3,000 dwellings have moved to 14,000.

7616. In terms of how much money has been received from the public purse for these dwellings, what was the original estimate of valued planning obligations when North Greenwich was being discussed?

(Mr McCollum): The original estimate of planning obligations at that time when we were first discussing the British Gas planning application, which was made immediately following the decision on North Greenwich Station, was that there would be 20 per cent affordable housing rising to 25 per cent in terms of floor area with financial contributions, which were never finalised, but were expected to be of the order of £5 million overall. Now, the planning permission for just part of the site, because, if I can just address the picture for a moment, if you were to slice Greenwich Peninsula, moving from left to right, about a third of the way along, which would more or less take you through the gasometer which is right in the middle of the Peninsula there, that is the remaining vestige of what was once the biggest gas works in Europe. If you take all of that to the left of that so that the site is divided into two parts, the bit to the left of that is what is called the 'Millennium Village' and the bit to the right of that is what is called the 'MDL development', the Meridian Delta Limited development or sometimes more simply known as the 'Lendlease development' because Lendlease is the biggest developer partner in that. Although we were talking about 25 per cent housing and about £5 million of financial contribution, there are two or three planning agreements which have been agreed for the Millennium Village part, which is to the left, and the planning obligations are attached to that, and I do not have those in front of me, but the right-hand part of it, the planning obligation planning agreement which was signed allowing the issue of planning permission last year between the Council and MDL provided for 38 per cent affordable housing and a financial contribution in addition to that of £104 million. Therefore, again we knew it was the right thing to do and we put levels on what we thought would be achieved back in 1994, but practice has shown that in actual fact the levels have become far higher. Of that £104 million of financial contribution, £40 million has been contributed to public transport arising from the MDL development of the Greenwich Peninsula.

7617. So this Council overstates its case, according to the Promoter. At the North Greenwich Station it was anticipating 3,000 and it is now 14,000 and it was anticipating £3 million contribution to the public sector and it is now £104 million and two thirds of the site only. In terms of the Greenwich Peninsula, how important has the presence of the North Greenwich Station been here?

(Mr McCollum): The development of the North Greenwich Station, we knew it was the key. Well, there were two keys. I say it was the key, but there was a second key, there were two keys. First, the land had to be remediated because it was a contaminated site and it is now a remediated site. In 1994 when it was still a contaminated site, what is more, it had no transport. There were two big outcomes which the Council sought. The first was remediation of the site and the second was to secure a station at North Greenwich. Working with its partners, British Gas and others were subsequently successful in that. That was what allowed the development of the Greenwich Peninsula to proceed. It has to be the case that, if that had not happened, the station development around this part of east London would have meant that eventually it would have got developed. That has to be so. It is inconceivable though to me, having been closely involved through all that time, that it would have been remediated in anything like that timescale and it is inconceivable to me, because as, Director of Strategic Planning, we would not have permitted it, for the development to have proceeded at that intensity. The North Greenwich Station is the biggest single event. In the last 20-year history of the regeneration of Greenwich, the North Greenwich Station was the biggest single event, not the Docklands Light Railway to the Greenwich town centre, although that was important, but it was the North Greenwich Station that facilitated this development. Without that, there is no way there would be 14,000 dwellings going on to this site because there simply would not have been the capacity to move people on and off it. Of course the other factor is that, with the station there, it immediately stimulated the interest of the developers. When I took people around the Greenwich Peninsula in the early 1990s, when it was a contaminated, empty site, I took developers around there and they sort of looked sadly at us and said, "You will go nowhere until you have got remediation and a fast and capable transport system", and that is exactly what happened.

7618. I am going to move to your conclusions, Mr McCollum, and I think, in conclusion, you wanted to briefly point out what you consider to be the five key messages of your case.

(Mr McCollum): Yes, I have summarised my particular contribution to this down to five key points that I hope will be helpful. The first of these is the pivotal position of Woolwich. It is the natural place of the Thames Gateway London South, it is the only town centre in the Thames Gateway London South on the river and it is the major riverside town of the Thames Gateway. There are very few town centres anywhere in the Thames Gateway that are on the river. Actually it is a river which tended to flood, but Woolwich did not because it is on high ground, so it is a pivotal position which is the natural central place. Secondly, there has been a catastrophic decline of industry in Woolwich. That case is clear and there is no dispute about that. There is an overwhelming case for the town's regeneration, but regeneration on a major scale. I repeat that there has been 60 per cent male unemployment in 1992/93 in Woolwich with a large population, and major measures are needed. Thirdly, some progress has been made, but really no progress in the main town centre south of that main dual-carriageway we have looked at. It has been largely confined to the Royal Arsenal, which is a nice new riverside site, separated from the town centre by a six-lane highway. The major development in Woolwich town centre itself is still very uncertain. Fourthly, there is a need for major renewal of the large areas of social housing which surround Woolwich. This is dependent on the land values that Crossrail will bring. The fifth is that the railway goes through the town, under the town without stopping at the moment and the view in Woolwich is that that is a perverse thing to do for the main town centre when there is so much potential benefit to be secured.

7619. Thank you, Mr McCollum. Sir, I do not know if this is a convenient time, given your earlier indication.

7620. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we will break until ten to 12.

 

After a short break

7621. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin?

7622. MR ELVIN: I only have a few questions for Mr McCollum.

 

Cross-examined by MR ELVIN

 

7623. MR ELVIN: Mr McCollum, can I just get the timescales clear. It has been mentioned both by Mr Jones and by yourself the point about Woolwich being removed from the Crossrail scheme. Can I just clarify two things: firstly, that Woolwich was never part of the original Crossrail scheme in the early 1990s, was it?

(Mr McCollum): Sir, I am going to have to defer to people better qualified to talk about the exact history of when Woolwich was out, when Woolwich was in and when Woolwich was out of that, so I am sorry, I will try to help if you would like me to, but I do think there are people better able to answer that than I am.

7624. The point being that the original Crossrail in the early 1990s did not go south of the river, did it?

(Mr McCollum): All I would say to that is I am not quite sure what the original Crossrail was. Crossrail has been talked about for a very long time in different forms and there have been different routes attached to it, but, as I say, there are people more specialist in this area than me.

7625. Mr McCollum, you raised the point, so forgive me if I just pursue it a little bit further. The scheme that was assessed in the Crossrail business case and which went for review by Adrian Montague, who reported in 2004, the benchmark scheme, which formed the core of the Crossrail business case which Mr Montague accepted, did not include Woolwich either, did it?

(Mr McCollum): Again I cannot answer that. What I can say is that at times Woolwich has been included, or at least that has been our understanding, but the exact moments of inclusion and exclusion, I am sorry, I will have to leave it to others.

7626. You will forgive me, but I just wanted to correct any misapprehension that Woolwich was somehow removed at the time the Bill came out. The Bill, following the benchmark scheme, did not include Woolwich and the scheme, as assessed by Adrian Montague, did not include Woolwich and we can see that if we go to Promoter Exhibit 029. This is the benchmark scheme in the Montague Report. Could we zoom in on the benchmark diagram please. You will see there, if we look at the south-eastern limb of Crossrail as it is in the Bill scheme, there is the Custom House Station and following that the Abbey Wood Station, and clearly the benchmark scheme went much further into Kent than the Bill scheme, but Woolwich was not part of that benchmark.

(Mr McCollum): It is not there, sir, that is clear.

7627. As I say, Mr McCollum, I just want to get it clear that Woolwich was not removed at a late stage; it was never part of the benchmark scheme assessed.

(Mr McCollum): No, but I think it was at times part of the scheme, but, as I say, I can say no more on that, I am sorry.

7628. You mentioned it, so I thought I had better clarify it. Secondly, I want to ask you about the comparison with the north Greenwich Peninsula. Before the Jubilee Line extension to the north Greenwich Peninsula, there was no station at all in, or close to, the heart of the Peninsula, was there?

(Mr McCollum): That is absolutely so.

7629. The Greenwich DLR Station is some distance away to the west on the Peninsula. It is in the historic part of Greenwich, is it not?

(Mr McCollum): It is, yes.

7630. In Woolwich, on the contrary, the DLR station which, as I understand it, opens in 2009; is that right?

(Mr McCollum): Yes.

7631. That is in the heart of the Woolwich town centre, as is the Woolwich mainline station which exists already?

(Mr McCollum): Yes.

7632. So in terms of that as a parallel, the north Greenwich Peninsula is quite different?

(Mr McCollum): The circumstances of the two developments are different, and I make no other contention to that. The mainline station, the overground railway, North Kent line in Woolwich has been there for a very long time and there was, in that sense, therefore, a major transport infrastructure, if that is what it is, at a time of one of the most dramatic declines of any urban area of London, so that was there then and it is still there now. The Docklands Light Railway, as I referred to in my evidence earlier, is very, very important to us and we have worked very, very hard to support it, and the Docklands Light Railway forms part of our Woolwich Regeneration Agency Board and so on, but it is a different sort of transportation. It is quite different and my contention again is that there will be more specialist transport planners and regeneration people to whom these questions can be put, but taking the overview of this from where I stand, having been involved in the regeneration of this town for many, many years, is that the kind of step change that would be achieved would be comparable, but the circumstances of regeneration of north Greenwich and Woolwich are certainly different, and I would not claim otherwise.

7633. I just want to explore two other differences with you. Riverside frontage is important, is it not, in terms of attracting residential development? You get premium prices for development along the river?

(Mr McCollum): Yes, I would certainly agree with that.

7634. And the north Greenwich Peninsula has, by virtue of its nature, there being a loop in the river with the Peninsula there, a significantly greater amount of riverside frontage than is available in Woolwich town centre?

(Mr McCollum): Well, it is a peninsula. I have not measured the two, but it is a peninsula and, therefore, I suppose it has a higher ratio of river frontage. I would not claim that the same land values would be secured in Woolwich as would be secured on the Greenwich Peninsula and they certainly have not been in the past. There is, however, a very substantial river frontage at Woolwich. It is on the river, it is a town on the river and it is, therefore, unique in the Thames Gateway, being a town on the river. River frontage creates value, but being part of a town also creates value and the circumstances, I think we are all agreed, are different, but it is possible to draw some parallels. I am sure the ratio of river frontage to land would be less in Woolwich, but there is substantial land in Woolwich, particularly just to the west of Woolwich town centre which is still largely undeveloped..

7635. Mr McCollum, all I am picking up is that you were seeking, in trying to rebut something I said in my initial remarks, to draw parallels with the significant growth of north Greenwich and I am just exploring it briefly with you because it may have implications later with parallels. The next one I want to draw your attention to is that, as you have made clear, the north Greenwich Peninsula is in relatively few ownerships, is it not? It has been organised so that there are significant areas under the control of one or a group of developers?

(Mr McCollum): That is so. One of the advantages it had of course was that it was almost all owned by British Gas, so it was almost in its entirety passed to English Partnerships.

7636. That is in contrast with the centre of Woolwich which is in a diversity of fragmented ownerships which is an issue which has to be overcome in carrying out development?

(Mr McCollum): Not entirely, no. Woolwich is a very interesting town centre. There are some small ownerships, so to that extent I have to agree that there is a diversity of ownerships there, but in practice almost the entire town centre is in the ownership of two institutions. One is called Powis Street Estates, which virtually owns the whole of the high street, and the other is the London Borough of Greenwich, which are the two main landowners in Greenwich. I do not have a percentage. It is unusual; it is not fragmented ownership. There is a simplicity of ownership in Woolwich, almost certainly the Powis Street Estates and the simplicity of the commercial ownership going back to the strength of the Royal Arsenal Cooperative movement from which much of the retail is driven.

7637. One of the key drivers, if not the key driver really in Woolwich, is residential regeneration, is it not?

(Mr McCollum) Yes.

7638. And one of the problems that you face in Woolwich is regenerating the large estates of social housing which are not up to standard and which require renewal.

(Mr McCollum) That is so.

7639. One of the issues that you face with those is decanting tenants, getting tenants to vote on new schemes and getting agreement before those schemes can go ahead? You require the tenants to participate and to agree to the Council's proposals because they have to be moved?

(Mr McCollum) I take issue with the last part of that, sir. This is a complicated area because we are not talking about transferring tenancy to a different landlord necessarily in this. What we are doing is paralleling what the council is doing in a place called the Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke. The Ferrier Estate in Kidbrooke, which I mentioned in my evidence, is a council estate of 1900 dwellings, to which the council is working towards demolition and complete renewal, with all those wishing to be rehoused being rehoused. So it is not a transfer of landlord/tenancy arrangements, such as are prescribed through processes of tenant consultation, though of course there will be extensive tenant consultation. All the tenant consultation to date, I have to say, have been that, "We want better houses."

