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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY TWENTY-SIX

Thursday 20 April 2006

Before:

Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair

Mr Brian Binley

Mrs Siān C James

Mrs Linda Riordan

 

 

Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.

7227. CHAIRMAN: Mr Straker, do you want to call your second witness?

7228. MR STRAKER: Thank you very much, sir. I will call Mr Martyn Thomas. Sir, I think my learned friend Mr Mould wanted to say something before he gave his evidence just to set the scene.

7229. MR MOULD: Sir, I think it would be helpful if, in the usual way, we were to put up some photographs and just show you the location of Romford. Perhaps we can put up page 18 please. Sir, the first business of the day relates to the proposed station, changes to the station at Romford, and this is an aerial photograph. You can see here the station which lies just to the left of the arrow shown marking the station entrance. The station is in the embankment which you can see there and the station entrance is actually underneath the overbridges that you see in the photograph. The street that the bridges run over is South Street and you see marked just to the south of South Street the bus interchange which is about 75 metres walking distance from the existing station entrance. To the north of the station and on either side of South Street is the main area of Romford town centre and, just going back down under the bridges down South Street and turning to the right along Atlantic Boulevard, one comes to an area of bus stands which is marked on the photograph.

7230. If we can put up number 16, we have here a plan showing the existing station arrangements and you can see marked the main entrance to the station just from South Street with the yellow arrow pointing to the left and then the existing ticket hall and entrances there shown, the gatelines. There is a secondary access to the south which is shown marked as "Step-free access on request" and that is very much a secondary entrance. It is a sub-standard ramp, sub-standard in the sense of the gradient, and generally there is a locked door giving access behind the gateline essentially for cyclists and for mobility-impaired travellers who can get in if they ask the station staff to let them in that way. We show there again the bus interchange and, with the red arrows, the bus stops and the alighting points for the terminating buses and the pedestrian routes which connect between the various parts of the transport interchange at the station.

7231. If we can put up number 61 please, these are some photographs and in the top-left hand corner, looking in a south-westerly alignment towards the existing station entrance underneath the overbridges, this is South Street that you see and you can just see the platform canopies on the slow lines which are the two lines which run on the northerly alignment through the station, and the fast lines, as you recall from other Petitions, are on the southerly overbridge. To the top right you get a view of the secondary access ramp that I mentioned a minute ago immediately to the south of the station and you can just see the ramp going up there to the door which gives access to the station behind the gateline. Then the entrance itself is shown and then you get a view of the interior layout and it may be helpful just to mention that although this is a very busy station, one of the busiest stations on the Great Eastern main line, this is a decidedly sub-standard station at the present time and it may be helpful just to outline briefly to the Committee some of the problems.

7232. The ticket hall is a long, narrow structure which easily becomes congested at peak hours. It is linked to the high-level platforms by an over-complex network of ramps, passageways and stairs, and you get a sense of that in the photograph, particularly to the right of the photograph. The ticket office itself is located at an intermediate level and it is, therefore, necessary to climb a flight of stairs to reach it. Although the station has recently been the subject of a fitting-out scheme with automatic ticket barriers, that has tended to worsen the congestion. Because of the narrowness of the ticket hall, it was not possible to fit an adequate number of gates in, so passengers descending via the stairs from the platforms, particularly at peak times, are now forced to queue back to the gateline in order to leave the station, and the various ramps and stairs are sub-standard by any modern criteria for accessibility and that includes the southern ramp, so it is a station that internally cries out for improvement and that is what Crossrail proposes, so we will show you briefly the proposal.

7233. If we could have number 17 up please, what we are proposing is a new station building immediately to the north of the embankment, and you see that marked in the beige colour, with an entrance about 50 metres to the north of the existing entrance on South Street, so somewhat closer to the main town centre. You see that we propose a single entrance to the station at that point. We have proposed the removal of the sub-standard ramp and the effect of that is to increase the distance from the proposed entrance to the bus interchange by about 50 metres, so from 75 metres to about 125 metres for pedestrians.

7234. If we turn finally to page 60, we have a computerised aerial view of the station and you will see here that the proposals comprise a new, three-storey ticket hall, extending the existing station which includes ticketing facilities, automatic gates, escalators and lifts, staff accommodation and passenger facilities. The design satisfies the requirements of the disability discrimination legislation with step-free access between pavement and platform level. New canopies and platform facilities will be provided to the Crossrail platforms, which are platforms 3 and 4 on the island platform and platform 5. As I said, the main station entrance will remain on South Street to the north of the railway, but will be wider with better provision for a gateline. You can see those points on this computerised layout and you can see the station entrance to the bottom right-hand corner giving access to the concourse area, and then the gateline is immediately to the left and we have then shown different coloured, dotted lines as accesses to the Crossrail platforms, platforms 5, 3 and 4 respectively, and then access to the main line platform, platform 2, and we have shown the MIP lift arrangements with red blocks either side of the embankment itself. I will not take more time going through that illustration, but you can see there that we have marked, I hope helpfully, a number of other features of the proposals.

7235. Sir, that is a very swift run-through of what is proposed here. I will hand over to Mr Straker. The issue, I think, relates to the fact that the new station proposes a single entrance to the north and, as we have said, we will remove the existing secondary access to the south and do not propose a replacement to that. I will not say more about that now; we will be addressing that in the course of the hearing.

7236. MR STRAKER: Sir, perhaps I can just add this: that the issue as between the parties is that everyone would regard it as sensible no doubt for bus passengers to be able to access the station, the railway station, immediately from the precincts of the bus station. However, Crossrail at the moment indicate that that cannot be done. We would like it further investigated as to whether it could be done. Sir, having said that, I will then call, with your leave, Mr Martyn Thomas who has taken his place at the witness table.

 

MR MARTYN THOMAS, sworn

Examined by MR STRAKER

7237. MR STRAKER: You are Martyn Thomas, being the Development and Transportation Planning Manager with the London Borough of Havering?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct.

7238. I think your post is within the regeneration and strategic planning service of the Council's Sustainable Communities Directorate and you are a chartered town planner with some 26 years' planning experience in a wide range of planning fields?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct.

7239. You have produced, I believe, a bundle of slides which are capable of being displayed and which have also been reproduced in paper form for the Committee.

7240. CHAIRMAN: We will mark this A82.

7241. MR STRAKER: Thank you, sir. It sets out on its first page, if we could go to that, the key themes of your evidence and could you just take us through that please?

(Mr Thomas) Yes, the key themes of the evidence that I will look at are how amendments to Crossrail's proposals for Romford Station will achieve a much better level of access for station users and integration with other facilities, principally the bus interchange to the south of the station and, by so doing, be consistent with policies requiring better integration of transport modes which I will be explaining in summary as part of my evidence. Secondly, at the end of the evidence we will be looking at where we currently stand with Crossrail in regard to undertakings by them on other issues.

7242. I think we can pass through the next plan which can be shown on the screen, HAV2, which simply identifies where Havering is by reference to the M25. Then at HAV3 we have the strategic planning policy context, so can you just identify these documents and how these have come into being?

(Mr Thomas) Yes, there are a number of key planning policy documents which we feel are directly relevant to the situation here and I have highlighted the key ones here. First of all, we have the London Plan adopted in 2004, we then have the draft Sub-Regional Development Framework which is derived from the London Plan, and related to both of those and produced by the Mayor and Transport for London is the London Mayor's Transport Strategy. As far as Havering is concerned, we have our Unitary Development Plan which was adopted in 1993 and following on from that we are currently working on our Local Development Framework which will replace the UDP. In addition, the Council has brought forward a number of other strategies of various types over the years and the principal one of relevance for consideration is the Romford Urban Strategy which was adopted last year. It may be helpful to the Committee if I just highlight some of the key themes which we feel are relevant to the consideration today and which emerged from these documents. Romford, in the London Plan, is identified as a metropolitan centre. It is one of only two metropolitan centres in east London, the others being Wood Green and Ilford. It is identified as being part of the Thames Gateway area and, as such, is a priority for regeneration and for redevelopment. Fundamental to those initiatives are a whole range of issues relating to securing improvements as far as transport infrastructure is concerned. Transport infrastructure improvements are key to the direction of the Thames Gateway and the regeneration of that area and, as such, are also key to Romford town centre in a lot of ways. Those themes are picked up in the draft Sub-Regional Development Framework. Annex 1 of that document in particular identifies accessibility as being a key consideration for metropolitan town centres and, with regard to Romford, the document highlights that improvements to accessibility through schemes such as Crossrail and the Thames Gateway transit will be fundamental to securing economic and physical regeneration of town centres, so I think there are a number of key themes beginning to emerge which we feel are relevant to this issue. The London Mayor's Transport Strategy from 2001 identifies Romford as a key location for interchange improvements which is clearly relevant in this consideration. Our own UDP in 1993 identified improvements being necessary at public transport interchanges and these themes are very much themes which are emerging through our own Local Development Framework. The Romford Urban Strategy also identifies accessibility improvements throughout the town centre as absolutely fundamental to Romford's regeneration, whether we are talking about the station, whether we are talking about people coming on public transport from other parts of the town centre or people moving around the town centre on foot or coming in by car. If we move on to slides 4 and 5. At slide four, we have an extract from the Greater London Authority London plan and I think you have recited certainly the text of the plan but put a summary word on the right-hand side so that, for example, in the first box we see policy 3C1, integration of transport and development and you have just highlighted certain aspects and recorded integration.

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. What I tried to do with these policy extracts is highlight what we feel are the fundamental points of issue here. As Mr Straker has said, the right-hand side of the page includes a highlighted word for the issues which are being identified. For policy 3C1 integration is the key issue between public transport capacity and town centres. On policy 3C3, at the bottom of the page, you see that highlighted is the phrase "greater integration between bus, rail and underground services". If we turn over the page on to slide 5, I have referred already to the Mayor's transport strategy and there are a number of policy extracts here which we feel are directly relevant to this issue. The first one identifies assessable hubs and it refers to highly accessible hub nodes which would act as key development and interchange points and where appropriate also link with regeneration initiatives. Policy 4P1, in the middle of the page, highlights the word "co-ordination" because we feel that policy 4P1 looks at ensuring co-ordinated improvements for transport integration, facilitating greater use of public transport: walking and cycling. Moving down the page, we have highlighted the word "interchange". This policy from the Mayor's transport strategy 4P2 talks about Transport for London working with its partners improving interchange between public transport modes, walking and cycling, et cetera, to make interchange accessible enabling people to access the public transport system by car, et cetera. Finally, on that page we have policy 4P2 which is the one that I referred to earlier which identifies the need for investment proposals at interchange. The documents incidentally identifies Romford as one of a number of key interchanges in the Greater London area.