7640. Mr McCollum, I am not seeking to disagree with that at all; all I am trying to put to you is that the picture in Woolwich is far more complicated and is a much more difficult jigsaw to assemble than the North Greenwich Peninsula because of those various issues; it is simply more complicated.

(Mr McCollum) It is now but it was not in 1994 would be my answer to that.

7641. Finally, in terms of significant change it is recognised by Greenwich, is it not, that one of the significant changes which the DLR brings to Woolwich is it breaches the barrier of the Thames; it brings that infrastructure across the Thames to Woolwich, and that is a significant step change, if you like - although I am not quite sure what they are - it is a significant change in the position of Woolwich?

(Mr McCollum) A huge change.

 

Re-examined by MR JONES

7642. MR JONES: Just one matter. Some councils, Mr McCollum, are wholly unwilling to use CPO powers, some councils will use CPO powers where they think it appropriate. Where in that spectrum would you place the London Borough of Greenwich?

(Mr McCollum) The London Borough of Greenwich has not hesitated to use Compulsory Purchase Order powers when it has been necessary to do so in furthering the regeneration of the borough. I would cite samples again to refer to the Greenwich Peninsula. The Compulsory Purchase Orders that were carried out, we have already established, was one main land owner, but there were other land owners and in 1996 the Compulsory Purchase Orders that were placed then were placed not by English Partnerships - English Partnerships used the London Borough of Greenwich's skills and experience in compulsory purchase at that time to buy them out. The council has also extensively used compulsory purchase to assemble sites in Woolwich and indeed continues to do so, and as recently as about three months ago the council's cabinet then agreed to exercise compulsory powers on a site in Woolwich town centre close to the town hall.

7643. Have land ownership problems in practice prevented the council's attempt to begin regeneration in this area?

(Mr McCollum) No, sir, land ownership and land assembly have not been the limiting factors.

7644. MR JONES: Thank you, Mr McCollum, I have no further questions.

7645. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

 

The witness withdrew

7646. MR JONES: My next witness is Mr Andrew Jones of EDAW.

 

MR ANDREW JONES, Sworn

Examined by MR JONES

7647. MR JONES: Sir, there is a proof from Mr Jones. I do not intend to take him through the whole proof, particularly the earlier stages that set the scene. Could we turn to your proof, Mr Jones, and can you confirm, first of all, that that is your proof?

(Mr Jones) It is.

7648. And that you are Andrew Jones and your qualifications and experience are set out as in section 1 of your proof?

(Mr Jones) They are.

7649. In 1.6 we see that since 2003 you have been leader of the work to assess the regeneration case for providing a Crossrail Station in Woolwich town centre?

(Mr Jones) Yes.

7650. You set out your scope of your evidence in section 2. You explain what you understand regeneration to mean, given the definition in section 3, particularly section 3.2. If you could read from section 4 onwards?

(Mr Jones) Policy at all levels of government, from national to local government, has sought to bring forward the sustainable regeneration of Woolwich town centre for several years. The policy imperative for regeneration arises from the real environmental, social and economic problems that the area faces today. At a strategic level Woolwich is located within the centre of the Thames Gateway, which has been identified under the Sustainable Communities Plan as a "huge opportunity", containing key gateways to London from Europe (through City Airport and forthcoming Channel Tunnel Rail Link), and substantial capacity to accommodate London's ongoing economic and population growth.

7651. We have reached figure 4.2 of your proof and if figure 1 could come up on the screen?

(Mr Jones) The location of Woolwich as part of the Thames Gateway and the specified "Zones of Change" is illustrated in figure 1. Expectations for growth are high with the original Sustainable Communities Plan envisaging 50,000 new homes across the London Thames Gateway area. That was raised to 60,000 homes to be achieved between 2003 and 2016. A more ambitious target of 91,000 was set by the London Development Agency and the latest housing targets based upon the London Housing Capacity Study have increased the number to over 140,000 over the period 2007/08 to 2016/17.

7652. In relation to figure 2, figure 2 makes comparisons with the scale of new homes that have been envisaged. Can you explain what you have done in that figure?

(Mr Jones) Indeed. This is an illustrative plan that indicates that change in expectation, the delivery of homes in the London Thames Gateway. The Sustainable Communities Plan from February 2003 envisaged 50,000 dwellings and that would be equivalent to the scale of building in the town of Ayr. The Interregional Planning Statement for the Thames Gateway for August 2004 increased that potential to 59,000 dwellings and that would be equivalent to the scale of the town of Middlesbrough. We then move forward and the LDA's work that I referred to of April 2004, pilot 91,000 dwellings, the equivalent to the whole of Northampton - or broadly to the whole of Northampton. Then the London Housing Capacity Study, looking at the London Thames Gateway, up to 141,000 dwellings and that is equivalent in scale to the town of Reading.

7653. We can see from your footnotes the period of time in which this change of scale has taken place, the earliest being 2003 and the latest July 2005.

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7654. Can you read on, please?

(Mr Jones) Woolwich has also been specifically identified in a number of the Sustainable Communities Plan follow-on documents, with 25,000 units identified for the Greenwich Peninsula to Woolwich corridor, 7000 units identified for Woolwich to Thamesmead, and 8800 units identified for the Woolwich, Thamesmead and Erith Zone of Change. Woolwich town centre has also been specifically identified as both a major town centre and an area of intensification in the London Plan.

7655. Could we move to figure 3?

(Mr Jones) This reinforces the importance of East London and the Thames Gateway in terms of driving forward the ongoing prosperity and growth of London.

7656. We can see there the areas of intensification, and while we are on that plan we can also see, can we not, the one kilometre and two kilometre catchment zones of the various Crossrail stations and the position in the vicinity of Woolwich.

(Mr Jones) That is what it shows.

7657. Can you move on, please?

(Mr Jones) At a more local level the Greenwich UDP Second Deposit Draft has specific objectives to revitalise Woolwich as the borough's primary shopping centre; support a mix of uses, including leisure, culture and tourism; and improve and enhance accessibility to the town centre and its physical environment. Other council documents promote a broad range of aims and objectives in particular to make the borough a better place to live, work, learn and visit. It is focusing upon helping to ensure that the disadvantaged communities can have an equitable stake and benefit from future regeneration activity. The Economic Development Strategy in particular focuses upon taking forward Greenwich to become a first class business location with key objectives to deliver transport improvements and also enhance the role and importance of Woolwich town centre as a retail, cultural and entertainment destination. A number of studies have also been taken forward focusing on the role and importance of Woolwich town centre itself, with key recommendations reinforcing the importance of creating a vibrant and successful town centre by addressing physical barriers and diversifying the existing socio-economic profile of the area.

7658. If we can move to section 5 of your proof, the socio-economic and physical context of the town centre.

(Mr Jones) In identifying these regeneration objectives it is important to establish the specific character and context of Woolwich town centre together with its hinterland. In order to set out why it is critical to achieve comprehensive, sustainable and successful regeneration. Our baseline analysis reveals the following key messages for Greenwich and particularly the catchment areas located directly around the station (across the defined one kilometre and two kilometre impact zones). In terms of population the local area reflects a very young population with higher than average ethnic diversity; a predominance of the less well-off social classes with a particularly high proportion in social grades C2, D and E. In terms of key local occupations there are lower proportions of managers and professionals than the London averages. In the one kilometre zone it has a significantly higher proportion of workers in elementary occupations, reflecting the lower educational qualifications among the resident workforce. In the wider two kilometre impact zone most employees work in administrative and secretarial occupations. In terms of economic activity both of these impact zones have a lower economically active population, and that is particularly in the one kilometre zone, a lower proportion of self-employed, a much higher proportion of full-time students compared to London and England and above average unemployment rates. In terms of learning and employment, while London as a whole has the lowest rate of employed with no qualifications, the one kilometre impact zone has the highest proportion compared to the capital and to England. Both impact zones have lower proportions with a higher qualification degree and below average levels of qualifications achievements. In terms of well-being the study site suffers from problems related to deprivation and particularly high health inequalities. Ten of the wards across the borough rank amongst the ten per cent most deprived urban areas across all of the UK, including Woolwich Riverside and Woolwich Common.

7659. If you could move to slide 4. That was to illustrate the town centre and the vicinity of the town centre, the housing estates in the vicinity?

(Mr Jones) Indeed. It also highlights the location of the Royal Arsenal in comparison to the town centre and indeed the relationship with the Waterfront.

7660. We can see the location of the potential Crossrail Station by the yellow cross.

(Mr Jones) Indeed, and it is in many of the estates marked in brown and it is where the areas I have just described come from, Woolwich Riverside and Woolwich Common.

7661. Read on, please.

(Mr Jones) Although Greenwich is one of the safest boroughs in London the fear of crime is higher than the recorded crime figures suggest. Many crimes remain unreported, especially in Neighbourhood Renewal areas, including Greater Woolwich. In terms of economic structure the service sector is more prevalent than manufacturing, although there is a lower representation of financial and business services compared to Greenwich and London rates and higher representations of retail and public administration.

7662. Slide 5, please.

(Mr Jones) Slide 5 illustrates the nature of the occupiers across the town centre today. Another key issue influencing the socio-economic character of the area is the high representation of social housing around the town centre.

7663. Slide 6, please.

(Mr Jones) And the currently rather limited prevalence of private sector housing. This issue - the lack of a truly mixed and balanced local population profile - is a serious challenge for creating sustainable communities into the future.

7664. Pause at slide 6. We can see typical high-rise 1960s public sector accommodation. Are those normal for the area or are they in any way exceptional?

(Mr Jones) These are typical of the former public housing sector estates in that area that we have shown on slide 4.

7665. Read on, please.

(Mr Jones) Overall, Woolwich is characterised by socio-economic disadvantage, deprivation and inequality of opportunity, as illustrated by its ranking on the 2004 Index of Deprivation.

7666. Slide 7, please.

(Mr Jones) Unemployment rates are high, economic activity low and there are specified problems with a low skills base and poor health.

7667. If you would like to pause on slide 7 because that has some particular importance. In broad terms as one moves from darker colours to lighter colours, what does that mean?

(Mr Jones) The darker colours represent those areas that are more deprived, the darkest brown representing those areas that are within the top ten per cent of most deprived areas in England and Wales. The lighter colours represent the areas of less deprivation.

7668. So, for example, the predominant colour within the one kilometre circle of the station is what?

(Mr Jones) The predominant colour in the one kilometre zone would be the darkest brown, which are the wards with ten per cent of the most deprived in England and Wales.

7669. If you would return to paragraph 5.5 of your proof, please.

(Mr Jones) The holistic and comprehensive regeneration of the town centre has been difficult to achieve in the past and remains so due to the combination of physical, social and economic barriers that are prevalent throughout the area. This is reflected by the local property market analysis that has fed into our research as illustrated by my colleague, Mr Lambert. In Woolwich regeneration work has been underway for many years and, whilst certain site-specific proposals are beginning to come forward, such as the development of the Royal Arsenal, this and others are important projects in isolation. In my view, continuation of this approach would see the creation of an environment characterised by disparate and unconnected inward-focused residential developments, that would not provide the range of services and facilities, nor lead to the improvement of the physical environment at the heart of the town required to create that very platform for private sector investment, nor build the momentum to deliver evolved and comprehensive future regeneration for Woolwich town centre as a whole. Indeed, it is the town centre which should act as the focus of the Woolwich community providing essential facilities as well as the cultural and civic centre of the community. Without catalytic investment providing impetus and co‑ordination regeneration into the town centre, the transformation of Woolwich into an area made up of vibrant, mixed and sustainable communities would be severely hindered. There is a rapidly growing body of empirical evidence in the UK, in Europe and the US relating to the various impacts that transport schemes can have on property, development, the environment and regeneration. Transport infrastructure not only facilitates the movement of people and goods but, through the added accessibility the roads and stations offer, also has a wide ranging impact on land use, economic growth and the quality of life influencing wider city competitiveness. Such impacts not only include various environmental components, for instance through lower car dependency and lower emissions, but also a variety of indirect impacts, such as place-making and enhancing the character of an area that can help to attract new residents, visitors, investment and jobs, thus contributing to regeneration. Thus investment in transport infrastructure is often an essential component in successful regeneration. Furthermore, it is often a prerequisite to change, with early transport investment providing a catalyst to investment by others. As I have already demonstrated, the ongoing renaissance of Woolwich town centre is a key objective in the Thames Gateway for London and for the London Borough of Greenwich. The town centre has struggled to maintain its vitality and viability in the face of increasing threats and lower levels of private sector investment in comparable centres across the sub-region. These difficulties should be seen in the context of the potential of the town centre which is considerable, especially considering the focus that has been placed on economic and population growth throughout the Thames Gateway and the significant changes that are anticipated across sub-region into the future. Furthermore, with an appropriate series of initiatives and actions initiated locally together with the support of catalytic investment, including the Crossrail station, this potential is very capable of delivery. The London Borough of Greenwich has already made a number of decisions and they are committed to bring forward regeneration, of particular note to the preparation of the Woolwich town centre development framework in 2004. A Crossrail station in Woolwich town centre would also play a key role in maximising the contribution that Woolwich could play in addressing local socio‑economic inequality and disadvantage, which I have already described. As a major town centre, the town is also well placed to be a sustainable focus for the step change that is envisaged in economic and population growth across the Thames Gateway not only by stimulating activity within the town centre itself but also enhancing accessibility to new opportunities, in particular employment, health and education. In short, Woolwich would become a better connected place able to contribute fully to the economy and wider London community. The location of Crossrail station at Woolwich would also play a vital wider role in transforming portions of the area to create a high quality vibrant new gateway to southeast London. It is clearly recognised that town centres are vital in achieving the wider objectives to deliver economic and social regeneration. This is recognised in planning and wider government policy, and should Crossrail proceed without a station at Woolwich, which is a prominent location in London, the quality and quantity of employment of mixed use development envisaged is unlikely to be maximised and the opportunity to provide new and existing communities by the strategic location may be lost. A Crossrail station would provide the commercial basis for the ongoing renaissance of the town centre. Without vital infrastructure works, it is extremely doubtful that the step change that is needed could be achieved. Though regeneration would still be expected, Woolwich would remain an outer location with lower intensity private sector investment and development activity. In this scenario, it would not maximise the socio-economic benefits that could be achieved for the benefit of the surrounding residential communities and the wider economic prospects of southeast London and the region. Our detailed analysis work has considered the development capacity and property market activity that would be anticipated to occur around Woolwich either with or without a Crossrail station. This work has been supported by focus master planning in the areas, directly around the location of the potential Crossrail station, to illustrate and to quantify the potential scope and scale of activity that would be anticipated under both scenarios. Two alternative masterplans were prepared to consider the scope and scale of the development activity both with Crossrail and without Crossrail.