7243. Then we come to an extract from a Havering Unitary Development Plan STR27, where you have highlighted improvement, being your word, outside the box and highlighted improved interchanges as part of the policy aspiration.

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. This is policy STR27, one of the strategic policies from the Havering UDP. The document is somewhat old but even in the early 1990s the council was committed to achieving improvements in the social area and trying to make a better interchange there for the benefit of the town centre. This is evidence of that initiative. It is something that we have followed with a variety of other initiatives over the years as part of town centre improvement schemes and as part of funding bids for Transport for London for funding. In that context I would mention that the council is pursuing the funding bid, Transport for London, for an area based scheme around Romford Station to secure improvements in that area. The very fact that TfL have indicated their support for that scheme we feel adds further weight to the validity of our case here.

7244. Let us then pass from that policy STR 27 to the seventh slide where we see a location plan, is that correct?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct.

7245. You have added on the right-hand side Romford Station at the heart of the town centre?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. This slide is meant to give a pictorial presentation of where exactly the station lies in Romford town centre so that we can see exactly how important it is for the key activities which happen within the town centre. Centrally the town centre is bounded by the ring road which is substantially the area which has a red outline around it, but also is completed in the south-east quadrant by the uncoloured section just at the bottom right-hand corner of the page. The main town centre activities happen within the ring road, not exclusively within the ring road, but the main town centre within that area. The plan highlights a number of key activity areas. Number 1, we have the marketplace which is still a key area of activity for the town centre. It dates back to the 13th century but is fundamental to Romford's character and its success. Number 2 is the Liberty Centre which is a shopping centre originally developed 30 years ago but was substantially enhanced a couple of years ago and is now one of the key pedestrian destinations in the town centre. Number 3 is the Mall Shopping Centre which was developed in the mid-1980s to complement the Liberty Centre. Number 4 is the Brewery Centre which came on stream four or five years ago and is a re-development of a former brewery site. Now it is a key shopping destination, a key leisure destination. It includes housing and leisure facilities as well. Number 5 is the main office activity area within Romford, an area of both smaller office premises but a number of large and recent developments with national organisations represented there. Item 6 just outside of the ring road area and to the north of the plan is what effectively we call the city quarter which includes the council's main offices, the core buildings, the library and so forth. To the south of the white circle there are other town centre areas and to the south-west of the circle, that is in the bottom left-hand corner of the page, there is an area of industrial activity. On the opposite side of South Street, so that is the bottom right-hand side of the page, there is an area of mixed commercial use and residential use. That is essentially the character of the town centre in a nutshell. From that you can see that the station is quite clearly at the centre of all the activities that happen within the town centre.

7246. We can also see that the East London Transport transit route marked in blue is a perspective route, is that right?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. What the plan shows marked in blue is the proposal by Transport for London for a light transit system which would connect the outside of the borough and other parts of the Thames Gateway through the town centre and moves into the north of the borough. It is fundamental to this scheme that it comes past Romford Station and therefore creates a very significance and substantial transport interchange. It reinforces the point about the bus interchange which we have seen on the photographs which Crossrail has produced and will be shown in my photographs in a few moments.

7247. I think the bus interchanges reviewed its proximity to the station and we have got the yellow box, the proposed transport node in the vicinity of the bus station?

(Mr Thomas) That is exactly right. The yellow node has been slightly obscured by the white circle but it is immediately joining the station area within the white circle.

7248. Let us pass on please to the next plan which is number 8 and this reveals, as indicated, does it, that the bus station next to Romford station, the routes, are all centred on that very bus station?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. This is a plan which was sourced from Transport for London indicating bus routes throughout of borough. It shows that essentially there are in excess of 30 bus routes which service the station area, which by any stretch of the imagination is a very considerable number. Public transport patronage in Romford has been always particularly high, it is amongst the highest of all the London boroughs. Bus use in Romford is also very high compared with a lot of other boroughs. In general terms there are probably in excess of 50,000 people coming to Romford by bus every day.

7249. If we go to the next slide HAV9, please, this is the station today and we have had the advantage also of seeing already a similar slide from the Promoters. We can see here the main entrance A, the occasional entrance B and that is the ramp, is that right?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. We will see in a moment from the slides that the main entrance is quite restricted, as Crossrail themselves acknowledge. Entrance B is the ramp entrance to the south of the station which although it is an occasional entrance is quite substantially used. It is used by people with mobility problems, for pushchair users and frequently when it is being used by those people other mobile passengers use it as an access of choice because it is a convenient way to get into and get out of the station. Just to put some further dimension to the station usage, the indications from Crossrail are that 45 per cent of passengers using the station arrive at the station from the south, which we feel is significance, 55 per cent come from the north of the station. That will give you a feel for the number of passengers arriving. Crossrail's own figures suggest that in 2001 during the peak morning period there were in excess of 4,800 passengers arriving at the station. With the Crossrail scheme that figure would rise by 2015-16 to about 6,800 over the morning peak period. Transport for London's figures suggests that in excess of 5 million passengers a year use the station currently.

7250. Very well. There we see those particular matters. If we go on we get the first of your photographs, I think?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. Slide 10 is taken from South Street, which is the key shopping street running through the town centre. It was the original shopping street before the new shopping centres were built. This photograph was taken from just north of the railway station on the opposite side to the station entrance. I think it is self-evident and you can see that it is a fairly busy area. There are a number of passengers and pedestrians on the pavement by the station. We can see the two station entrances which are the main entrances currently. In the background to the photograph we can see the bus interchange with buses arriving and departing.

7251. Then HAV11, the next photograph, that one is a close-up to the entrances to the station?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. It is close-up to the entrance to the station. Those two doorways are the only routine entrances into the station. You get a feel from the picture of the restricted area that pedestrians have and you get a feel for the number of passengers that are typically around the station. These photographs were taken during the evening peak period.

7252. HAV12 moves slightly closer to where the buses are, is that right?

(Mr Thomas) That is moving underneath the bridge in the direction of the bus interchange. It shows people walking away from the station. Again, it gives an impression of the level of pedestrian activity, the relatively restricted space in that area and the absence of any facilities for people to meet people without getting in the way of other pedestrians.

7253. Then we have HAV13, please?

(Mr Thomas) This photograph was taken from the opposite side of the bridge, so we have moved underneath the bridges and are on the opposite side of the road of the bus interchange. It shows the station entrances and people walking from the station entrances back in the direction of the bus interchange.

7254. Is it possible to pick up on this photograph where the perspective station entrance, the present station entrance is being closed, will take place?

(Mr Thomas) Yes. The photograph on the extreme right-hand side shows that the rear end of the blue single-decker bus in general terms is where Crossrail's main entrance to the station would be under their current proposals.

7255. Very well. Let us then go over to 14 where we look at the bus interchange.

(Mr Thomas) This is the bus interchange immediately adjoining the station and immediately next to the south embankment of the station. You can see from this photograph there are a number of bus stands which evidences the 30 bus routes I was talking about serving the town centre and serving the station. You can see from this the levels of passenger activity that are typically found in this area during peak periods. Passengers alighting at the buses have to walk past the front of the small shop units which are on the ground floor of the main building. Essentially they come around the corner, past the blue fence that we see and walk down towards the station entrance. In walking terms we have heard how far the distance is, it is probably about a minute's walk from the bus stand to the current station entrance. If the proposals proceed as currently are intended my estimate is just to get to the station entrance that walking time would double and then passengers would then have the added inconvenience of getting ticketing arrangements within the ticket hall and then walking back on themselves to get back to the platform entrance. By any stretch of the imagination my view would be that for a commuter who may be in a hurry adding an extra minute and a half to every trip is not a very attractive proposition.

7256. Having identified HAV14 where the buses are, can we go to HAV23 and on HAV23, one can see the bus on the left‑hand side and one can see also, which one noticed in HAV13, the blue rails leading up alongside. Can you just help us, therefore, as to this photograph and what you take from this photograph, please?

(Mr Thomas) Yes. This photograph shows the walking route that passengers from the buses have to follow: they leave the buses - we can just see at the edge of the photograph - walk across the photograph and then off the page to the station entrance. The blue fencing is on the ramp which joins the southern entrance on the southern side of the station and this is the occasional entrance which was referred to earlier on. If you look at the middle of the page, at the top of the ramp, you can see a grey panel on the embankment wall and the doorway is immediately beneath that. That doorway is not permanently open; there is a call arrangement whereby passengers have to press a button and somebody from the station staff at the mezzanine level arrives at the other side of the door to open the door for passengers to use it. It is used primarily by people with disabilities, but, increasingly, as well our evidence is that it is used by people with pushchairs and people who have a significant amount of shopping, and it has become used as an entrance to the station.

7257. As I understand it, that is proposed to be closed under the Crossrail proposals?

(Mr Thomas) Crossrail's current proposals would delete that entrance option, that is correct.

7258. In HAV23, you refer at the foot of the page to a southerly entrance to the station proposed by the council would utilise access to an arch in the flank wall of the station next to the bus interchange to provide a direct link between the station and the bus interchange. The arches that you have got in mind there, any one in particular of those that one can see?

(Mr Thomas) Our position is that we are unaware of the station structure in detail, but we feel that investigations should be carried out of the opportunities for using one of those arches to provide a direct access between the bus interchange and the main ticketing hall, the main entrance of the new station. To pick up on the proximity, it would reduce the distance passengers would have to walk. It seems like a very attractive proposition.

7259. If we go back in the photographs, please, I think we can travel quickly through 15 which is looking at the interior of the station, is it not?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. Fifteen is the right‑hand side of the interior of the station. Confirming what was said earlier on about the restricted space available, in the background of the photograph, we can see the ticket booths or ticket gates and we see the stairs up to the mezzanine level, which is just underneath the display screens showing the travel information. On the right‑hand side of the station is the staircase up to the intermediate level where the ticket office is, that is in the top right‑hand corner of the photograph. From this picture, we can see it is a pretty cramped, there is not a great deal of space to move around, particularly when it is busy and we can see the staircase access is very steep and there is restricted width.