7670. Just pause there for a minute. First of all you have a master plan with Crossrail, if I can give you a chance to have a breather for a minute.

7671. CHAIRMAN: And us all!

7672. MR JONES: We can see the dual carriageway, mentioned previously, running across the top of the plan and the Royal Arsenal development, a little bit of it, immediately above it and we can see to the east, that is the right of the Arsenal development, the end of the station box. Then at the bottom left‑hand side of the plan we can see the Woolwich Arsenal station, the mainline station for Woolwich, and the DLR station immediately above it?

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7673. Right very helpful. There, for example, are the DLR station, the Woolwich Arsenal station, Plumstead Road dual carriageway, the Royal Arsenal development and the station box proposed Woolwich station would be something like that, would it not? That is the 'with Crossrail'; what essentially do you wish to illustrate on that? Maybe more useful if you have got the torch so I am now handing it back to you; a laser, apparently it is not a torch. If you could illustrate what you would anticipate in this illustrative drawing would occur with Crossrail in the vicinity of the Crossrail station.

(Mr Jones) Indeed, as has been pointed out already, this is the area of the Crossrail station box, the area pointing here is the northern entrance to the station and the area here is the southern entrance to the station (indicating). These provide an essential link underground from the station to the town centre, but, as part of the initiative to connect the town centre more properly with its waterfront through the Royal Arsenal, the proposals would also incorporate a major new crossing of the A205 and reduce the severance impact of this major highway effectively with a super-crossing which would prioritise pedestrians and cyclists in the area I am showing now. This would have the effect of connecting the Woolwich Arsenal development, which is to the north, with the town centre, the national rail station here and the bus interchange services further to the south. They are effectively the connection elements of the development proposals, but the stimulus of Crossrail station arriving would enable the comprehensive regeneration of a large proportion of this area. The areas that are coloured, that I am broadly showing now, would be the subject of a major redevelopment project including replacements of the covered market, which you can see in a mottled blue, be it at the lower levels of the development with predominantly residential development community uses around that and also office uses for new employment in the town centre.

7674. Can you just explain the colouring? You have got some light brown, darker brown in the shade and some blue colouring, what does that mean?

(Mr Jones) This plan is for more a development plan rather than particularly a land use plan. However, the areas that are in blue and orange would illustrate both here and here would illustrate new development (indicating) and the areas in yellow are the re-use and regeneration of existing buildings, all those that would be related to the masterplan associated with Crossrail.

7675. Moving to the next thing, I think it is important to deal with the shadows; what do they illustrate?

(Mr Jones) They illustrate the heightened development where we are looking at a block development with streets at the ground level but then also particular points where the density development would rise some stories into the sky. That would be up to 16 stories in some cases, a slightly higher development at particular landmark points.

7676. Can we now move to the next slide; what has happened to the shadows in that?

(Mr Jones) The shadows have reduced because the density development in some of the landmark towers and development would reduce.

7677. And the extent of the light yellow colouring on that is obviously much greater than the previous slide. What does that illustrate?

(Mr Jones) Indeed, the light yellow colouring, both where I am showing now and also the south part of the site, illustrates buildings that would not be redeveloped as part of the 'without Crossrail' master plan. There are also a number of isolated buildings that would be unlikely to be developed under this scenario as well which predominantly, because of the lower anticipated development densities and indeed the market interest in developing this area together with the physical limitations that retain the buildings would have in building new blocks around them would reduce the potential for higher density development and maximising develop densities in this area.

7678. Unless there is anything you want to deal with on those two diagrams, can we return to paragraph 6.11 to your proof, please?

(Mr Jones) If I could just draw one additional point out of that. I talked earlier about the railway station entrances which were broadly at the north of the diagram and where I am showing now just at the south of the main road, they clearly are not there in the without Crossrail scenario, without the level of interaction and scale of development in this area we anticipate that the scale of change and breaking down the barriers of the main road together with connecting to the riverside, those opportunities would be limited in this scenario, so we have a far reduced scale of crossing of public rail intervention in this area.

7679. 6.11, please?

(Mr Jones) The outcome of our design and passage analysis has revealed the following facts in terms of population. The impacts of a Crossrail station in the town centre would create the conditions to deliver an estimated 4,350 new residential units over and above what would be expected to come forward in the absence of a station, a substantial proportion of which would be affordable.

7680. Could we move to figure 13, that is jumping a little bit ahead, before we move to your 6.11. 2. What does figure 13 illustrate?

(Mr Jones) Figure 13 illustrates the residential impacts of the scheme with the 4,350 additional units shown in the total bar along the top. The blue bar represents the scenario with Crossrail, the grey bar represents the scenario without Crossrail and this shows both the total outputs and the various outputs from different components of the residential supply, both the residential estates around Woolwich, sites across the town centre and the station zone which you saw illustrated in the masterplans beforehand.

7681. The figure 4,350 mentioned in opening is there in that top bar and is the total of the three lower pairs of bars, three lower blue bars, and the blue bars are what happens with Crossrail so you can see the difference by subtracting the grey bar from each blue bar; is that right?

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7682. Can you read on, please?

(Mr Jones) As the illustration shows that these residential unit numbers were being anticipated across sites not just in the vicinity of the station but across the town centre and the housing estates that currently surround the town centre. The station would provide greater accessibility to and from the town attracting new types of occupiers to the area that otherwise may not choose Woolwich as a residential location. The final point here is these new residential units would result in approximately a total of 10,000 additional people living within and adjacent to the town centre that is enhancing its vitality and viability. The development impetus created by the catalyst of the station would also bring new and improved homes, facilities and opportunities for the existing population, which I have already demonstrated as some of the most disadvantaged in London. These impacts are further described in our background report and visual impressions for the revitalised town centre are illustrated in figures 10 and 11.

7683. Just go to those, please, 10 first of all. This is illustrative drawing, the revitalised town centre and I think 11 is the same, is it not, the future character of Beresford Square?

(Mr Jones) The first illustration shows the potential view from the one of the residential units in the masterplanning area. This plan on the screen at the moment, number 12, shows Beresford Square, the public railway work, the crossing of Beresford Street and where I am showing now the station portal, north of the road.

7684. Can you please read on, 6.13?

(Mr Jones) With specific reference to the enhancing the economic performance of Woolwich, it is anticipated that a Crossrail station with upwards of the scale and scope of job-generating development across the town centre and would bring forth considerable economic benefits as illustrated in figure 12.

7685. Go to figure 12, the blue and the grey bars as before with and without Crossrail, but an additional red bar which is the difference, that is the Crossrail effect. This is dealing with activities other than residential development and separated them into retail, office and leisure?

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7686. Is there anything you want to say in particular about that diagram?

(Mr Jones) That is as you described. This diagram excludes the potential of jobs created through construction processes.

7687. Then 6.13.1 and 6.13.2, you deal with employment impact and you conclude that the construction impact would be the equivalent to 14,000 full-time jobs and 14,060 temporary jobs, and the direct impact would be 2,300 gross jobs and 2,100 net jobs?

(Mr Jones) I do. It is probably worth taking the equivalent full-time job for construction employment which would be 1,400 jobs and indeed, as you suggested, for direct employment.

7688. We move to 6.14 and read that, please.

(Mr Jones) It should also be anticipated that additional employment would also be created across a wider geographic area as a result of the significance of development and the potential extent of wider impacts of sub-regional, regional and even national scale, but we have not attempted to quantify this as part of our analysis.

7689. 615, please.

(Mr Jones) The foregoing paragraphs describe the direct residential, economic and employment impacts which are themselves considerable, but the station would also give a range of wider economic, social and community benefits, whilst difficult to quantify precisely, are nevertheless crucial to the wider regeneration of the area and maximisation of the potential benefit of the site. Such wider benefits include the following key elements.

7690. Perhaps, if I could state them fairly quickly: enhanced access for local excluded groups, hospitals, colleges, universities, key hubs of activity and economic opportunity and diversification, new quality jobs, promotion of enterprise and innovation, inward investment, supporting wider regeneration policies including diversifying the economic base connecting residents to the new emerging economic opportunities, increasing accessibility to disadvantaged groups and creating a new enterprise to culture, including physical environment and the overall quality of life, providing new facilities connected with communities. Read 3.16, please.

(Mr Jones) Fundamentally, a Crossrail station would act as a catalyst to achieve the dramatic transformation of Woolwich town centre and its surrounding neighbourhoods. Its role is not only to assist in delivery of the regeneration of a town centre but also to deliver a wide-reaching and sustainable social community, health and economic benefits in the area of particular need. However, the station will not deliver the step change in isolation, but rather as part of wider regeneration initiatives, and the council has already committed to such activity, as I have already described. Without the station, the successful delivery of these outputs would not be possible. These discussions of delivery are illustrated by the recent history of property market activity across the Woolwich town centre as described by my colleague Mr Lambert. It is clear that whilst some form of development would be likely to occur without the implementation of a Crossrail station at Woolwich, the nature and scale of this activity would not achieve the over-arching vision for social, economic and physical transformation of the town centre and its surrounding communities which is embraced in the Government's regeneration ambitions. As I have outlined above, it is my view that to achieve sustainable policy-led mixed use development across Woolwich town centre, a significant private sector investment and development will be required, but in order for this to provide the appropriate mix of uses, typologies and tenure, supported by the appropriate infrastructure and amenities, there will need to be a significant change in the way that investors view the area as a prospective development opportunity. Incremental change will not, in my opinion, achieve this change in investor's attitudes. Co-ordinated activity and investment is required of such a substantial scale that it will act as a catalyst to promote change through a wider area. This scale of change will be delivered through a commitment to Crossrail which will demonstrate to residents, investors and visitors the potential that can be achieved. The accessibility improvements that would be realised would transform investor, developer and occupier perceptions and provide an unrivalled fillip to the market and long-term prospects for the town.

7691. We are now down to section 7. Can we move to slide 14, please? This is the section dealing with comparison with other Crossrail stations. Slide 14 deals with percentage unemployed, percentage economically active, and I think those are all the stations apart from Heathrow Airport which might be slightly misleading. First of all, slide 14, you can see the position of Woolwich there and that is dealt with at your paragraph 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. Then can we move to your slide 15, please? Percentage no qualifications and we can see there, can we not, Woolwich the red bar. The third highest percentage with no qualifications looks like it is about 34 per cent, something of that order on the slide, and in social group C2, D and E, Woolwich coming up second highest proportion within those social groups?

(Mr Jones): Indeed.

7692. Can you read 7.3 please?

(Mr Jones): This assessment demonstrates that Woolwich is in greater need of investment and change of its socio-economic structure than most station locations along the route and has the potential to benefit most from the inclusion of a station. As part of our analysis we have also considered the relative scope and scale of potential impacts against those that have already been forecast for other stations along the current Crossrail route as shown in my next figure 16.