7260. HAV16, one looks at some shops on the left‑hand side of the station concourse?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. This photograph is on the other side of the station entrance, it is the left‑hand side as we walked into the station. There is a gentleman on the right‑hand side using some ticketing machines to purchase tickets; on the left‑hand side we have a number of small retail units which supply station services: dry cleaning, a hot food takeaway, and on the other side of the station there is a newsagents. Our contention is that there should be an investigation for the opportunity to take a passageway through from this area to the embankment directly through to the south side of the station, which as I referred to earlier on, almost half of the passengers arriving at the station arrive from.

7261. Then we go on, having identified that point, HAV17 shows a staircase on the right‑hand side, I think is one entrance to the station?

(Mr Thomas) Correct. It is just a more detailed photograph of the staircase, again showing the restricted width and the steepness of the stairs. Just to the right is the other retail unit I mentioned a few moments ago.

7262. Eighteen shows the ticket barriers in use?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. It shows the volume of passengers that you typically see at the station at busy periods coming down the stairs and through the ticketing barriers.

7263. Then 19, the stairs from the ticket office down to the main entrance?

(Mr Thomas) Yes, it is self-explanatory, the steep staircase and the restricted width.

7264. Then 20 and 21. Twenty first, obviously, this repays a moment's explanation, does it not, because it is within this photograph that one can see or one can locate the position of the access used by those who you have just described?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. This is the mezzanine level, as it were, at the station. To the level left of the photograph, we have the stairs down to the main ticket hall and to the main station entrance. Slightly off to the left, we have where passengers would come from the ticket hall itself. To the right of the photograph, we can just see the handrail on the right‑hand side of the photograph. The platforms are served by ramps and stairs. Platform five has ramps we can see. Beyond that, there are a number of staircases leading up to the platforms. Right at the end of the photograph on the far wall, behind the gentlemen in the centre of the photograph, is the doorway which is at the top of the ramp on the south side of the station. If we move to the next slide, slide 21, that is the doorway entrance we have just been talking about which is currently described as the occasional entrance but is used far more significantly than that.

7265. Then we go to 22 and we see that which is presently proposed, so we have got a closure of a ramped access and a movement of the main entrance further along the road away from the bus station?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. Crossrail's main entrance or entrance to the station would be the yellow arrow which I have indicated as "A" on my plan. We can see that it is an increased distance away from the bus interchange at B. The bus interchange also has other facilities in terms of a taxi rank as well alongside Atlanta Boulevard, given the nature of transport interchange, a transport hub and so forth. That is probably all I can say about the photograph.

7266. We can move on I think to HAV26 where we see that which you are asking for and perhaps, you can just help us as far as this is concerned because it is a request that it should be considered whether one can get through rather than a requirement that one should do that, is that right?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes. What we are seeking is an undertaking that Crossrail, as part of their proposals to the station, will at least look at this as an opportunity. We understand that the works that are taking place at the station as part of the Crossrail scheme are really quite significant in terms of construction works, and are probably going to last in excess of two years. To our mind, it does not seem unreasonable within that timescale to begin to look at the opportunities to produce what we feel is a common sense solution to a very practical issue about improving passenger access to the station for very sound reasons.

7267. Consequently, there is an undertaking there or it is put in terms of "unless the nominated undertakers are of the reasonable opinion that there are reasonable engineering reasons why it cannot be constructed, the nominated undertakers shall construct the pedestrian tunnel link"?

(Mr Thomas) Correct.

7268. I can leave that matter there and can I ask you then to go to 27, please, where some further draft undertaking is continued and the only one that I need to mention, is this right, is the one on cumulative impacts?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes. Since the slide was prepared, we have a response back from Crossrail's side in response to our suggested undertaking. We have difficulty with their proposed revisions for our undertaking because it would only rely on looking at issues which have been identified in the environmental statement.

7269. If we pause there for one moment, just take it in stages, if I may, the cumulative impact undertaking, there is a liaison requirement and, as far as that is concerned, there is now no difference between the Petitioners and Crossrail?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes.

7270. Then there is an undertaking written down here "adjust where reasonably practicable the timing and extent of the works to minimise the cumulative environmental impact on residents and businesses in Romford town centre". That is being suggested by the Petitioners. The suggestion from the undertakers is that it should be limited to minimising the substantial adverse effects in the environmental statement?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes. Our position is that, by definition, that will be ruling out any impacts which arise from works which have not already been identified in the environmental statement. Romford has been undergoing very considerable change in recent years, considerable amount of development; that is the background to this point as far as we are concerned, there is a need to match up and take account of the concerted implications of the construction activity that is taking place.

7271. Thank you very much. The other one south end arterial construction, dealt with or can be left over?

(Mr Thomas) Yes.

7272. Mr Thomas, thank you very much indeed.

 

Cross-examined by MR MOULD

 

7273. MR MOULD: Mr Thomas, you have shown the Committee, helpfully, a number of planning policies which deal with the aspiration for the better integration of public transport interchanges throughout London and, indeed, locally, yes?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes.

7274. You will know that discussions have taken place between the Promoter and your borough regarding the provision of a southern access to Romford Station certainly since a meeting took place in relation to that issue in January 2005, is that right?

(Mr Thomas) It is the subject of ongoing discussions, yes.

7275. You know from those discussions that one of Crossrail's objectives for station designs is, where practicable, to improve internodal and transport interchange and that that aspiration is one, therefore, that reflects the policies that you have shown the Committee, yes?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct, and we welcome Crossrail's commitment to doing that. What we are asking them to do now is to demonstrate the commitment to achieving that in way which we feel is worthy of investigation.

7276. I mentioned our objective and our aspiration and, as you rightly say, in so far as the aspiration is concerned, all things being equal, it is one that we share, but I emphasise the words "where practicable". In principle, that is a fair qualification to import into that objective, is it not?

(Mr Thomas) It is a very fair qualification under the circumstances, yes.

7277. Two key issues in relation to railway construction and design that affect practicability are firstly engineering considerations, yes?

(Mr Thomas) Correct.

7278. Secondly, the disruption that construction of any particular scheme is likely to cause to the operation of the existing railway?

(Mr Thomas) Yes.

7279. You are aware, are you not - and we will go through the correspondence in a moment - that the two main reasons as to why the Promoter has taken the view that it is not practicable to provide the southern access to the Romford Station which you seek are, firstly, that it would involve major engineering works.

(Mr Thomas) That has recently been indicated as the case. It has only recently been indicated as such. We have had to raise that with Crossrail as part of preparing this work to establish whether that was in fact the case.

7280. You say recently, you have been made aware of our concerns about engineering disruption in relation to the provision of a southern access since, at least, that meeting in January 1985, have you not?

(Mr Thomas) I do not recall that being put forward as an issue at that stage.

7281. Certainly those are my instructions. Mr Berryman can confirm that, if appropriate, in a moment. It is certainly a point that was set out in the Petition response document that was sent out to the London Borough of Havering.

(Mr Thomas) Yes, I would confirm that.

7282. In particular, major engineering works to the existing embankment which carries the Great Eastern fast lines, the southern of the four tracks which pas through Romford Station.

(Mr Thomas) Yes, that is correct.

7283. At page 59 of our document, as we can see, we have a computerised image of the existing structure. This is the slow track - the "'e' lines" as we call them.

(Mr Thomas) Yes.

7284. And South Street running under here.

(Mr Thomas) Correct.

7285. The fast line is here.

(Mr Thomas) Correct.

7286. The eastern line. In the existing Victorian structure there is what you might call the "pinch point" which we have mentioned to you. This is the area which is part of the original Victorian structure of the railway line.

(Mr Thomas) Yes.

7287. We are unaware of the contents and the materials which form this structure.

(Mr Thomas) Yes, and I would say that is what we are asking Crossrail to investigate, to see whether there is the possibility of putting a connecting link through that area rather than simply saying it cannot be done.

7288. In order to undertake even those works that you mention would require major intrusion and disruption of the existing fast trains, through possessions and engineering works which would cause significant disruption, major disruption, to the existing Great Eastern service.

(Mr Thomas) I would accept that it would require some disruption to the existing service. Crossrail have not told us exactly how much disruption there would be and how long that disruption would take or what the frequency would be. I mentioned in my evidence that all indications are that the works to the station will go on for some two years plus. Further down the line, under Crossrail's current proposals, there are further works proposed to achieve the depot scheme. This cannot be seen in isolation as the only interruption to the existing services.

7289. I will ask Mr Berryman to comment in a moment on the degree to which disruption would be caused to the operation of the existing mainline and also the degree to which that would be over and above or of a greater order of magnitude than every other proposed disruption.

(Mr Thomas) I would like to add that, although I am not a railway specialist, there may be some scope for services to be diverted on to the other lines to facilitate this, and the option is there for Crossrail to look at that and to explain why that would not be a feasibility, if indeed that is the case.

7290. You say you are not a railway specialist, are you an engineer?

(Mr Thomas) I am not. I am a planner.

7291. There are two points that we have raised with you: major engineering works and severe disruption to the operation of the existing railway through possessions and the carrying out of those works. Is that right?

(Mr Thomas) You have raised those and Crossrail say there will be severe disruption. We are saying that, so far, we have not had that quantified.

7292. The principal access is via the entrance which is located beneath the bridge structures. That is right, is it not?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. My photographs show there are two relatively narrow entrances into the station concourse there.

7293. There is a secondary access to the south which is only available on request, which, as you indicated, is principally used by persons of restricted mobility and, also, from time to time by people carrying shopping bags or with prams and pushchairs and so forth.

(Mr Thomas) That is characterising it as not being used very extensively. When I was at the station earlier on this week in the middle of the afternoon period, it was more or less in constant use. The station staff routinely patrol the mezzanine level and are available and do open the door on request for people who use that ramp to gain access into the station.

7294. It is plainly right to characterise it as a secondary access and one which is only available on request.

(Mr Thomas) Yes, but I would add that in what we might call the "out of hours operation of the station" that is the main exit for the station.

7295. That is an access which physically is at a gradient which is substandard: 1:20.

(Mr Thomas) I have not measured it but I know from Crossrail's documents it is 1:20, yes.

7296. In order to bring that access up to a standard which is acceptable would require works which would impinge upon the public highway, is that right?

(Mr Thomas) Again, I have not designed a ramp - that is not my role in these things - but to achieve a ramp of an appropriate gradient may take it beyond the current area, yes.

7297. The main station entrance itself is presently some 75 metres from the bus interchange on foot, is it not?

(Mr Thomas) Can we add one further point, please. The council's position is not that that ramp itself should be used as the entrance. That is not its preferred option. The preferred option would be to come through at ground level through the arches.

7298. MR MOULD: We have the photograph on the screen. You have described them as arches, but in fact they are not arches. They are buttresses to the Victorian structure at page 59 which we looked at a moment ago.

7299. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, could I pause there. Can you tell me why the current entrance cannot remain open - or at least what Crossrail has in terms of ideas for access for disabled users?

7300. MR MOULD: Yes, sir. We are proposing to provide lift access - and you can see it on the slide that has just been put up - to platform 2 and indeed platforms, 3, 4 and 5 as part of our station proposals.

7301. CHAIRMAN: We have the council here suggesting something. Can you not give an undertaking to consider it?

7302. MR MOULD: We have considered it. This is the point. I am exploring one or two points with the witness in cross-examination. I am happy to bring that to an end and ask Mr Berryman to deal with the points.

7303. CHAIRMAN: When you are looking at the other areas where the council were saying that they wanted to find out what was there, would it be that difficult to do some drilling and take materials out to try to establish this?

7304. MR MOULD: The answer is yes. Mr Berryman can explain that to you in a moment when he gives his evidence. The basic position is this: it has been said that this is works to be done. We are satisfied from the work that we have done that, whilst in principle we would like to have a southern access to the station, it is not possible.

7305. CHAIRMAN: I fully understand that. You have given an undertaking that you are going to do something and all the council are seeking to ask is whether you would consider what they are suggesting.

7306. MR MOULD: I understand that. This is the difference between us. Our position is that, if you will, there is no reasonable point in us understanding that process because we are satisfied from the work we have done already that it is not reasonable or practicable to provide the access that they suggest may be a possibility. It is striking, from what you have heard, that the council's themselves acknowledge that they have no substantial basis to question the reasonableness of the work that we have done and the conclusions we have drawn from it.

7307. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will check that again with Mr Berryman.

7308. MR MOULD: Mr Thomas, I would like to confirm with you that the structures adjacent to the ramp that you described as arches are in fact buttresses, as we can see from this slide.

(Mr Thomas) With the benefit of that slide, I can see, yes, that they are buttresses. From the position on the ramp and looking at them and not having access to them, the reasonable conclusion was that at the very least they were arches, even if they were something else behind those arches. The council did not have access to make any further investigation. Again, without being an engineer, I am not aware of what practical difference that makes - whether they are arches or buttresses - to the practicality or otherwise of providing a pedestrian link on the south side of the station through into the main station entrance.

7309. I will ask Mr Berryman to explain that. He is an engineer, so he can help us with that.

(Mr Thomas) Thank you.

7310. Can we examine the existing arrangements. The current position is that the main entrance to the station is some 75 metres from the bus interchange.

(Mr Thomas) Yes.

7311. Under our proposals, that distance would increase by something up to 50 metres.

(Mr Thomas) It would increase, and, as I mentioned, I think there would be a further distance involved because passengers arriving from the south side of the station would go in through the new station entrance and they would then effectively have to double-back on themselves to gain access to the platforms, which, as far as we are concerned, seems an unnecessary and undesirable journey for them to make, both in terms of distance and in terms of time. But the council position is quite straightforward, that an access from the south side of the station, maybe including some sort of ticketing barrier, so that season ticket holders could go through the barrier and have direct access to the station, is at least worthy of investigation. We are not suggesting that a full ticket office where passengers would buy tickets should be provided on the south side, but it would enable passengers with a season ticket, an Oyster card or whatever to make a relatively straightforward transition from the bus interchange up to the platforms.

7312. I am going to ask Mr Berryman to comment on the management implications of that proposed arrangement in a moment. You suggested that the greater distance involved might involve a typical increase in journey time of a minute or a minute and a half.

(Mr Thomas) When I walked it, I would say that was the general level of increase, yes.

7313. To do, what, 50 metres and then double-back on yourself a little bit?

(Mr Thomas) To do the extra distance, yes, and to come back on yourself.

7314. It seems, with respect, a very slow moving pace to do 50-odd metres. But there it is. One has to balance against that fact, as I think we agree, that the existing station is one that is sub-standard and is congested, particularly at peak times.

(Mr Thomas) It is, yes.

 

7315. Of course congestion itself gives rise to delays, does it not?

(Mr Thomas) Yes.

7316. I think we agree, do we not, that as far as the proposed Crossrail station is concerned, it will very substantially relieve those problems particularly in relation to congestion?

(Mr Thomas) I do not think that is an issue between us at all. I think we see a station which is, with all considerations in mind, at the moment very sub-standard for a metropolitan centre, a gateway to Romford in many senses, and Crossrail's proposals in that sense would significantly improve it, but that is not the issue that we are looking at currently.

7317. And in considering the impact of the relatively minor increase in distance of the order of 50 metres which will result from the proposed Crossrail station entrance, one has to balance against that the savings in typical journey times for pedestrians through the relief of congestion that you have just described?

(Mr Thomas) That would have to be taken into account, yes, but under Crossrail's proposal the existing pavement area in the front of the station would be the only pedestrian area into the station, so passengers would still a relatively congested area to negotiate.

7318. Can we just consider another point. Can we put up your slide seven, please. You told us about the town centre proposals when you gave your evidence and it is fair to say, is it not, that the Crossrail station proposals will be very well placed to serve those who are journeying to and from the station and the town centre?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct. The Council has, in that sense, been very supportive of Crossrail's proposal. It is seen as having potentially a very beneficial effect on Romford and Havering generally in terms of the improved accessibility to employment and transport modes that we would expect a scheme like this to have. There is no issue as far as that is concerned. By the same token, Crossrail may in fact bring more people to Romford in terms of bringing people to work in Romford who may not currently be working here.

7319. Yes. In relation to the reasons why from the Promoter's point of view the provision of a new southern access to the station is not a practicable solution, we set out our reasons to you in summary, did we not, in the letter we wrote to you on 16 April this year, which is our document 126. You have seen that letter, I take it?

(Mr Thomas) I have seen that letter, yes.

7320. If we can just turn to page 127, please, and those reasons are there set out on that page. I am not going to trouble the Committee with reading that out but it is fair to say, is it not, that you do not take issue with what is said in that letter so far as its accuracy is concerned?

(Mr Thomas) I would say that is a representation of the position between us at the moment, yes.

7321. And you do not bring any evidence before the Committee to suggest that any of those reasons is unjustified or incorrect?

(Mr Thomas) No, I have dealt with my evidence so far.

7322. And the same point arises, does it not, at the bottom of the page and over the page which deals with the retention of the existing secondary access. We have explained the reasons why we do not believe it is practicable to retain that. You do not suggest the reasons we give there are unjustified?

(Mr Thomas) We have discussed that already, yes, and I have made my position clear about those points.

7323. So if we turn then finally to your proposed undertaking which is at your document, page 26 under A, which is the undertaking which is concerned with the provision of a new access to the south. The way in which you suggest it should be put is that "unless the nominated undertaker is of the reasonable opinion that there are reasonable engineering reasons why it cannot be constructed". Then you say we should carry out the works that you there set out. So you accept that it should be a matter for "reasonable opinion" and it should be based upon "reasonable engineering reasons" as to whether construction is a practicable proposition?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes, and we have asked for information and clarification on those points.

7324. And certainly the letter I have just shown briefly to the Committee is the present judgment of the Promoter of Crossrail, is it not?

(Mr Thomas) I would have to agree that that is Crossrail's current position, yes.

7325. And you suggested if there were any differences to those points that they should be subject to an arbitration clause at C?

(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes.

7326. But there is, in fact, on the evidence before the Committee nothing to arbitrate, is there, because you do not bring any contrary evidence before the Committee to suggest that the Promoter's position on the engineering operation and the disruption that would result from what you propose is in any way unjustified or unreasonable?

(Mr Thomas) We do not bring any contrary opinion or contrary evidence because we have not got any evidence to bring in that sense. We have asked Crossrail to provide evidence to explain why the position is as it is for Crossrail.

7327. The final point relates to the undertaking on next page, page 27, in relation to cumulative impacts. You have mentioned the need to take account of impacts which had not been identified in the Environmental Statement. Can you please tell me what impacts you had in mind which would result from the operation of Crossrail which have not been identified in the Environmental Statement?

(Mr Thomas) We are talking here about impacts which arise cumulatively in Romford from the implications of other developments taking place, which I mentioned earlier on, and the Crossrail works, and those are the cumulative impacts that we are concerned about.

7328. We have confirmed to you, have we not, that we would take reasonable, practicable steps as appropriate to programme the timing and extent of works so as to reduce environmental impacts that the Crossrail construction would cause on residents and businesses in Romford town centre. Yes?

(Mr Thomas) You have.

7329. Essentially that is what you seek, is it not?

(Mr Thomas) Yes.

7330. MR MOULD: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Thomas.

 

Examined by THE COMMITTEE

7331. CHAIRMAN: Mr Thomas, just enlighten me. Could you go back on the undertakings on the southern side. Could you just briefly explain to me the difference between what is in the undertakings which have been given and that which you still are holding out for? What is not contained in that? What more do you want from that?

(Mr Thomas) I do not think we want any more than this. This is what we are looking for.

7332. That is what you are looking for at the end of the day?

(Mr Thomas) But for Crossrail to demonstrate the issues for us.

7333. On the other side of it, you said earlier on in your evidence that by 2016, I think it was, five million passengers may be going through this particular station. How many of those would be affected by the need for this southern access?

(Mr Thomas) Maybe I did not present the figures as clearly as I should have done. The five million figure is a figure that Transport for London have given us already for the level of passenger use in the last year or so. In the existing Romford station, in a typical year up to 2005, their evidence is that five million passengers a year would use the station.