7693. Figure 16, please? Again we can see little houses and little people on that to demonstrate in the case of houses one symbol 250 units, in the case of people, a person one symbol 500 jobs. We can see a large number of jobs in the Isle of Dogs and Royal Docks and indeed in Stratford and then we can see what is provided for Woolwich. In terms of new housing, what would the impact of the station be?

(Mr Jones): As we set out before, that is 4,350 homes, residential units, that would be provided.

7694. And in comparison with other stations?

(Mr Jones): As we can see here that would provide a higher output of new homes than any of the stations that are compared with here.

7695. Your 7.5.1 you deal with economic impact. Can we move to slide 17, please? This is the additional job slide. You can see the Isle of Dogs has a very large number of additional jobs and so the bar does not reach its top. We can see where Woolwich stands in terms of additional jobs compared with other stations in Crossrail, coming after Isle of Dogs, Royal Docks and Stratford. 7.5.1 you deal with residential outputs. If we can go to slide 18, please? We can see there the largest residential, a number of additional residential units would be for Woolwich station Can you read 7.7, please?

(Mr Jones): The comparative analysis summarises the need and the considerable potential benefits of a Crossrail station at Woolwich in the context of the route more widely and this is a measure of the lost opportunity to meet Government regeneration and growth policies, the ongoing need to stimulate the regeneration of Woolwich and the potential for the town to deliver key sustainable growth outputs if a station were not to be delivered. Optimisation of this potential would be lost if this Crossrail station continues to be excluded to the town.

7696. I would like you to just deal with one other matter and that is a pair of slides put in yesterday afternoon which we were taken to earlier today starting with page 17, please, of the Promoter's documents? This is the chart which is population and employment growth and you will recall Mr Elvin's opening saying that Greenwich had overstated its case. You can see there are various bars for population and employment growth for Greenwich and yours is clearly the third pair of bars, EDAW data. Can you comment on the differences between the figures?

(Mr Jones): I can. I think the first thing to pick up on is the difference in projections from the London plan which is the bars on the far left and the current GLA forecasts which we understand are going to inform the provisions to the London plan and the substantial change in the assumptions for this area over the last few years.

7697. It is not many years, is it?

(Mr Jones): It is not, no. Now turning to the London Borough of Greenwich EDAW data that the populations assumptions are higher than the CLRL High Growth Scenario and indeed the GLA Latest Forecasts. I would put this down to the point that we have had the opportunity of looking at Woolwich town centre probably in more detail than others and have identified he potential under that. I understand also that other assumptions do not include many of the housing estates in the wider impact zone and the proposals to bring forward their regeneration and change that Mr McCollum introduced and also just to point out, I think, that our assumptions here were based upon London plan assumptions of density and so we have not over-played the sites that we have identified in coming to these conclusions.

7698. Two main factors in the difference, one is looking at matters in more detail and the other is including housing estates, regeneration of housing estates?

(Mr Jones): The wider area, yes.

7699. In terms of employment, any comments about the employment powers?

(Mr Jones): Indeed, our assumptions on employment are notably lower than the CLRL Scenario and not that the GLA Latest Forecast do not include an employment figure, so it is difficult to compare those. I think many of our assumptions have been that Greenwich is going to provide a major housing location in the London Thames Gateway south and that with the major employment locations, the Isle of Dogs and in the City and the West End, that that is the most likely scenario for regeneration in Woolwich and its role in the London Thames Gateway and in London as a whole and I think Mr Lambert will come on to the difficulties potentially about diversification of the employment basin bringing in a new office market in his evidence.

7700. So you see more employment elsewhere, but more housing in the Woolwich area. That, of course, was the station catchment at page 17. Can we move to page 18, which is the London Borough of Greenwich as a whole.

(Mr Jones): Indeed. The only points I would draw on this one is that most of the impacts that Greenwich are anticipating would be in the Woolwich area and so much of the change here would be explained by the comments I made to slide 17.

7701. We can see in residential terms, comprising the GLA Latest Forecast, if my estimate is right, it is something of the order of 52,000, perhaps 53,000, whereas your figure for residents would be just under 60,000?

(Mr Jones): The figures for residents would be extrapolated from the figures. We focussed on dwelling numbers and unit number rather than the population that they would yield

7702. These are in fact not actually your figures because they are population numbers not dwelling numbers, but they are based on that?

(Mr Jones): Indeed.

7703. I think that is all the matters you intended to deal with. I do not intend to ask you to read your summary since that summarises what you have already read. Thank you, Mr Jones.

7704. MR ELVIN: Are the Committee sitting until one o'clock today?

7705. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

7706. MR ELVIN: I am not going to be long, but I will be longer than one o'clock. Sir, can I just ask for guidance from you in this respect: as you know from what I said at the beginning, there is a difference of degree but not of essence between us as to what Woolwich's needs are. I suspect the Committee would not be assisted if I spent a lot of time on a lot of the details that this witness has produced.

7707. CHAIRMAN: You were very clear on that point right at the beginning but, having said that, we have the Petitioner's view that they may wish to present that argument, but I think we heard theirs and we have heard your view which I think we would agree with.

7708. MR ELVIN: And I will be calling Mr Colley from Drivers Jonas who will just explain to you a few items. Sir, what I am proposing to do is not to go through all of this material, but to touch on a few points just to give you a flavour No doubt if I spend too long you will tell me, because I do not want to labour a point when we are dealing with a question of degree rather than a difference of principle and no doubt you will let me know if I am going on too long, I would appreciate, because of the nature of the dispute here

 

Cross-examined by MR ELVIN

7709. MR ELVIN: Mr Jones, good afternoon. Can I just come down to what I think is the nub of the difference between us to start with? Can we look at the last page of your evidence which you did not read out, it is the Petitioner's exhibit page 40, page 22 of the proof . The point you make in your conclusion is that Crossrail will stimulate various elements in regeneration that you set out?

(Mr Jones): Yes.

7710. Your view is not that they will not occur without Crossrail, but that Crossrail will provide an additional stimulus, that is to say it is not an all or nothing scenario, it is a question of degree?

(Mr Jones): Indeed.

7711. What you say, if you look at paragraph 8.38, you say it was stimulated and then in the last couple of sentences: "The station would build on the work already under way". Crossrail is an additional stimulus, it is part of a whole series of other initiatives and other improvements which will, in any event, generate a certain degree of regeneration within Woolwich?

(Mr Jones): Other initiatives without Crossrail would bring forward regeneration in Woolwich and many of those have been described by Mr McCollum and indeed I have talked about them in terms of the impacts that could come without Crossrail, master plan and illustration that we have shown.

7712. I do not want to go back to them, but you have put up a with and without Crossrail indicative master plan with the orange and blue buildings and the shadows for the height of the buildings and the like.

(Mr Jones): Indeed.

7713. Cutting through all of this, what it comes down to is a judgment as to how much regeneration will come forward in any event and how much will only come forward by 2016 if stimulated by Crossrail, that is what it really comes down to, a judgment as to what extra Crossrail will bring?

(Mr Jones): It is a judgment, but it is a judgment based upon experience from elsewhere and the various studies of how transport improvements drive regeneration and also based upon the accessibility that Crossrail would bring that DLR does not and the perceptions to the market that other schemes would not.

7714. There is no magic, no one can say that this will happen with Crossrail, this will happen without Crossrail, it is a judgment as to what the difference is going to be between the two?

(Mr Jones): It is a judgment, yes.

7715. And it depends on a number of factors, many of which are beyond the control of anyone to predict the economy and matters such as the influence of infrastructure?

(Mr Jones): The influence of infrastructure has been shown by a number of studies to have a positive impact on regeneration potential and so it is an informed judgment that this is driven from.

7716. In terms of what is already happening, we do not need to look at your report to see this, there are infrastructure improvements which will take place in any event, particularly the DLR, the Transit and further away there is the Thames Gateway bridge which has just concluded its inquiry, which is of course for car borne traffic and the like rather than the trains, but the key point of bridging the Thames as a barrier is made by the DLR, as Mr McCollum indicated earlier this morning?

(Mr Jones): Bridging the Thames is addressed by the DLR to serve the local market to the north of the river, but the fundamental point that Mr McCollum also drew out and I would reiterate is the direct access to the Isle of Dogs, to the City and to the West End and ultimately to Heathrow Airport which is substantially improved by delivering Crossrail.

7717. Again, trying to deal with this briefly, could we go back to the two bar charts that I showed the Committee firstly and you have just commented on which, I think, are 17 and 18 of our exhibits? Mr Jones, back to these bar charts. I understand that you say about EDAW's intensive work on Woolwich, and the point you make about regeneration of the estate, but the GLA Latest Forecasts are based on the latest housing capacity study carried out by the GLA, are they not?

(Mr Jones): They are.

7718. And that is a report that was published only last year?

(Mr Jones): I understand so

7719. The GLA are well aware of the estates' issue and the residential nature of regeneration which will take place in Woolwich, this is not a factor which they will have ignored?

(Mr Jones): My understanding is that the GLA Latest Forecasts do not include the potential of the estates that are coming forward now for change and are illustrated in the work that you have in front of you

7720. That is a matter we will comment on ourselves in due course The fact is that in terms of taking a London-wide level playing field and trying to understand population forecasts and the sort of comparison that you have urged the Committee to do with other stations and their likely contributions to jobs and residential, you have actually done a piece of intensive work of Woolwich, but of course the factors that have been applied to the rest of the scheme are actually different from those which you are applying to Woolwich, it is not actually a like-for-like comparison?

(Mr Jones): The potential that is shown for other stations is drawn from Crossrail's own work

7721. Which is based on the GLA forecast?

(Mr Jones): Indeed and, as I have said, the work here is looking at the potential for Woolwich and what we are trying to illustrate is the real potential that is there. It may well be that there is additional potential in other stations that has not been assessed.

7722. You have my point exactly, Mr Jones, that you have done a focussed piece of work on Woolwich, but you are not applying the same level playing field of trying to understand the forecast in order to compare it with the other stations. Can I also put this to you: it is obvious from this and the other bar chart which we do not need to go to because we have seen it, that the approach that Greenwich is relying upon takes the very highest forecast that is available, yours is the highest forecast that is applied, it is higher than the latest GLA, it is higher than the CLRL High Growth Scenario which is slightly higher than the GLA latest, you have taken the most optimistic end of the spectrum?

(Mr Jones): We have looked at the development capacity within London plan limits that those sites would provide.

7723. It is the most optimistic scenario?

(Mr Jones): It is the capacity with the London plan limits and indicative densities that we have used, at the top end of that, yes.

7724. MR ELVIN: Sir, is it convenient to break at that point and come back after lunch?

7725. CHAIRMAN: We will resume at 2.35.

 

After a short adjournment

7726. MR ELVIN: Assuming that the IT has speeded up a little, I showed the Committee just before lunch the comparative position with regard to the population estimates in broad terms. Can I just look at Mr Jones' figures 17 and 18, that is Petitioner's exhibits 58 and 59? Can we look at 58 first? You made the point and you produced bar charts making a comparative point about potential employment impact of Woolwich versus other stations within Crossrail, and there is another one we can look at in a moment about residential contribution. You said in your proof that this was a like for like comparison.

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7727. It is not a like for like comparison is it because, again as I said to you before lunch, what you have done is you have taken your upper end estimates that you compiled for Woolwich and you are comparing them with the Crossrail figures which are based on the London Plan Estimates rather than on any revised forecasts.

(Mr Jones) Where the London Plan Estimates have not taken into account all of the opportunities that we have taken into account.

7728. So it is not a like for like comparison because it is not a level playing field for the comparison. You have taken your up to the minute highly optimistic assumptions about Woolwich and set them against other figures which are all the lower level across London estimates from the GLA, are they not?

(Mr Jones) Our position is the ones based on our best information.

7729. So this exaggerates the effect of Woolwich as set against the other stations, does it not, inevitably?

(Mr Jones) That depends on the material that has been provided for the other stations.

7730. If I am right that they are based on the GLA estimates in the London Plan you will be exaggerating Woolwich in comparison to the other stations?

(Mr Jones) Yes.

7731. The right comparison in any event is Woolwich B because the Crossrail figures do not include the construction employment figures, which is your Woolwich A.

(Mr Jones) Indeed they do not show that.

7732. Can we look at figure 59? The same therefore must also be true of the residential assessments. That is to say, inevitably Woolwich must be exaggerated in its comparison with the other stations?

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7733. The regeneration of Woolwich is guided by a development framework which you include in your evidence.

(Mr Jones) Yes.

7734. It is in your evidence starting at Petitioner's exhibits page 146. This says "Final Draft November 2004"; is this the latest version?