7334. Out of the five million, how many would be affected by this lack of access, the longer journey time?

(Mr Thomas) I am not sure that I can make that direct connection but the other figure that I alluded to in my evidence is almost half the passengers arriving at Romford station currently arrive from the south, from the bus station outside the station.

7335. That would be two and a half million people you expect to be affected in the course of a year?

(Mr Thomas) If that connection could be made, yes, that would appear to be the case.

7336. I did remember you said between one and two million and now it is one to one and a half million but even at one to one and a half million that could mean close to four million minute in the course of a year?

(Mr Thomas) It could be, yes, or for an individual it is not unusual these days, in terms of looking at people's lifestyles, to gross up how a small inconvenience can all of a sudden become a very significant inconvenience over a working lifetime.

7337. So it is not inconsiderable, it is quite considerable; that is what you are saying?

(Mr Thomas) That is the Council's position that individually for separate passengers it would be an issue and if you apply it to the gross figure of people using the station then it becomes an even more significant issue.

7338. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

 

Re-examined by MR STRAKER

7339. MR STRAKER: Can I just ask one or two matters by way of re-examination. May I first touch upon the undertaking at HAV26, the one just spoken to, which is the undertaking that the Petitioners are seeking. Mr Thomas, could you have that open and could you also be shown, please, page 127 of P75, which is the letter of 18 April 2006 from Crossrail. If you look at page 127 you will see that the third paragraph refers to "to extend the ticket hall" and then goes on to suggest certain things would be required in order for it to be done. First of all, please, are the petitioners, the London Borough of Havering, seeking an extended ticket hall?

(Mr Thomas) No, the Council's position is that the ticket hall does not need to be extended. All we are seeking in this instance is for an access arrangement from the south side of the station. There may be, we acknowledge, a need for there to be a ticket barrier system so that people can use their season tickets or Oyster cards to get into the station, but we are clearly not asking for a ticket hall to be a duplicated facility on either side of the station.

7340. In the undertaking put forward, HAV26, there is a reference to "reasonable engineering reasons". May I ask you this please: do you take that which is set out in this letter as constituting "reasonable engineering reasons"?

(Mr Thomas) Not in itself because we have not had the reasons explained to us in any detail.

7341. And as far as what has been said in the letter of 18 April 2006, can you help the Committee as to when that was first said by Crossrail? Have you had that detail before?

(Mr Thomas) We have not had this detail before, no.

7342. Can you just help me on one further matter, please. Could we have number 60 of the Promoter's diagrams, the "Preferred Option Aerial View of Ticket Hall". What I would like you to help the Committee upon is this, please - and it touches upon the access for the less mobile or for others who might otherwise have used the present ramp which is proposed to be closed - in this plan we can see the station entrance on the right-hand side of the plan?

(Mr Thomas) We can, yes.

7343. And we cannot see identified by words or pictures where the bus station is but it is plainly to the left of where one can see the words on the plan "existing rail bridge structure"?

(Mr Thomas) Very considerably off to the left, yes.

7344. Now what happens, please, if someone has travelled by bus, mobility impaired in a chair or other device, who has then to come to the station entrance, the closure of the present ramp having been effected?

(Mr Thomas) As I interpret this drawing, somebody who arrived in that context would have to travel from the bus interchange, round the front of the station, along the front of the station in that relatively restricted area which was on my photographs, pass under the railway bridges, the two sets of tracks, and along to the right-hand side of the drawing to the station entrance, before entering the station and then gaining access.

7345. MR STRAKER: Thank you very much. Sir, that is all that I would wish to ask by way of re-examination. I am much obliged to you.

 

The witness withdrew

7346. MR MOULD: I would like to call Mr Berryman, please. Whilst Mr Berryman is taking his seat, can I clarify one thing, lest there be any doubt about it. We looked at the draft undertakings which were set out in Havering's document before the Committee. I should make it clear the draft undertakings we were looking at are those which Havering themselves are suggesting that we should enter into. We are not content to do that for reasons I have explored in cross-examination and Mr Berryman will now deal with in evidence.

 

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, Sworn

Examined by MR MOULD

7347. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, can we please have up our document 61. Can you first of all, please, just explain briefly to the Committee how the present facilities at Romford railway station were developed?

(Mr Berryman) I am happy to do that but I would prefer to have slide 59. I think slide 61 is useful in that it shows what a very sub-standard station exists in Romford at the moment. This is the slide that shows the structure of the station and the structure of the station is a very important determinant in the design that we have taken forward. The station was originally built in Victorian times when the Great Eastern Railway was built as a two-track railway, and you can see the two tracks on the south side there - could someone point that out on that side - with the original two tracks which formed the railway. The railway station at Romford was further to the west, that is to say away from the bridge. The platforms probably extended to the bridge but the station buildings were well back so the bridge which carried the railway over South Street was formed as an arch in those days. It is a very solid construction. You can see the very heavy structure there which says "existing Victorian structure" on it. It is marked as that and that was the original abutments for the bridge which carried the railway over South Street. In the 1930s the additional tracks, what we call the 'e' lines and the tracks which would be used by Crossrail, were built, and the opportunity was taken at that time to build a new station underneath those lines to give much more direct access to South Street itself. The existing Victorian structure which is marked there is a very heavy brickwork structure. We understand that the thickness of the walls will be in excess of one metre, based on the history of the works. The material inside that brickwork structure will be either compacted fill or more likely, given the age of the structure and the technologies and techniques available at the time, brick rubble, that is to say broken bricks and the like. We do not know for sure but what we do know for sure is that it is something solid in there.

7348. CHAIRMAN: It would not be just impacted soft soil?

(Mr Berryman) No, it would not be. It is extremely unlikely it would be that. The structure on the north side of the station, that is to say the relatively new line built in the 1930s, is shown there, and it is much more amenable to modification than on the south side, but you can see that the whole building on both sides of the station is very heavy construction. It was all built in brick, it is all substantial, and that has been a major determinant in the design solution we have developed for the station. The main lines at that time were not subject to rebuild. There was just a mezzanine passageway put at the back of the existing bridge abutment to allow circulation to the platforms. Perhaps if we could have 61 now. There you can see some of the features. The bottom left-hand corner shows the new structure which was erected during the 1930s. The bottom right-hand corner shows the interior of that. To describe Romford station as "congested and not fit for purpose" would be a mild understatement. It is a diabolical mess and it needs to be sorted out whether Crossrail is built or not, but on the assumption that we are going to do it, the solution that we have developed is to improve the circulation areas within that space, to provide MIP access to all the platforms, but to do that within the context of the structure that is there and within something that can be reasonably and economically built but to modern standards.

7349. MR MOULD: And if we go back to 60 we see what we propose?

(Mr Berryman) This is what we are proposing, yes. One of the things that we need to do is to improve the circulation down from the platforms to the concourse. On Tuesday evening, after appearing in Committee here, by way of relaxation I went down to have a look at Romford station and to see how it works in the peak. I have been there many times before, of course, but I thought it was worth refreshing my memory. It is very, very congested. It takes several minutes to get off the platform down through that very narrow area that I showed you on the previous slide to the street. What we are proposing is to provide escalators from the platforms down to street level, but to fit in within the structure that we have got, to provide the escalators and to provide the run-off for those escalators in order to make them properly useable, we have to use the whole of the space out as far as the South Street frontage. That means that we need to provide a new ticket facility and gateline on the north side of the station. That is shown on this plan. The amount of space that is available at the station will be increased by a factor of about four or five.

7350. Just in relation to MIP access, we show the proposed lifts there?

(Mr Berryman) Indeed, and it might be worth saying a word at this stage about the existing ramp on the south side of the station. That has a gradient of approximately one in ten.

7351. I got that wrong, I am sorry about that.

(Mr Berryman) The existing ramp is one in ten. The current standard for MIP access is one in 20, with landings every five metres, so from an MIP perspective that access is extremely sub-standard. Although I accept it is useful for people with buggies and luggage and so on, I think it is probably of less use for anyone in a wheelchair, whereas the scheme that we are proposing will provide full lift access to all platforms.

7352. So in that sense, as far as MIP access is concerned, it is a clear policy of improvement?

(Mr Berryman) Very much so.

7353. Can we come to the issue between us today of why the option of providing a station that was accessible from not only the north site but also the south side was not adopted by Crossrail?

(Mr Berryman) The original brief to consultants was in fact to provide a station underneath the whole viaduct, so there was a full entrance on the south side and a full entrance on the north side as well. Obviously from a transport planning point of view that would be a much better solution. It is common ground between us and the borough on that point. The difficulty was that when we started to get into the structural and construction implications of how that could be built, bearing in mind the presence of this very large almost block of brick, it became very difficult to see how the construction and in particular the railway possessions could be handled. This is a congested site. It is in the middle of a busy town centre. Some of the options which are available to us in the country are not available here, such as building a bridge alongside and slotting it in. It is just not physically practicable so it meant very long possessions of the railway - what we call blockades where we have quite a long possession. Even with that, we could not really make a satisfactory structural solution work. That is why we turn to this proposal which fits in with the existing brickwork structures and tries to make use of them as far as possible but can be built with very much less disruption to the railway.

7354. Can we just be clear, the extended period of possessions and possibly blockades that you mentioned, would that be in relation to the existing Great Eastern main line?

(Mr Berryman) Yes it would.

7355. That is where this engineering activity would need to be focused?

(Mr Berryman) Yes and indeed on the 'e' lines as well because in order to achieve that kind of solution the escalator location would have to move further west and that would involve rearranging some of the structures on the 'e' lines as well as on the main lines.

7356. There was some discussion a few moments ago about the number of passengers that might be affected by the lack of a southern access to the station and the amount of journey time that might cumulatively result from that. Is it possible to get any sense in practical terms of what the implications of the kind of extended possessions and possibly blockades you mentioned might be in terms of impact on commuters and so on?

(Mr Berryman) There would obviously be a direct impact on the commuters from Romford but the main impact would be on the whole of the Eastern Region of the railway networks because, as you know, these are lines that go to Norwich and Ipswich.