(Mr Jones) This is the latest version.

7735. Is this the one that Greenwich is working to as the regeneration framework for the town centre?

(Mr Jones) This is the version that was considered by the Greenwich cabinet.

7736. This is the version which is guiding the Woolwich Regeneration Initiative?

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7737. This is a document that was produced in the light of the knowledge that Woolwich was not within the Crossrail scheme because it was not as at November 2004. We have seen that benchmark Crossrail scheme put to Montague in the scheme for southeast London that we see today: that is to say, Custom House, under the Thames, next station Abbey Wood.

(Mr Jones) This development framework is not predicated by Crossrail coming to Woolwich, although Woolwich would clearly benefit from Crossrail and I think we refer to that in a number of places.

7738. Understood and, as you know, there is a certain degree of common ground between us and it is a matter of degree. But the whole of the development of Woolwich in this framework acknowledges the possibility of Crossrail but is predicated on the infrastructure improvements which are likely, and indeed committed, particularly DLR.

(Mr Jones) It includes DLR, yes.

7739. Can we just see what it says about regeneration very briefly, just to give the Committee a flavour, absent Crossrail? If we look at the same exhibit, page 149. We can see the last two paragraphs just to the left of the photographs. The reference is to Woolwich is a pivotal point, regeneration gathering pace; it can be seen in the redevelopment of the Arsenal site, the Greenwich Peninsula and Thamesmead. "Coupled with this are a range of soon to be implemented and possible transport improvements which will add to Woolwich's good train services and extensive bus services. These include an extension to the DLR, the Greenwich Waterfront Transit, the Thames Gateway Bridge and, possibly, a Crossrail Station." Without spending a lot of time on this, if we can then go forward to page 156 in the same exhibit, we can see there that it is dealing with the impacts of new transport infrastructure, and we can see from the first paragraph under that, the second sentence: "The arrival of the DLR and the Greenwich Waterfront Transit will immeasurably strengthen Woolwich's transport hub functions." So all of this is predicated on Crossrail only as a possibility, but looking at these other commitments as to what they will contribute to Woolwich. If we skim over to the summary: "This Development Framework considers how the above elements can be coordinated to provide a diverse, thriving and viable town centre with a wide range of facilities." Again, that is on the basis primarily of the committed infrastructure improvements with Crossrail only a possibility. That is right, is it not?

(Mr Jones) This is with Crossrail as a potential station in Woolwich, and as I think we have noted a number of times ---

7740. CHAIRMAN: We will suspend for five minutes.

 

The Committee suspended for five minutes for a fire alarm

7741. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin.

7742. MR ELVIN: Mr Jones, you were in the course of telling me in response to the question on page 156 that that took account of Crossrail and of course Crossrail is not specifically taken into account as part of the impact of the transport infrastructure in this part of the framework, is it?

(Mr Jones) It is not, and as we note in here the possibility of a Crossrail Station is something that would add to that. This was the position in November 2004 as you so rightly pointed out. I think we have moved on since then and, as you know, our work on the Crossrail Station impacts is dated April 2006 and that work has been underway following the regeneration framework's progress, and consideration by the council. The later work has had the opportunity of looking more closely at the opportunities of in and around the town centre and specifically the issue with the Crossrail Station.

7743. Can I ask you to go to page 170 and investigate that briefly? The position that is set out here relates to Beresford Square. Beresford Square is the area where the old gates are and it is the area facing the A206 and the Arsenal, is it not?

(Mr Jones) Broadly on that plan it is marked as number 2.

7744. One of the key parts of regeneration of the historic centre is to reinforce and shift the retail focus back to Beresford Square, assisted by a crossing on the A206, and the refocusing of development.

(Mr Jones) That is a small part of the framework for the centre; it is about refocusing the town centre, yes, but it is about extending the reach of the town centre into this area.

7745. The crossing of the barrier of the A206 we saw from your earlier master plans is to take place regardless of Crossrail. The pedestrian improvements to make the interchange of pedestrians between the south side of the A206 and the Royal Arsenal side of the A206 is part of the proposals in any event.

(Mr Jones) The proposals that are put forward in the Regeneration Framework 2004 set that out at a strategic level. The work that is underway, that has been completed in terms of looking at Crossrail demonstrates that a more comprehensive and satisfactory solution to that could be brought forward with a Crossrail Station and the work to understand that is now progressing forward in a separate piece of work. This establishes the strategic position and the aspiration. It is helped by a Crossrail Station.

7746. Again, this is a question of degree. The point is that the key elements can be established without Crossrail. Crossrail may assist it and may allow it to be done in a more pronounced fashion and indeed that is precisely what the Development Framework says. If we look at the main paragraph on this page: "Beresford Square, further reinforced by introduction of two new transport modes of the DLR and Waterfront Transit," and it says further down: "Should a Crossrail Station be built at Woolwich on the proposed site within the Arsenal the effect would be more pronounced." And that is precisely what we have just been discussing, is it not?

(Mr Jones) It is and I think that we have illustrated that in our two master plan scenarios. The other aspects to that are about the timing that this could come forward, the quality that it would bring and the scale of change in terms of new communities and bringing investor influence into the town.

7747. As I say, they are issues of judgment and the Committee knows where matters lie. Can I finally on this document take you to page 177? This part is dealing with the Arsenal as a social and economic driver for Woolwich and a key aim of the framework is to fully integrate the new Woolwich at a physical, social and economic level. That is still the principle objective, is it not, to integrate the various elements of Woolwich at various levels?

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7748. Physical connection unlikely to be possible but a crossing is being looked at, which we have just discussed. Implementation of the DLR proposals and the refocusing of the town centre on Beresford Square will also revitalise adjoining frontages, and they are connecting the towns to the commons, and all of these matters again, just to make the same point - and I am going to leave it shortly - are all matters which are being addressed in the absence of Crossrail. Crossrail might facilitate or make the effects more pronounced but Crossrail is not bringing something which is not going to be brought about in any event to some degree?

(Mr Jones) To some degree I would agree, but whether that degree was sufficient to actually bring about the transformation and proper regeneration of Woolwich I would disagree or I would doubt whether that would be the case.

7749. We will express that view through Mr Colley in due course. I want to deal briefly with a couple of other points. In terms of housing the number that you have put forward as additional housing figures can be compared now with the GLA housing capacity 2005, which went into our bar chart, and they have given a target for the whole of the borough as just over 20,000 new dwellings from the period 2007 to 2017; that is right, is it not?

(Mr Jones) That is your illustration, not mine.

7750. But does that sound right? You are familiar with the GLA housing?

(Mr Jones) I am familiar but I do not have that material in front of me in terms of addressing it further.

7751. Take it from me at the moment and if it needs to be corrected I am sure it can be. That is a very wide figure. 90 per cent of that figure would be taken up by your town centre residential estimations in growth to 2016. So 90 per cent of the growth in the borough, on your figures, would be assumed to have occurred before the end of the period within just the town centre catchment.

(Mr Jones) If we were comparing like with like but I do not believe we are. I think that there are a number of estates and areas in Woolwich that were not included in the material that was considered by the GLA at the time. So we are looking at additional sites, additional sources of delivery over and above that considered in the GLA housing capacity work.

7752. In any event, let us assume that GLA has the capacity, did the job properly, you accept that you are taking up about 90 per cent of the target figure for the next ten years?

(Mr Jones) No, I do not accept that. There are sites that were not considered in the GLA's work that additional sites and additional estates have now come through this analysis and additional work that the council has been undertaking. So I do not accept that point.

7753. What you mean is that you think the exercise ought to be redone in the light of the current figures. On the figures as they currently appear in the GLA housing study it is 90 per cent, is it not? I can understand that you want to qualify that and say, "We have done all the work" and the GLA may not have taken into account, you say, all of these factors, but assuming that that figure is an accurate figure it is 90 per cent.

(Mr Jones) But we are not dealing with the same position; we are dealing with a GLA assessment that was undertaken and looked at the capacity that was appropriate at the time that the information was collected, but there are additional estates that presumably would add to the capacity that they found.

7754. I have asked the question three times, I think we will move on. Can we look at a diagram as to how this impacts in physical terms over the centre of Woolwich? This is the same exhibit at page 130. This is your figure 6.1 These are the development opportunity sites that contribute to your growth forecasts, are they not?

(Mr Jones) They are.

7755. The pink is residential. It is noticeable that in the one kilometre area, that is the town centre very centre, centred on the Arsenal and the location of the proposed Crossrail Station, a significant proportion, if not the vast majority, of that one kilometre radius are opportunity sites?

(Mr Jones) I think the plan speaks for itself. There is a large amount of the one kilometre zone that would come forward as opportunity sites.

7756. We can see from the primarily residential sites that lie just outside, within the two kilometre line and close to the town centre; again it is a significant area for redevelopment, is it not? We have two main areas: we have the north western bit by the river and we have the southern section. What this means that if your figures are to be achieved by 2016 it means quite a significant amount of development which will dominate the centre of Woolwich and the majority of the one kilometre radius of the station, because all of this as well this and this will have to be realised to get to the sort of levels that you are anticipating in your tables. That is right, is it not?

(Mr Jones) We have established this as the capacity for Woolwich for regeneration of these estates.

7757. But this is what feeds into your figures.

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7758. So to get over that leap of imagination, to try and see how we get to those very high estimates you have for 2016, we have to assume, in the next ten years, because we are talking about 2006 to 2016, practically the whole of the centre of Woolwich being dug up for redevelopment all at the same time, or phased over that ten-year period. That is a lot to bite off in a short period of time, is it not?

(Mr Jones) If I could finish what I was saying before, these are the capacities of the sites we are looking for. We have not set out that these would all be developed out by 2016; these are the sites that have the potential and should be brought forward for regeneration. The process of estate regeneration is already under way with Greenwich; we are aware that the Ferrier Estate has already come forward and is being brought forward now; the council has already put in train the regeneration development of three of the areas outlined here, which are coming forth early in the process and as they bring forward others in the next wave.

7759. I am glad for confirmation that regeneration is gathering pace regardless of Crossrail, Mr Jones. The point is this: you have taken figures at the very high end of the forecast. We have seen that and the Committee knows that. It involves a big leap of faith because it involves the assumption that a huge amount of development will come forward with or without Crossrail. All I am putting to you is that this is a capacity plan which is really more appropriate for the next 30 years or thereabouts, not just for the next ten, and that, really, you are being far too optimistic about the rate of development, whether with or without Crossrail.

(Mr Jones) I think that matters on the rate and pace of development should be better answered by Mr Lambert.

7760. MR ELVIN: Thank you very much, Mr Jones. Thank you, sir.

 

Re-examined by MR JONES

 

7761. MR JONES: I wonder if we could go to the bar charts in your evidence which you have been asked questions about on several occasions, pages 17 and 18 of the Promoter's documents. I wonder if we can start with 17. I would like to look at the various aspects of this. Do you happen to know whether these are in date order? In particular, do you happen to know whether the GLA forecasts were before or after your assessment?

(Mr Jones) They would be before our assessment.

7762. So, in fact, it might appear to be in date order but you would have to swap the last two round to get the correct date order.

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7763. Do you know whether the GLA forecasts assume Crossrail will be built?

(Mr Jones) I would assume not.

7764. So, again, is yours assuming Crossrail will be built?

(Mr Jones) It would.

7765. So the Promoters are comparing the GLA forecast which assumes Crossrail will not be built with you assuming it will be built. Do you know what the trend in densities in terms of construction in London is over recent years?

(Mr Jones) The trend in densities has been increasing, and I think that is one of the factors that contribute to the increase in assumptions for the delivery of homes in the Thames Gateway that I have illustrated in my evidence, moving from the 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan up to the more recent estimates for delivery in the Thames Gateway, London.

7766. Moving on in things I would like to compare with the last two columns (?), do you know whether the GLA forecasts and the Greenwich forecasts (o EDAW forecasts) relate to the same area?

(Mr Jones) I do not know that they relate to the same area, but I do know that they do not include some of the estates that are included. I am sorry, the GLA figures do not include some of the estates that we have assessed.

7767. So it does not relate to the same area.

(Mr Jones) Indeed.

7768. You can see the word "forecast" there and you may have recalled, more perhaps in the context of the next slide 18 (the word "forecast" is there as well), Mr Elvin referring to a target. Do you know if the GLA figures are forecast targets or minima?

(Mr Jones) They are forecasts.

7769. Do you know whether they anticipate that it will be more? In other words, that what they anticipate will actually occur?

(Mr Jones) I would need to go back to the detail of that.

7770. You can perhaps pass a note on that as to whether they are forecasts or minima.

(Mr Jones) We shall.