7357. Have you got any sense in terms of the duration, for example, how many days or weeks it might be?

Mr Berryman) It is a very large number. 30 or 40 substantial possessions would have been needed. I do not have the figure at my fingertips but it was in that range.

7358. The Council say so be it, if those kinds of problems arise from that proposal, what about then as a fall-back simply maintaining an access through to the south which can give ingress, if you will, on to the new station to the north of the embankment? What do you say about that?

(Mr Berryman) There are two issues there. First of all, that access comes directly into the paying side of the station and brings supervision problems of course. The next issue is that the ramp itself is sub-standard, it is too steep. The third issue is we have identified that side where the ramp is as a possible location where Network Rail might wish to provide MIP access to the main line trains. We are providing it to Crossrail trains of course. On all of those grounds keeping that existing entrance open would not be a desirable thing to do.

7359. In evidence Mr Thomas suggested that one might gain access via what he described as one of the arches. We can see there what he was referring to, a series of four buttresses on the south side of the Victorian structure. Is that a realistic proposition?

(Mr Berryman) They are not arches of course, they are buttresses. The way an arch works is that it supports the load from above by the arch action. The way a buttress works is it supports the load from the side by the arch action. In other words, those buttresses are there to resist the pressure of the soil or rubble or whatever it is that is inside that large box. To knock through them is not a minor task. Nothing in engineering is impossible but it is quite a big job and if you were to do that, of course, you would only be breaking into the paying side of the station in any event so you would still have the problem of managing and dealing with that.

7360. Can we then please put up HAV26, the proposed undertakings. The undertaking that the Petitioners propose in relation to Romford station is shown on this page. What it effectively anticipates is that there be further work undertaken by the Promoter in order to review the possibility of a southern access being provided at the station as part of the Crossrail works. Yes?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

7361. In the light of your understanding of the engineering situation and of the possessions and so forth that would be required, can you comment on the degree to which you think there is any practicable purpose in any further work being undertaken?

(Mr Berryman) I think we have pretty well exhausted the options that we have looked at for this, apart from the very substantial works that I talked about before, looking at a more modest solution. Our starting point was that we should have the entrance on the south side. That would be, in transport terms, a much better solution and I do not think anybody would argue with that, but we just have not been able to develop a way of effectively doing that and, frankly, I cannot see that there is much else we could do other than what we have done already.

7362. Mr Berryman, can we think about other ways of improving access from the south side of the station to the proposed Crossrail station ticket hall. Have we made any suggestions to the London Borough as to how the existing street access might be enhanced or improved in the absence of a southern entrance to the station itself?

(Mr Berryman) We have. We have suggested that we should work with them to improve the urban area outside the station to improve the flow of pedestrians in front of what will be the closed existing station. It is worth noting that one of the reasons that the footpath outside the existing station is very congested is that people are coming from the north and the south and there is a considerable mixing up of the pedestrian flows in that area. This will be ameliorated to some extent by our proposed station construction which has the entrance further to the north closer to the town centre, but it can be improved considerably even beyond that by making the footpaths wider and perhaps improving the general layout of the area, and we would be happy to work with them towards that.

7363. Finally, so far as making our position clear to the Petitioners in relation to the issue that we have raised for the Committee to consider today is concerned, are you satisfied that we have explained our position to the Petitioners as is summarised in our letter of 18 April?

(Mr Berryman) Certainly. We sent the design report to them, from recollection, I think it was in early 2005 and I know that we have had several discussions with them since then.

7364. MR MOULD: Those are all my questions in chief.

7365. CHAIRMAN: Mr Straker, how long will your cross-examination be?

7366. MR STRAKER: It is not going to be very long, say, quarter of an hour.

7367. CHAIRMAN: Then I think we had better break now for coffee for ten minutes.

 

After a short break

 

Cross-examined by MR STRAKER

7368. MR STRAKER: Mr Berryman, can I ask you first please to look at your drawing number 59, I think it is, which shows the existing structure. If we look at that which is called the 'existing Victorian structure', over that you have put a red line to signify that it runs from an element which is pink over some light grey, darker grey and then to the pink into which the doors are set.

(Mr Berryman) Which doors would those be?

7369. I am sorry, it is the doors that we can see on the photographs, the timber doors.

(Mr Berryman) Do you meant what Mr Thomas described as 'the arches'?

7370. Yes, that is right.

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

7371. That is the early Victorian structure and within the pink or just to the right of the pink where 'existing Victorian structure' is written, there is the continuous grey which is shown and it is that area which is the area, is it, of uncertainty in the sense that that has not been recently explored?

(Mr Berryman) No. This drawing is an obviously unsuccessful attempt to demonstrate this in 3D, so the different coloured greys are intended to show where the vertical faces of the brick structures are and the pink surfaces are intended to show where the horizontal surfaces will be, assuming a cut was taken immediately below the railway lines, so the pink outline, if you like, represents the brick structure. Inside that brick structure we know there is material of some description. We do not know whether it is compacted earth or brick rubble, but there is something there.

7372. With that in mind, would you go next please to photograph HAV23. There we see what have been described as 'arches' set into what you have called the 'Victorian structure'.

(Mr Berryman) Yes. They are not arches of course, they are buttresses.

7373. Plainly one can get into them because there are little internal doors with padlocks, it can be seen.

(Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes.

7374. So plainly one can get into them and go a little way back no doubt?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, indeed.

7375. The Victorian structure can be seen in this photograph continuously, can it not, from the right-hand side where the photograph ends running all the way across, represented effectively by that sort of greyish brick?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

7376. So the Victorian structure runs back almost out of sight in effect in the photograph because one gets cut off from the corner of the modern building outside which the bus is parked?

(Mr Berryman) That is correct. We believe that the original station building was further to the west than is shown in this diagram and that that ramp which you can see represents the bit of the ramp which led up to the station building at that time, so if you produced that line onwards, it would give you the approximate position of where the earlier building was.

7377. So we can see within that Victorian structure, can we not, the door which has been described as the one for occasional use, the level of occasion being described in evidence?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.

7378. And that is something which has been cut into the existing Victorian structure, is it not?

(Mr Berryman) That is correct. It has been cut into the existing perimeter wall.

7379. It has been cut into the existing perimeter wall and, moreover, a way through has been found so as to enable people to get through.

(Mr Berryman) You will notice that that is at the back of the buttress structure. The buttress structure, as I mentioned earlier, is acting as one end of the bridge over South Street. That bridge was originally an arch bridge, whereas at the moment it is a steel-beam bridge. The very heavy abutment will be constructed as a dead weight to stop that arch springing apart. Where that opening has been cut through is at the back of that abutment structure, so the structure at that point changes, as I think you can see on our drawing number 59. Moreover, when that was built, there were a couple of things to bear in mind. First of all, the railway was only a two-track railway at that stage and, as the new two tracks were built, trains could be diverted on to those tracks to allow construction underneath of the existing railway, if you understand what I mean, during the phases of construction, and that option is no longer available to us because all four tracks are now very heavily used.

7380. Nonetheless, it is right, is it not, that there is, notwithstanding your observations, something which has been cut through what has been described as the 'existing Victorian structure'?

(Mr Berryman) It is something which has been cut through a Victorian structure, but it is not the same Victorian structure as the abutment structure which is formed by those heavy buttresses.

7381. Can you then please have to hand the document to which reference has been made, pages 126 and 127 within P75. If we go to 127 and look at the third paragraph of that, we can see that the point at issue was an extension of the ticket hall.

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

7382. I am right in supposing, am I not, from your evidence, Mr Berryman, that Crossrail, when it first was considering this matter, thought the good sense of the situation suggested that the station should be underneath the tracks so as to enable direct access from the bus station?

(Mr Berryman) Yes. As I said in my evidence, it is common ground between us and the Borough that that would be a more desirable solution.

7383. Works were done, were they not, in connection with the consideration of putting the station underneath the tracks?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.

7384. It is right, is it not, that constructing a station is quite an extensive exercise?

(Mr Berryman) Indeed.

7385. Would it be right to say that constructing a station is a more extensive exercise than merely putting through a pedestrian passage?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, it would.

7386. Would it be fair to say that it is considerably more extensive than merely putting through a pedestrian passage?

(Mr Berryman) It is certainly more extensive, yes. It depends on the circumstances and the work of course.

7387. Am I right in supposing that the report to which you have referred, which on our side we have not immediately been able to put any finger upon, was a Mott Macdonald report?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct.

7388. A Mott Macdonald report in connection with the positioning of the station underneath the tracks?

(Mr Berryman) My recollection is that the report actually arrived at the solution that we have got now, having considered the station under the tracks, yes.

7389. So the report was to the effect, "Well, let's think about whether we can have a station there", and then you came up with the point, "Well, it's difficult to put a station there because of the engineering works required"?

(Mr Berryman) Extremely difficult.

7390. That was the character of the report, but there has not been, has there, any report on the question as to whether there could merely be a pedestrian link?

(Mr Berryman) There has been no specific report on that point. We have had internal workshops on that, but the difficulty is, apart from the construction difficulty of breaking into a very massive Victorian brick structure, which is not really a very tasty thing to do from an engineering point of view, that any such passageway would discharge into the paid side of the station and that has practical and operational problems.

7391. The practical problem is that you do not want people to go into the paid side if they have no tickets?

(Mr Berryman) That is indeed the problem.

7392. So one puts in a ticket barrier to ensure that only people with tickets go through.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, but ticket barriers are not allowed to be unsupervised, so when you put a ticket barrier in, you finish up with a suite of offices and things of that sort on the south side, but that is not really the main objection. The main objection is the difficulty of putting a structure through that very heavy brick abutment structure which is certainly in excess of a metre thick brickwork. It is Victorian and the structural integrity of it would be something which would be certainly very much influenced by this kind of opening being made in it and we would not wish to undertake that.

7393. But the structural integrity of it for the purpose of putting a pedestrian route through has not been investigated, has it?

(Mr Berryman) There has not been a specific study done of that, but of course we have on our team of advisers many experienced engineers who are able to look at these things by inspection almost and say, "No, it doesn't really work".

7394. Whether it could be put through, a pedestrian passageway would require some further work to investigate the matter, yes?