7771. At the very start of this afternoon's session it was put to you in the context of your figure 17. I wonder if we can have your figure 17 put up, please. This is the objector's figure 17. This is, of course, the potential employment impact. You were taken to this and it was put to you that you had taken up the figures to achieve this - you were not comparing like with like and you were taking a highly optimistic view. Do you remember those matters being put to you? I wonder if we can go to page 18 of the Promoter's document of today to see if you were doing what was put to you. Do you remember it being put that in the context of employment you had taken up the figures and were being highly optimistic? Had you taken up the figures for employment for Woolwich?

(Mr Jones) No - probably directly the opposite, actually. We had been cautious about that given the state of, particularly, the office market in the town at the moment.

7772. Just looking at the Promoter's own document in respect of employment, which is the highest figure there?

(Mr Jones) The Promoter's figure.

7773. Yours is lower. It was also put to you that you were exaggerating, in the context of that cross-examination. In terms of like with like, I am afraid I do not have the reference to this (I will let the Committee have it), but this is from an initial document from Crossrail, February 2005 "Crossrail: Socio-economic Technical Report". I will make sure the reference is obtained, sir; we were not able to obtain it in the short while after the cross-examination on like with like. This is what Crossrail says in its socio-economic report on the approach to assessment and assumptions. I am just going to read it to you for the time being to see how it compares with EDAW's approach. Crossrail's approach to assessment and assumptions, it appears, was: "The methodology for establishing the amount of floor space or homes is varied according to the level of information available for each area. Outside central London property information is patchy with no single source of information. Information has been pieced together on the property market and future development data from a number of sources." That is paragraph 6.3.7. You were criticised for not comparing like with like. Do you have any comments on your approach as compared with Crossrail's approach?

(Mr Jones) Our approach would have used many of the same sources there. I think we were able to look more closely at the particular situation in Woolwich. The number of sources that are looked at there would be expected to capture a wide spectrum of opportunities, presumably drawn from local authorities across the route and information they had available.

7774. You will recall you gave an answer towards the end of your cross-examination that the Ferrier Estate was coming on and being dealt with now. Do you recall Mr Elvin said he was glad to have confirmation of regeneration without Crossrail? I think it would actually be useful to see where the Ferrier Estate is. If we can move to your slide which shows the areas of deprivation, we can see the Ferrier Estate on that. It is the "Index of Multiple Deprivation". It is on page 28, figure 7. First of all, you can see there is a map which centres on the Woolwich Station, which occupies most of the figure. Is the Ferrier Estate anywhere on that principal map?

(Mr Jones) The one towards the left?

7775. The principal map, which is mainly on the left; the larger of the two.

(Mr Jones) It is not.

7776. If you look on the map of the whole of the borough of Greenwich, which is the inset map, are you able to locate the Ferrier Estate on that map?

(Mr Jones) I am afraid I would need some help in terms of having another plan with names on it.

7777. Do not worry.

(Mr Jones) It is certainly on that plan.

7778. Is it an area of multiple deprivation?

(Mr Jones) The Ferrier Estate is an area that has exhibited levels of multiple deprivation as well but it is outside the area of Woolwich and outside the area that you would expect to benefit from a Crossrail station.

7779. Do you know if that has over-ground rail access?

(Mr Jones) It does.

7780. MR JONES: Sir, I will get back to you with formal instructions on that, but I believe you will find it is the dark patch in the southwest of the borough, approximately halfway down the western boundary of the borough - the patch that looks vaguely like the old shape of West Germany, if you can recall the shape, on that map. Thank you very much, Mr Jones.

7781. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Jones.

 

The witness withdrew

 

7782. MR JONES: Sir, my next witness is Nicholas Lambert. He is at the third tab of the bundle from the objector. In the case of Mr Lambert I do not intend to adopt the previous practice of going through the bulk of the proof but, simply, to take you to the summary.

 

MR NICHOLAS LAMBERT, Sworn

Examined by MR JONES

 

7783. MR JONES: Could you turn to the executive summary and would you read that until I indicate otherwise?

(Mr Lambert) I am Nicholas Lambert, MRSCS. I am a Director of DTZ development team with 15 years of property consultancy experience. I have been asked to give my professional opinion of the impact Crossrail with the station at Woolwich is likely to have on the property market and to assess the deliverability of the EDAW proposals. Woolwich is one of the cheapest locations to live in London. The current retail provision is poor but is due to improve significantly in the near future, and there is no established office market in the town. Evidence from our literature review of other studies into the impact of transport improvements suggests, first, that it would take a major step-change in accessibility to see significant effects on the property market in Woolwich. As illustrated on this diagram, with figures provided by other colleagues, the journey time savings would be significant with Crossrail with a station in Woolwich.

7784. Again, if you just look at that figure, you can see the pattern of that. We have the existing journey times with a blue bar; with Docklands Light Railway shown with a red bar (in one case if you use Docklands Light Railway it actually takes longer); with Crossrail but without a Woolwich station - I should think that is a buff coloured bar - and then an orange bar with the Crossrail station.

(Mr Lambert) Correct.

7785. One can see in each case that Crossrail does significantly better than the other options.

(Mr Lambert) Correct.

7786. Can you return to your proof, please?

(Mr Lambert) Another conclusion from our studies is that there is likely to be an impact area around the station of about 1,000 metres for residential property and between 400 and 800 metres for commercial property. There is also likely to be a greater impact on the residential markets than the commercial market. Another key conclusion is a Crossrail station would give an increase in confidence and an improvement in investment perceptions from the development and investment market. A positive impact on value is also likely, although we do make the point, of course, it is difficult to extend the property value upwards. By interviewing developers and agents active in the Woolwich property market and drawing on in‑house knowledge within my practice and my own knowledge of Woolwich, the major barriers to growth that have been identified are, critically, the town's poor image, poor transport infrastructure and accessibility but also local spending power, the limited retail offer in the town and the lack of an established office market.

7787. I am going to pause there, while your text has a series of comments you did put "but also", is there any difference in importance between those factors in paragraph 5?

(Mr Lambert) Yes, very briefly there are. The two key barriers are the image and this is both from occupiers but also investors and accessibility. I would go on to say that the local spending power, the limited retail offer and the lack of an established office market are probably more of an effect of that rather than a cause.

7788. Perhaps we could now go to figure 2. If you could explain that figure, please?

(Mr Lambert) Yes, what I am trying to do here is to summarise the position of these barriers with the three stars being a significant barrier, two stars being a medium barrier and a single star being a barrier but less limited impact. You can see that the residential market is particularly impacted and affected by the current barriers of Woolwich, the key barrier to the retail market is currently low spending power within the borough and the office market suffers from perception images, accessibility and also the lack of a natural office market per se.

7789. And then paragraph 1.6 of your summary, we move on to the next slide which is slide 3, please. This is 'with Crossrail'. What difference does Crossrail make?

(Mr Lambert) What I am trying to draw out here is identifying whether there has been a significant change, really a move to two stars or more. Post-Crossrail I would highlight the key changes are the residential markets where accessibility has been radically improved, there will be a limited barrier in the Woolwich market on account of its image and its retail offer would have improved significantly, but I think realistically there would be issues with the retail market compared with destinations such as Bluewater which is an inevitability. There would also be improvements in the office market.

7790. For example in looking at the retail, we move from three stars, a significant barrier below spending power to no barrier on the 'with Crossrail'?

(Mr Lambert) Correct, yes.

7791. In offices, poor transport infrastructure has moved from three stars to no barrier at all?

(Mr Lambert) Correct.

7792. Would you return to your summary, please?

(Mr Lambert) Where would you like me to continue from?

7793. 1.7 , I think; there is no need to do 1.6.

(Mr Lambert) I am confident the majority of the floor space illustrated in the analysis introduced by Andrew Jones under the 'without Crossrail' scenario could be delivered to the market in a five to ten-year timetable. Much or this floor space has been extended or has an imminent planning application pending.

7794. Again your slide which illustrates that, slide 4, please.

(Mr Lambert) I think the key messages in this slide are that in terms of the residential markets of the 5,073 units, approximately half of those will be delivered on the Royal Arsenal site and another 1,000 on the re-development and Peggy Middleton House. The retail market forecasts will be predominantly along Powis Street and Hare Street.

7795. Peggy Middleton House is the current council headquarters.

(Mr Lambert) Also in terms of the development pipeline for offices, 20,000 square metres of offices, of which a substantial amount will be redeveloped in the redevelopment of the council offices at Peggy Middleton House. The final message I draw from this is that the Royal Arsenal has been delivered by Berkley Homes, Powis Street has got a developer, Wilson Balladine, and Peggy Middleton House will be a substantial redevelopment. These developments in the pipeline are really in the hands of three organisations and the scale of development and the fact there are three organisations behind this gives me confidence they will be delivered.

7796. Could you move on, please, paragraph 1.8 of your summary.

(Mr Lambert) The increases in floor space within Woolwich town centre attributed to the Crossrail effect also seem, in my professional opinion, to be reasonable. A key potential impact of Crossrail will be the likely increase in speed density of development at Woolwich.

7797. Again if we could see figure 5, please.

(Mr Lambert) Again that really reiterates the first slide demonstrating the step change in passenger time with the yellow bars.

7798. Could you describe each of those stations as employment destinations?

(Mr Lambert) Indeed, yes.

7799. Could you read on, please?

(Mr Lambert) That figure demonstates the importance of journey time savings.

7800. Figure 6, please. Again take us through figure 6.

(Mr Lambert) Of course. With Crossrail, there is an increase in residential development of about 41 per cent. The retail offer or development would be increased by 22 per cent and the office development would be doubled. This is over and above the existing situation relative to the pipeline development without Crossrail. There will be, in relative terms, a significant uplift in leisure amenity and other development, which includes hotels and civic development, will also have a relatively significant uplift.

7801. Just stating the obvious, what will be the big change that brought about with offices 'with Crossrail'? What is the big advantage that a company might see in Woolwich once Crossrail is there?

(Mr Lambert) The main effect will be accessibility to other established office destinations within London and it is my belief that this would enable Woolwich, the position itself, not to compete with the prime office areas of Canary Wharf, the West End or the City, but rather to offer what we describe as "back office" space, which can be low value-added but nevertheless important functions, so this could be administration and also emergency office accommodation as well.

7802. Thank you, Mr Lambert.

7803. MR ELVIN: Sir, I will adopt the same approach, if that is acceptable to the Committee, just to make a few highlights to illustrate the position.

 

Cross-examined by MR ELVIN

 

7804. MR ELVIN: Mr Lambert, good afternoon. In terms of barriers to growth which is a point you make in your summary, barriers to growth are seen by the Woolwich town centre redevelopment document that I was looking at with Mr Jones half an hour ago in a particular way, can we just have a look at the last conclusions of that development framework It is Petitioner's exhibit page 189 and you will recall the framework is in the context of no Crossrail, Crossrail as only being a possibility. Were you here when I asked those questions of Mr Jones?

(Mr Lambert): I was here, I have not read this document in detail because actually I am giving my judgment on EDAW's opinions which have been updated from here, so I am not familiar with this document.

7805. You will forgive me if I just draw your attention to the first paragraph which says that Woolwich has seen a strong revival in its fortunes, revitalisation of Arsenal, shift in the overall geography of London which has now based Woolwich as a fulcrum between central London and the wider Thames Gateway. New transport infrastructure will add to existing good transport to make Woolwich one of the best connected places in London. On the back of these and other investments under consideration the town centre itself will undergo comprehensive restructuring and will change the public perception of Woolwich and that is effectively without any commitment as to Crossrail?

(Mr Lambert): Those are not my words and without Crossrail I would not describe Woolwich as being one of the best connected places in London

7806. That is the EDAW report. The position in terms of benefits in terms of accessibility which I understand to be one of the key issues, can we have a look, please, at the bar charts that you have produced and the table. Can we look first, please, at your table, this is Petitioner's exhibits page 199 and if we can focus on the table, please, figure one it is, "Estimated journey savings to key employment destinations". These are the figures that feed into the bar chart you showed the Committee a few minutes ago?

(Mr Lambert): Correct.

7807. And what it allows us to see is the position now, the position with the DLR, the position with the DLR and Woolwich station and the position with the DLR and Crossrail, but no Woolwich station?

(Mr Lambert): Correct

7808. And what you have done is you have done the various time savings. What you have not done is an indication of the time savings between the current situation and the DLR with Crossrail but without a station which would be the situation so far as the Bill scheme is concerned?

(Mr Lambert): Can I make one qualification? These are not my figures. Would you mind just repeating the question?

7809. This gives us a number of journey times and savings, but the one comparison that has not been done explicitly from this table, although the base figures are still there, is what improvement Crossrail, without a Woolwich station and the DLR, would create over the current situation?

(Mr Lambert): I believe that is column four, if I understand your question correctly?

7810. Exactly, you can actually do the exercise for yourself and I am going to deal with you in a moment. Can we just look at your bar chart though to see it represented in graphic terms? If we look at page 211 of your exhibits, the figures, most figures are translated into a bar chart here, are they not?

(Mr Lambert): Yes

7811. And we can see the journey times, the current ones are in blue, the DLR are in red, then we have DLR but Crossrail with no station at Woolwich and then we have DLR and Crossrail with the Woolwich station. It is effectively a story of increasing benefit, is it not, with a small blip for Paddington where, I think, the DLR for some reason increases journey times by a minute or two?

(Mr Lambert): It is a story of increasing benefit, yes.

7812. So in fact we can see here graphically illustrated that even without a Woolwich station and presumably because of the interchange possibilities that are opened elsewhere within the network, the light yellow bar, the Crossrail but no Woolwich station, still delivers benefits over and above the DLR in Woolwich in terms of journey savings?

(Mr Lambert): It does indeed, yes.

7813. So that Crossrail will still bring benefits of regeneration to Woolwich because it will still, on your evidence, shorten journey times over the benefits produced by the DLR?

(Mr Lambert): It will certainly reduce journey time. I think it may be helpful for the Committee to know though the property market does not follow these sort of logical steps and these sort of gradients that I think we are looking at here. The perception of Woolwich with the Crossrail station would be to significantly enhance investor and development confidence and effectively it would put Woolwich on the institutional map, it is not at the moment, and I believe, my judgment is that the third column which is Crossrail with no route station, whilst it will reduce journey times, would not have a significant impact on the property market perception.

7814. That is your judgment, it is not necessarily one with which everyone agrees, Mr Lambert.

(Mr Lambert): Indeed, but I think it helps to give my opinion.

7815. And it is also here to be tested as well. Let me just put this to you: if it is the case as the master plan framework that the Committee have just seen that it is thought that significant benefits will be delivered to Woolwich without Crossrail, with only the possibility of Crossrail, that is to say that the DLR and the other committed benefits absent Crossrail, it must follow from these additional accessibility benefits that the situation with Crossrail must be better than as predicted for the framework without Crossrail?

(Mr Lambert): I follow your logic and I would agree with that logic, but again I do not have a detailed understanding of the previous framework, but I would agree with that logic, yes.

7816. And that is borne out by your own report, your property market report, and can we just look at a few highlights. Can we please look at it is the Petitioner's exhibits, page 221. Here you start your property market review and I appreciate throughout that you will say that Crossrail will make an additional difference on top of everything that is happening already and that is understood. So far as the property market review is concerned for residential, second paragraph from the bottom starting, "Despite the slightly downbeat summary", you say, "There is still a fair amount of residential development already happening in Woolwich, and that is as at last month?

(Mr Lambert): Correct.

7817. And that is even without the DLR, the DLR is a commitment, but it has got three years to go before it opens?

(Mr Lambert): The market is expecting DLR to be delivered, there is commitment to DLR. It may also be helpful to know that Royal Arsenal is good for Woolwich, I think there is no doubt about that. Having been involved in that at the outset for English Partnerships and the London Development Agency in that instance, it needed significant and, from memory, I think it is about £80 million of pump priming by the public sector, without doubt and we made this advice very clear at the outset, without that pump priming investment by the public sector the Royal Arsenal would look like the photograph we saw earlier in the day, i.e. a wasteland, but it is now happening and will happen without Crossrail.

7818. Can we look at retail and leisure on the next page, 222, please and can we zoom in at the bottom half of the page? We can see the last three paragraphs. The situation is changing in terms of food retail in particular, there are a few major retail developments planned in Woolwich that would have a significant impact if delivered on the retail provision on the town as well as on the town's image as a retail destination. Both Sainsbury's and Tesco's have plans in the pipeline to build stores in the town centre and there have been rental increases of about 65 per cent over 2001 levels and then it says the DLR extension is likely to have a considerable impact on the retail market, it will make Woolwich have a more accessible shopping destination. So, again, we have got benefits and changes for the good that are coming about which will be enhanced by the DLR without necessarily having Crossrail there?

(Mr Lambert): Undoubtedly. The three major schemes that I referred to before I am confident will happen without Crossrail. It is my judgment that that will be just about the capacity for development in Woolwich without Crossrail.

7819. What you say later on is that it is unlikely that three major food retailers would be bringing forward proposals if they did not think there was the capacity within Woolwich to support it?

(Mr Lambert): Absolutely.

7820. Can we then go, please, to that page, 240 in your exhibit? We can see that that point is made in the first paragraph on that page. If we look at the third paragraph, if we can zoom in on that, please? "In the lead up to the opening of the DLR extension, demand for residential floor space will increase, particularly on sites near the DLR station and market opinion is in robust terms of the residential deliverability of EDAW proposals". So, again, you expect the opening of DLR to generate or to be preceded by a surge in interest?

(Mr Lambert): Yes, which will help deliver the pipeline development that I previously referred to. As I said, I am confident that that pipeline will be developed because of what has happened to Woolwich to date and because of DLR.

7821. And then if we could go to the bottom of the page with Crossrail? What you start out by saying is a very honest view that the scenario is much harder to predict.

(Mr Lambert): The future always is, yes.

7822. In particular a future where Crossrail, assuming it is to come forward, will have some beneficial effects in terms of accessibility whether or not there is a station, so you are having to predict a situation where there are benefits and it is a question then of quantifying additional benefits as a result of actually having a station there?

(Mr Lambert): Yes, and I believe that a station at Crossrail will take Woolwich to the next step.

7823. So far as the office market is concerned, and I do not think we need to look at pages for this, as I understand your thesis in your report, Woolwich will never compete as a major office location, but it has potential for what is called the back office market, is that right?

(Mr Lambert): That is right, yes.

7824. At the moment it is not an office, it is fair to say it is not really an office location at all, there are offices there, but no one would recognise it as an office location?

(Mr Lambert): Agreed, yes.

7825. And even as a back office, i.e. offices which are providing a supporting service for the main office locations in the City, Canary Wharf, somewhere more central?

(Mr Lambert): Correct

7826. As that sort of location, it is competing, is it not, with major regeneration schemes that are coming forward, for example at King's Cross and Stratford, which will provide a significant quantum of office floor space?

(Mr Lambert): Yes.

7827. Woolwich is never gong to compete significantly, is it, Mr Lambert, with the likes of King's Cross and Stratford which are much more closely related to the central office core of the West End, mid-town, City and Canary Wharf, it is going to be very much, in office terms, a poor location, a poor relative, compared with those other regeneration areas?

(Mr Lambert): It will always be a poor relative compared to those areas, however, I think there is a place in the market for poor relations and particularly at the end of the market that I am talking about where it is much more price driven, I do believe that it could be a vital location for back office accommodation.

7828. Finally, and I have not been entirely sure who the person was to put this question to, and that is to say in terms of perceptions, the distance from the Crossrail station to the mainline station, can I try it on you and if it is not a question you feel comfortable with dealing with, do let me know and I will try and fine somebody else?

(Mr Lambert): I will try my best.

7829. Could we look, please, at the Promoter's exhibits, it is a plan I showed the Committee briefly this morning, it is page 107 of our exhibits and what it shows, we have broken down the journey, that if anyone wanted to look at the question of whether Crossrail provided a benefit in terms of the ability to interchange, that is to cross from mainline to Crossrail, or Crossrail to mainline, it actually performs very poorly and no one is going to invest in Woolwich because of the interchange facilities, because it is an eight minute, or thereabouts, walk from Crossrail to Woolwich Arsenal or the other way around, is it not?

(Mr Lambert): I think your initial judgment was right in that I do not think I can give a qualified judgment on the interchange. If it helps what I can say is that notwithstanding the interchange aspect, the fact that there is a Crossrail station there will have an impact, rather than from a property market perspective rather than the interchange itself.

7830. The DLR is very well related to the existing Woolwich Arsenal station, it is just round the corner, whereas the Crossrail station would be a significant distance away, would it not?

(Mr Lambert): That is correct, but my area of expertise is property market and the property market in itself is not that interested in transport interchanges, what it is interested in is highly accessible locations, so from my area of expertise I do not think that walk is highly significant.

7831. That may be a point we take up with Mr Chard later on. Can I then finish with this: the perceptions table that you produce with the stars or asterisks in your proof, I will look at them in the original version, if you do not mind, because I have marked them up, if we could go, please, to page 201 of your exhibits? Can you focus in on the tables, please? This shows in one place the two figures you have produced separately?

(Mr Lambert): Yes.

7832. These perception diagrams that have been produced were the result of interviews, were they not?

(Mr Lambert): They were.

7833. We do not know how the interviews were carried out or what the questions were and I do not want to spend a lot of time on that, but what was the sort of question people were asked in order to generate information about barriers to growth with and without Crossrail?

(Mr Lambert): We asked the interviewees what they perceived to be the major barriers. I think we had a fairly open discussion with them, I do not think we were trying to lead anyone anywhere. This information really came through the discussions.

7834. Were you asking people to compare the situation at the time of the interview with the situation with the Crossrail station?

(Mr Lambert): I am sorry, can you repeat the question?

7835. Yes. Were you asking people to compare their perception of what Woolwich was like at the time they were asked the question, i.e. today, "What is Woolwich like today?" as compared with what it would be like with the Crossrail station?

(Mr Lambert): Yes, with the Crossrail station, without a Crossrail station.

7836. Did you ask them what it would be like with the DLR station?

(Mr Lambert): I do not believe we specifically asked, because I think it was implied that a DLR station would happen in 2009.

7837. It was implied. Well if they were asked what it was like today compared with Crossrail, they would not be doing that, would they, because today the DLR is not built?

(Mr Lambert): But there is a commitment to build it.

7838. They were not asked you say.

(Mr Lambert): I would have to check my notes, but I do not believe it specifically drew their attention to DLR, because I think the people we were talking to know Woolwich extremely well and I think we would have taken the view that they would take all of the circumstances and commitment that existed today.

7839. As we all know from interviews, it all depends on the question, does it not?

(Mr Lambert): I accept that, yes.

7840. On the 'with Crossrail' scenario, was it just with Crossrail with the station at Woolwich or were they told there might be some benefits with Crossrail, even if there was not a station at Woolwich?

(Mr Lambert): I believe we were just focusing on with the station.

7841. MR ELVIN: Thank you very much.

 

Re-examined by MR JONES

7842. MR JONES: May we return to your figure 1 please. It is a bar chart. You were asked various questions about the situation, the benefit without a Crossrail station. Would it be possible to make any of those journeys from Woolwich without changing trains without a Crossrail station at Woolwich?

(Mr Lambert): No.

7843. In terms of perception as a business location, how important are interchanges?

(Mr Lambert): The fact that you have to change mode of transport is significant.

7844. Are you the witness to ask about reliability on the North Kent Line or would it be best to ask Mr Chard?

(Mr Lambert): I think Mr Chard would be better.

7845. Do you know if those figures are based on the assumption that trains run on time?

(Mr Lambert): I do not know, I am afraid.

7846. You were asked about major regeneration of King's Cross comparing that with this site and you were also asked about major regeneration of King's Cross in terms of King's Cross serving Canary Wharf. Do you know if it is possible or will be possible to get from King's Cross to Canary Wharf without changing trains?

(Mr Lambert): No. You could get there by Underground, but you would have to change lines. Perhaps I could just make another observation in terms of King's Cross because if I agreed with the impression that King's Cross would be back-office accommodation, then that would be incorrect. The offices that are proposed at King's Cross are at rents that would be more comparable to prime office locations.

7847. So is King's Cross really going to take away business from Woolwich in terms of offices?

(Mr Lambert): No. If anything, it would probably add to it because of the back-office support in King's Cross.

7848. You were then asked about the figure showing the walk distance from the suggested Woolwich Crossrail station to the Woolwich Arsenal Station. Is your evidence based on Woolwich being a destination or is it based on Woolwich being the place where people change from one mode of transport to another?

(Mr Lambert): I think it depends on which sector I am looking at really. Again it is also an interpretation of 'destination', so, if I am understanding the question correctly ----

7849. It is the destination of an origin station or an interchange.

(Mr Lambert): I think people would go from Woolwich to other places.

7850. Does any part of your evidence depend on the suitability or otherwise of Woolwich as a station where people would change trains from one line to another?

(Mr Lambert): I do not believe so, no.

7851. I have no further questions, thank you.

 

The witness withdrew

7852. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to call your next witness.

7853. MR JONES: Certainly, sir. It is Mrs Bowkett.

 

MRS HELEN BOWKETT, Sworn

Examined by MR JONES

7854. MR JONES: Sir, particularly in view of my learned friend's opening, I do not intend to take a lot of time over this. You are Helen Bowkett?