(Mr Berryman) I would not have said so. Again I think it goes back to this sort of engineering judgment that one uses. It is the kind of structure that one would not lightly tamper with, particularly the buttress structure on the south side. You are really going to be dealing with something which is under significant load stress which is difficult to analyse. Of course in engineering if you chuck enough money at it, all things are possible, but I really do not think this is something that we would lightly undertake.

7395. You would not lightly undertake, but the investigation for a pedestrian passageway has not been undertaken, has it?

(Mr Berryman) Not formally.

7396. If we just could then touch upon one or two other matters please, you mentioned that there would be disruption if engineering works were being undertaken. Do you remember that passage of question and answer with Mr Mould?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

7397. The disruption which has hitherto been considered of course is in connection with that which has hitherto been considered, namely putting a station underneath, is it not?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is what I was talking about at the time.

7398. I am right in supposing, am I not, that there has been no measurement of the disruption which would occur in connection with putting a pedestrian passageway in?

(Mr Berryman) That is correct, although it would still be significant, quite substantial in fact.

7399. As far as disruption is concerned, am I right in supposing that the introduction of Crossrail is going to produce major engineering works along the line?

(Mr Berryman) Not really, no, not on the surface sections. Most of the works on the Shenfield branch are actually modifications to stations.

7400. And the modifications to the station here proposed are going to be carried forward over a number of years, is that right?

(Mr Berryman) It will take a couple of years at least, yes.

7401. Two years at least, and those two years at least, will they involve some disruption to services?

(Mr Berryman) Quite minimal. One of the main objects of the design as it has evolved has been to minimise the number of possessions required.

7402. But there will be some disruption to services?

(Mr Berryman) I would not like to say that there will be none, but it will certainly be very limited.

7403. You will seek to limit as much as you possibly can the disruption to services consequential upon Romford Station?

(Mr Berryman) That is right. Can I go back to the point about disruption which may be caused by building a pedestrian tunnel, as you call it? It will be necessary in this kind of material to form that from the surface as we would not be allowed to tunnel through that abutment.

7404. We do not know precisely what type of material it is, do we?

(Mr Berryman) We know it is something solid and we know it has been there since Victorian times. We would not be allowed to tunnel through it.

7405. Unless we worked out what it was, but we do not know what it is yet, do we?

(Mr Berryman) We know it is something solid.

7406. We know it is something solid, but, beyond that, we are in the dark.

(Mr Berryman) Well, yes, except that we know it is something solid.

7407. Can I just ask one or two questions by reference to photograph 23, for Havering please. The present intention of Crossrail is that, whatever happens, you are going to close down that access that we can presently see on that photograph?

(Mr Berryman) Certainly we are going to close that access when we rebuild the station and provide step-free access by other means.

7408. And that step-free access, to attain that, to get to there from the bus station is going to require whoever needs it to go along the pavement in front of the station and then the added distance to the new station entrance?

(Mr Berryman) That is correct, but, as I have already pointed out, that ramp is in any event not compliant with standards for MIP access and if we were to rebuild the station, as we intend to, we will be required, as I think you know, to rebuild that ramp in any event and it would not be possible to have it there as there is not enough space.

7409. Has it been investigated whether using some further process, a zig-zag or something of that character, one could achieve the gradients which you say are desirable?

(Mr Berryman) Well, they are not just desirable because they are set down by standards. Of course a zig-zag would be possible, but that would require taking more land in the bus station area and obstructing access around those buildings and you can see that.

7410. Has that been a matter of consideration?

(Mr Berryman) We have done sketches of that, yes, but, as I say, the need for that goes away because the MIP access will be provided by lifts and far more satisfactory arrangements.

7411. Help us on one final matter, the pavement in front of the station, as proposed by Crossrail, what is the width of that going to be compared with the pavement in front of the entrances as they presently are configured ?

(Mr Berryman) I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question. As I have said earlier on in evidence, we would be very happy to work with the borough to come to an appropriate solution for wider footpaths and improvements to make this passageway much better.

7412. I can leave matters there, thank you very much.

7413. CHAIRMAN: Can you elaborate on why Network Rail is insisting on having this other section where they may wish to use it. You referred a little bit earlier to a portion of the other side of the station where Network Rail are saying they may wish to have access to for safety reasons.

(Mr Berryman) As part of the Crossrail works we are providing MIP access to the Crossrail platforms and part of that will make use of that mezzanine walkway which is what emerges from that grey opening in the photograph there. We are not intending, as part of our scheme, to provide MIP access to all the Network Rail lines which are used by the mainline trains, however, we are making passage provisions in our design so that when this comes up on the Network Rail Access For All Process they will be able to provide a lift from that point up to the platform. The platform is behind the wall in that picture. There are two different colours of brick. There is an older blue brick, which is the bottom section, the Victorian structure, and then there is the yellow brick above it, the London stock brick (?) which is the back wall of the platform for that side of the station. The idea would be that you could put a lift up approximately where the door is up to the height of the platform and have another hole knocked in that wall there.

7414. CHAIRMAN: You are an engineer, it is not beyond the realms of the imagination to have thought to bring both the ideas of providing this access and of course an entrance and exit? Could you not do the two together, albeit at the end of the design stages?

(Mr Berryman) Do you mean the access from the ramp which is shown there?

7415. CHAIRMAN: Yes. I tell you why I say that, I see that as a solution. You have got Network Rail with lines being used and Network Rail want the access, you are building a brand new station and everything else. What concerns me is the way things are at the moment, albeit brand new, disabled people cannot go right the way around the building. It seems to be that the end gain is that these are the people you should be serving rather than people who are already getting the cheaper lines there, the business and are getting the extra access. I think if that little bit is being kept aside to do for the future, why can it not be incorporated in the thinking for people who are disabled or need access to the station.

(Mr Berryman) As I say, the ramp that is there is substandard, it certainly would not be able to be kept like that. It would need to be rebuilt as a zigzag as the council suggested.

7416. CHAIRMAN: I am asking that because it is not just around the building, it is inside, the lift and things. One thing that puzzles me, what happens if there is a fire or a security issue and disabled people are in there? If there is only that then there is a difficulty. Can you elaborate on that?

(Mr Berryman) It is the same as any other building which is equipped for MIP access. A contingency plan has to be drawn up for what will happen to people who cannot use lifts. Of course this is a big issue with our underground stations and much less of an issue here because the prospects of a fire and the extent of damage that that might cause are much easier to manage. Normally the solution would be to take people away to a place of immediate safety.

7417. CHAIRMAN: If you have an exit people would rely totally upon that which would help in that process, in that place of safety and route.

(Mr Berryman) It would do to an extent but people still have to get from that area. There is a two-stage process to get down to ground level, you have got the mezzanine floor there.

7418. CHAIRMAN: I can accept your difficulty about entering into ticket halls and all the rest of it, but when an engineer can design everything else, companies that are working alongside the Department, but they make disabled and old people walk around the building, I find great difficulty in understanding that.

(Mr Berryman) The other thing to bear in mind is that exit is not normally open, you have to push a bell and someone has to come and let you in. I have only tried it once and contrary to Mr Thompson's experience, nobody came.

7419. CHAIRMAN: When design is undertaken these things will be incorporated in any future solution.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, but it is a management and manning issue for the station.

7420. CHAIRMAN: Can I take you to one other thing which is that it takes an extra minute, a minute and a half, two minutes, whatever, with five million passengers a year, 50 per of which would come from the south-side, bearing in mind if Crossrail is ever built in 2016, which we hope it will be, there will be considerably more passengers. If we are managing it, should we not manage it in such a way that we are not using the extra five million minutes or whatever it might be?

(Mr Berryman) The first thing to say on that is half come from the south but half come from the north and they will get a much quicker journey because the congestion will be enormously reduced and the path through the station would be much clearer and easier to use.

7421. CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but if you are saving on one, you are still ending up with five million passengers and it is already congested?

(Mr Berryman) It is congested now but it will not be when the new station is built because it will be four or five times as big in floor area.

7422. CHAIRMAN: It will be more congested than the plans you have got if you are still making people walk for longer on one side of the station.

(Mr Berryman) This happens quite a lot in the design of new facilities, that the entrance is not in exactly the same place. Some people, as you say, are disadvantaged and some are advantaged. It is all part of the development of an urban framework.

7423. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask that you will have a look at the issue which I raised in relation to this other entrance?

(Mr Berryman) Certainly.

7424. CHAIRMAN: Rather than give an undertaking now, can you go away and look at it?

(Mr Berryman) We will certainly do that.

7425. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

 

The witness withdrew

7426. MR MOULD: Sir, we now come to the closing submissions. I know that my learned friend has a further point that he wants to take before the Committee which relates to the enforcement of the environmental requirements. I have had a word with him and I think I understand his concern in relation to that, he is not proposing to call any evidence in relation to it, just to make submissions to you on it. We are in your hands, but it may be convenient if Mr Taylor and I were to close our case and if I were to pick up on that point when I make my submissions. Then Mr Straker simply develops that argument in the course of his closing submissions to you.

7427. MR STRAKER: Sir, I am perfectly happy with that. I have explained the matter informally to Mr Mould. It is a matter of concern over an undertaking that Mr Elvin gave, not the terms of the undertaking, we are not arguing about that. It is a simple question of enforceability. I have explained the point to Mr Mould so he, I suspect, will be able to deal with it from his point of view and then I can deal with everything that is a matter of concern to Havering in one go.

7428. MR MOULD: Mr Taylor is going to close on the noise issues and then I will pick up the other matters.

7429. MR TAYLOR: I will deal with the issues in relation to the fixed installations and noise. Planning policy guidance, note 24, sets out the national planning policy with regard to noise. That policy is applied to all new developments. There is no basis for adopting a different policy approach to Crossrail. Paragraph 10 of PPG24 explains that much of the development which is necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of the infrastructure will generate noise. The planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development. Nevertheless, local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance.

7430. The Mayor's ambient noise strategy reflects the National Planning Policy Framework within which it was formulated. It has the aim of minimising the adverse impacts of noise. In order to conflict with that a development would have to have an adverse impact. In other words, it would have to cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. The central issue in relation to the Petition raised by the London Borough of Havering and supported by the other local authorities relates to the fixed instillations and noise and is whether the approach set out by the Promoter in the draft IP for the mitigation of noise from such sources would result in an unacceptable degree of disturbance. That question has to be considered in the context of the nationally and regionally significant benefits that Crossrail will bring. The guidance set out in BS4114 you have heard so much about is recognised by at the national planning policy as the appropriate approach to adopt. You can see that from paragraph 19 of annex 3 of PPG24. Applying that approach a difference of around +5dBA over the background noise level is of marginal significance.