(Mrs Bowkett): That is correct.

7855. You deal with your qualifications and experience, then the economic appraisal of a Crossrail station at Woolwich in your section 2, value for money in section 3, sensitivity tests in section 4, comparison with the Jubilee Line extension in section 5 and your summary in section 6. Would you read your summary please.

(Mrs Bowkett): The benefit cost ratio for a Crossrail station at Woolwich is at least 2:1 and is higher when more realistic population and employment projections for the area in 2016 are used.

7856. In fact I think you heard Mr Elvin in opening saying that the Minister now accepted it was between 2:1 and 3.9:1. Perhaps we could shortcut things to some extent. In essence, is there any disagreement on that band of figures?

(Mrs Bowkett): No. In fact these benefit cost ratio figures have been supplied to us by Crossrail.

7857. So basically you are happy with the range of 2:1 to 3.9:1?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes, I am.

7858. Could you read on from 6.2 and we will bear that in mind when we get to 6.3 which is marginally different, but probably not of great importance.

(Mrs Bowkett): These benefit cost ratios in all cases are higher than the 1.8:1 benefit cost ratio for the scheme as a whole. Crossrail conducted a series of sensitivity tests. Their base case benefit cost ratio for a station at Woolwich is 2. They carried out a high growth sensitivity test and this gives a benefit cost ratio of 3. They also did some work using the EDAW population and employment forecasts and in that case the benefit cost ratio of the station at Woolwich on the Crossrail scheme rises to 4:1.

7859. Do you see a significant difference between the figure of 4:1 and 3.9:1?

(Mrs Bowkett): Well, 4:1 is higher than 3:1 ----

7860. No, 3.9:1.

(Mrs Bowkett): The figure I was provided with by Crossrail was 3:1.

7861. Sorry, I was thinking of the latter part of 6.3. Do you see a significant difference between 4:1 and 3.9:1?

(Mrs Bowkett): The Crossrail high growth scenario figure is 3:1.

7862. Would you read the second sentence of 6.3 please.

(Mrs Bowkett): Using EDAW's more specific work on the Woolwich area gave a benefit cost ratio of 4:1.

7863. Do you see a significant difference between the 3.9:1 which was read out in the letter from the Minister earlier today and 4:1?

(Mrs Bowkett): No, they are basically the same numbers. Usually the difference is due to rounding.

7864. Could you read 6.4 please.

(Mrs Bowkett): The latest population forecasts for 2016 produced by the Greater London Authority, version 8.0.7, are substantially higher than the London Plan figures for 2016 that the Crossrail team have used in their modelling work. This recent upward assessment of population numbers suggests that higher benefit cost ratios calculated for the station are the more likely figures to be achieved. There are also likely to be other substantial regeneration benefits for Woolwich which are not included in the benefit cost ratio calculations.

7865. Then your final paragraph.

(Mrs Bowkett): According to the Department for Transport's guidance, the Crossrail station at Woolwich would represent high value for money.

7866. High value for money is anything above 2:1?

(Mrs Bowkett): That is it. That is their highest banding in their value for money categorisation, 2:1 and above, which they call high value for money.

7867. Thank you.

 

Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN

7868. MS LIEVEN: Mrs Bowkett, I have not got very many questions, but perhaps I could just make it clear to the Committee that, so far as the benefit cost ratio itself is concerned, the costs, I think, are agreed between ourselves and Greenwich, so there is no issue on that, and on the benefits, the actual figure for benefits is a matter which Mr Elvin has been investigating with the previous two witnesses. You just give evidence on the figure and how the figure should be treated? Is that right?

(Mrs Bowkett): The benefit cost ratios which have been given have been provided to us by Crossrail.

7869. Therefore, all I am going to ask you about is what approach one should take to the benefit cost ratio within the Department for Transport's guidance. In your evidence, you refer to the guidance on value for money produced by the Department for Transport. Is that right?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes, that is right.

7870. In your Exhibit 4, which I think is our remuneration page 283 and the page I want is page 285, perhaps, Mrs Bowkett, you could turn to that please.

(Mrs Bowkett): Unfortunately I do not have the same numbering system.

7871. It is page 2, the summary page. Just to make it clear what this guidance on value for money document is, if we go to the fifth bullet point of the summary, the one that starts, "Advice to ministers..." - do you have that?

(Mrs Bowkett): Sorry, which paragraph are you referring to?

7872. It does not have paragraph numbers. It is the fifth bullet point and starts, "Advice to ministers should reflect the presumption that purely on grounds of value for money we should generally fund", and then there are sub-bullet points, "most, if not all, projects with high VFM". Do you see that?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes, I do.

7873. There is no dispute that Woolwich falls within the higher value for money if the BCR is over 2?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes.

7874. The point I just want to emphasise here is that the view that most, if not all, projects with high VFM should be funded is purely on the grounds of value for money. It does not take into account the other considerations at that stage, does it?

(Mrs Bowkett): That is true, but I thought it would be helpful though, as BCRs are just numbers, to be able to put them into some form of context and I thought the value for money categorisation helped to provide some context to these BCR ratios.

7875. If we move on to see how you take the value for money figure, the BCR, in the decision-making process, further down that page we can see the heading "Purpose", and then if we go over the page to paragraph 2 under that heading, and this is focusing on the top paragraph, it says, "Value for money is only one of a number of key factors which will influence whether a proposal should be recommended for acceptance by ministers. However, in a world of tight financial constraints, it becomes increasingly important", so it is clear from that that it is only one of a number of considerations, is it not?

(Mrs Bowkett): It is only one of a number, but it is a significant and important consideration.

7876. In order to find out what the other considerations are, we need to go to the Department for Transport's explanatory note, and I am sure you are familiar with that. It is in our exhibits rather than yours at page 19. Do you have a copy of our exhibits?

(Mrs Bowkett): I am afraid I do not, no.

7877. This is a document headed, "Guidance on value for money: explanatory notes", and I assume you are familiar with this document, are you?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes, I am.

7878. If we look, and yet again, I am afraid, it is not paragraph numbered, but if we look at the third paragraph of that document, the one with all the bullets, it says, "Ministers make decisions on the basis of a series of considerations, including value for money", which is obviously what the value for money guidance goes to, "practicability; deliverability; public acceptability; distributional and equity impacts; affordability and financial sustainability; contribution to central government, local and regional objectives; and the amelioration of identified problems". Do you see that?

(Mrs Bowkett): I see that, yes.

7879. You, I am sure, were here for Mr Elvin's opening and you have read the letter from the Minister to Mr Raynsford?

(Mrs Bowkett): I have, yes.

7880. So you understand that the core reason for not supporting the station at Woolwich is the fifth of those bullet points, affordability and financial sustainability?

(Mrs Bowkett): I understand that is to be their argument. The station does do well on these other aspects, but their chief concern is the affordability of the station.

7881. And there is no doubt at all that is the material consideration as set out in the Department for Transport's appraisal process?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes, that is the case.

7882. It makes sense, does it not, Mrs Bowkett, because, although it is right to say that the guidance note says that most high-value-for-money projects will receive funding, it is obviously the case that there will be transport schemes with high value for money, high BCRs, which do not get funded by the Department.

(Mrs Bowkett): Mind you, a benefit cost ratio of 3 and above really does make people wake up to the value for money of a scheme.

7883. But the bottom line will always have to be: is it affordable?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes, it has to be considered as well, whether it is affordable in the context of the whole costs of the Crossrail scheme.

7884. The other document I want you to look at is what is called, "The Appraisal Process" produced by the TAG Unit, transport analysis guidance, and that is at our exhibits, page 108. It is the transport analysis guidance produced by the Department for Transport, again a document I assume you are familiar with. Is that right?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes, indeed.

7885. Perhaps we could turn to, first of all, the appraisal summary table at page 115. This sets out all the objectives that are considered in the appraisal process and if we focus in on "Economy", which is half-way down the page, one can see there "public accounts", and that is the affordability criteria, is it not?

(Mrs Bowkett): Yes, it is under "Economy" that you would deal with the cost of the scheme.

7886. Then two pages further on in that document, at page 117, there is a paragraph 1.2.14. It says, "In order to make an assessment of value for money, the assessors will need to compare their assessment of overall net value with the cost of the project". The overall net value there is the BCR, is it not, the benefit cost ratio?

(Mrs Bowkett): I believe so.

7887. And that has to be compared with the cost of the project and then it says, "Because affordability to government will often be a critical factor in deciding whether options are realistic and practical, it is recommended that the cost to public accounts, shown in the first sub-objective under the 'economy' objective (as well as being repeated at the top right of the AST) be used for this comparison", so we can see there that affordability to government is acknowledged in this document as often being a critical factor.

(Mrs Bowkett): It is a consideration, yes.

7888. Thank you very much.

7889. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jones?

7890. MR JONES: Sir, it is not really a matter for re-examination, but I would just point out my understanding of what has been said so far, and that is that the questions which have been put by Mr Elvin only went to the assumptions that underlay the benefit cost ratio of 4:1. My understanding is that the benefit cost ratios of 2:1, as mentioned in paragraph 6.1 of the summary, and 3:1, as mentioned in 6.3 of the summary, are based upon figures that are undisputed. I will be corrected if that is wrong, sir.

7891. MS LIEVEN: You will be corrected. No, sir, that is not right.

7892. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps that probably is a matter that should be dealt with in summing up or do you briefly want to elaborate?

7893. MS LIEVEN: I do not want to elaborate, save to say it is not accepted, but it will be dealt with by Mr Anderson giving evidence in chief and in the summing up as to what level of BCR it is. As Mr Elvin said in opening, a positive BCR clearly is accepted and the only issue on the BCR is the spectrum of where it falls within the figures that are being put forward, but 3:1 is certainly not accepted.

7894. CHAIRMAN: I think that is your view and it was very interesting to see, Ms Lieven, how much more quickly you rose to your feet than Mr Elvin who is more than competent!

7895. MS LIEVEN: No, sir, I am not defending Mr Elvin! I certainly would not do that!

7896. CHAIRMAN: I take your point that it is probably more appropriate to be dealt with in the summing up.

7897. MS LIEVEN: It is merely the convention that, because this is my witness in cross-examination, it was appropriate for me to rise. Please do not feel that Mr Elvin either needs defence or should receive it!

7898. MR JONES: Sir, perhaps we could just deal with what I thought was a non-controversial matter.

 

Re-examined by MR JONES

7899. MR JONES: Mrs Bowkett, 6.1, what is the source of the assumptions which underlie the 2:1 figure?

(Mrs Bowkett): The 2:1 figure comes from Crossrail's work using their standard base model for 2016 where they value it with and without the station at Woolwich to evaluate the benefits of providing the station at Woolwich and this is the benefit cost ratio that they have provided.

7900. The source of your 3:1 benefit cost ratio?

(Mrs Bowkett): The 3:1 ratio comes from a sensitivity test that they run. It is a standard sensitivity test.

7901. By "they", you mean Crossrail?

(Mrs Bowkett): Crossrail, yes. It does not mean to say that they think that there will be 50 per cent growth, but it is their standard sensitivity test that they run. What is interesting is that the level of growth that is in the GLA's 8.0.7 projections are roughly in the order of the growth that is represented in their 50 per cent high growth sensitivity test.

7902. Thank you. I have no further questions, sir.

 

The witness withdrew

7903. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jones, would you like to call your next witness?

7904. MR JONES: Although my last two witnesses have been short, my next witness is a very substantial witness.

7905. CHAIRMAN: Is this your final witness?

7906. MR JONES: Yes, sir.

7907. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if you could just do the introduction, that might help a little bit.

 

MR ROBERT IAN CHARD, Sworn

Examined by MR JONES

7908. MR JONES: We are at tab 5, sir, of the Council's bundle. I do not have the page numbering that the Promoter's side are using, but it is the fifth page through that I will be starting at. Mr Chard, on page 5 of your proof, you give your full name, Robert Ian Chard, also known as Bob Chard, and details of your employment, your qualifications, your professional status and your experience, including relevant experience to rail projects. Then at page 6 of your evidence, section 2, you deal with the scope of your evidence. At section 3, you deal with accessibility changes. Perhaps you could start reading from paragraph 3.1.

7909. CHAIRMAN: I just meant for you to introduce the qualifications of your witness.

7910. MR JONES: In which case, that is all I would wish to say. The qualifications are in the proof and unless you wish to hear them ‑‑‑

7911. CHAIRMAN: In that case, we will halt the Committee for today and then continue tomorrow at 10 am. Can I ask all the various teams to stay and for the public to leave for a second or two and for the communication systems to be switched off because we need to discuss another matter.

 

The witness withdrew