7431. This approach is adopted in the draft information paper which has been presented to the Committee and it ensures that the policy objective of not causing an unacceptable degree of disturbance is met. There is no scientific evidence that the adoption of -5dBA design criterion would result in materially better noise levels. You will remember the confirmation of that after me putting a number of questions to Mr Methold yesterday. BS4142 only addresses the significance of better than a -10dBA difference or a +5dBA approach. It does not address the significance of a -5dBA approach. There is therefore no scientific basis for the design criterion proposed by the local authorities.

7432. Mr Methold, when he was asked for evidence, referred to one example of a complaint from somebody where the level was plus 1. One single complaint as an example is not a scientific basis for establishing the minus 5 design criterion, it is the appropriate level for determining where an acceptable degree of disturbance would arise in our submission.

7433. The design criterion proposed by the local authorities therefore has the potential to impose additional costs upon the Crossrail project without any identifiable material benefit arising. In our submission the local authority approach should therefore be rejected.

7434. Obviously there are still matters relating to costs outstanding but you will have heard from Mr Thornley-Taylor yesterday that we have grave misgivings about the figures and costs which Mr Methold provided to you because certain significant factors had been left out of that account. That is something we will pursue in a note or a letter that we will write to the Committee at some point in the future.

7435. Turning then to the aspects of the draft undertaking sought by the local authority in relation to absolute noise levels. Reference to the significance of absolute levels of noise are misconceived in the context of the Crossrail project. The levels identified in the report printed by the WHO, Guideline for Community Noise, were considered by a review untaken for the DTR in 1998. That review identified that the WHO inspired documents failed to consider the practicality of being able to achieve the guideline values. Further, a reduction in the numbers exposed above the guideline value levels would require drastic action to virtually eliminate road traffic noise and other forms of transportation noise from the vicinity of houses.

7436. It explained that the social and economic consequences of such action would be likely to be far greater than any environmental advantages of producing a proportion of the population annoyed by noise. In addition, there is no evidence that anything other than a small minority of the population exposed to such noise levels finds them to be particularly onerous in the context of their daily lives. You will remember that extract is set out in the technical report and the Assessment of Noise and Vibration Act, page 20, paragraph 4.18.

7437. It is not national planning policy to reduce ambient noise levels to the guideline levels nor does the policy in the Mayor's strategy or the local authority development plans to do so, as Mr Methold confirmed. To adopt such a policy would, in the words of paragraph 10 of PPG24, "...place an unjustifiable obstacle in the way of development which is necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure", it would be contrary to national planning policy.

7438. To adopt a design criterion that essentially seeks those levels being met is obviously flawed and contrary to policy in our submission.

7439. Even in areas with an existing background noise level which is relatively high, the design criterion of +5dBA over a background proposed by the Promoter will be sufficient to protect amenity and to ensure that there will be no significant disturbance caused.

7440. I turn then to deal with background creep. The issues of creeping background noise raised by the local authorities is addressed by the protocol included in the draft information paper. Design criterion is to apply to all fixed noise sources from a single site; paragraph 2.13 of the draft information paper.

7441. As Mr Thornley-Taylor explained, background creep is only a problem where development occurs in a piecemeal fashion. However, because the design criterion applies to the total of all fixed noise sources, each site creep is automatically taken into account. This is an approach which has been adopted in the past on a number of projects, including the Jubilee Line extension and you heard about the agreement that was reached with Camden at the Camden Town Tube Station public inquiry.

7442. As Mr Thornley-Taylor explained, the project is not likely to give rise to background creeping in any event. The vent shafts and their fans associated with Crossrail are not likely to give rise to continuous noise seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Mr Methold explained that in applying BS4142 the local authority approach is to adopt the minimum background level measured. This will occur when the vent shafts associated with Crossrail will not be operating, thus Crossrail will not affect the background noise levels so the background noise will occur in relation to subsequent development.

7443. In relation to other track-side sources Mr Thornley-Taylor explained that the position then was addressed by the words of paragraph 2.12 of the draft information paper, they use reasonable endeavours to do better than the plus 5 criterion.

7444. The local authority policies that were appointed to in support of the -5dBA approach are not appropriate in relation to Crossrail, they are formulated in the context of controlling background creep in circumstances where development may well occur in a piecemeal fashion over time within an area. They are formulated with continuous noise in mind and they are not formulated in the context of a nationally and regionally structure project.

7445. Issues relating to identifying background noise levels, we heard quite a bit about that. Thankfully the point is met quite simply. The draft information paper proposes that the background noise levels to which the design criterion is to be applied will be established in the future in discussions with the local planning authorities. That means that any issues relating to what has been done in the past are irrelevant.

7446. So far as Thames Link 2000 is concerned, the reference to the criterion adopted in relation to that project is misconceived. The fixed installations in relation to Thames Link 2000 are of an entirely different nature to those within the Crossrail project. A distinction can and should be drawn between the approach that is appropriate to each project.

 

7447. To conclude, the draft information paper sets out an appropriate design criterion which will ensure that amenity is protected and that significant impacts from noise arising from fixed installations from Crossrail will not arise. This approach accords with national planning policy and is appropriate in the context of this nationally and regionally important infrastructure project.

7448. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould?

7449. MR MOULD: Sir, I will deal first with the issues arising in relation to Romford Station, if I may. I am not going to take time to deal with the question that you raised with
Mr Berryman about maintaining the existing secondary access for mobility impaired persons, save to say you have had his evidence as to the management and engineering difficulties in relation to that; he is going to write to you about that in due course. Turning to the Petitioner's principal case, as is of course reflected in their proposed undertakings in their documents, is founded upon the proposition that one breaks into the existing Victorian structure which lies beneath the main lines at Romford Station and, for the record, you will recall that we showed that structure in the computerised image on page 59 of our documents. The council's case appears to have proceeded on something of a misconception, that what appeared to be arches on the south side of that structure were indeed arches. As we have explained, they are not arches, they are buttresses and they are integral to the stability of that structure itself. Mr Berryman, speaking from an engineering perspective with his knowledge and experience, has explained to you that, as far as he is concerned, any substantial physical interference or intervention into that Victorian structure is fraught with engineering difficulty. To use his vivid phrase: "It is not a tasty prospect", and there are, as I put in cross‑examination to explain the evidence, there are major engineering concerns about any intervention into that structure and major concerns about the potentially serious - indeed severe - disruption that is likely to result to the operation of the existing Great Eastern main line in order to carry out the kind of works that the council have floated. I use that word "floated" advisedly because they have been known to place themselves from an engineering perspective to challenge what Mr Berryman has told you today, to be floated as a possibility in presenting their case. We think it is fair to say that whether or not such intervention within that structure to provide a new southern access, whether it be of the order of the scale of works that were discussed in our letter to the Petitioners of 18 April, the extension of the new ticket hall or whether it be the passage they have suggested in their case to you today, that that would necessarily involve undermining the integrity of the existing mainline track in a manner which we consider to be without precedent in so far as the Crossrail proposals themselves are concerned elsewhere on the Great Northern line. It is fair to say that it would involve or is likely to involve certainly a degree of disruption of the operation of the existing mainline services which is not proposed elsewhere within this section of the line in order to construct the Crossrail project. We would submit the matter is a very significant consideration for the Committee to bear in mind in considering the merits of the proposals that the Petitioners put before you. On that basis, our submission is that the undertakings that the Petitioners suggest the Promoters should have entered into are simply not justified in this case. To set this in context, we made it clear to you today, and we have made it clear to the Petitioners in the past, that we came to this station with the aspiration to provide access from the south as well as from the north. Our objective mirrored their own policy objectives in relation to securing improved transport interchanges. As I emphasised in the questions, that has to be on the basis of whether or not it is practicable to do so. We have simply come to the view, and Mr Berryman has explained the position to you, that it is not practicable to do so in a way that the council have set out in their principal case before you today. There appears to be no substantial evidence to the contrary in relation to that. Summarising one or two other points of context, it is common ground that the existing station is significantly sub-standard and in particular is significantly congested, particularly at peak times. Crossrail's proposed new station and ticket hall will be a very substantial improvement in relation to that in any event. It will be well placed to improve the service to the main part of the Romford town centre, that is a point of common ground. There is existing principal access to the station at present to the south. The sub-standard ramp, as you have heard, is very much a secondary access, principally used on request to provide access to mobility-impaired persons, and the improvements that we have proposed to the station are very modern, compliant provisions for such persons as part of our design, so that is a clear improvement over the existing position. As far as the distances are concerned, what, in practice, is involved is an increase of some 50 metres in terms of walking distance from the bus interchange to the proposed new entrances compared to the existing entrance underneath the bridges. That has to be set against the very substantial improvements in terms of congestion which, of course, carries with it very substantial delays in terms of journeys to homes. Of course, Mr Berryman pointed out in answer to your question, sir, the decrease in distances of people moving to and from the main part of the town centre to the north. There is a balance to be struck there. We have also indicated that we are perfectly content to work with the local authority and other stakeholders, bus companies for example, with a view to considering what improvements can be made to the public realm in the vicinity of the station, particularly that short stretch of journey between the new entrance and the existing bus interchange in the south, given the practical difficulties in providing the new access through that Victorian structure. For all those reasons, we would submit, with respect, there simply is not any justification for the principal undertakings that the council suggests we should enter into in relation to the provision of their new sub-access to the station. Essentially, there is not any basis to think that is likely to be any more a practical possibility in the future than it is now, ie no practical possibility for the reasons
Mr Berryman has given. That is all I want to say about the Romford Station issue. Turning to the matter that Mr Straker is going to raise in relation to the environmental requirements ----

7450. CHAIRMAN: For the record, can I say one thing. We have come here today and spent a very long time on Romford Station, and in your summary what you seem to imply is that a full consideration has been given to everything in relation to access to Romford Station. I have talked to some of my colleagues already during the course of the day and we are very concerned - and it is probably best if we minute it now in the minutes of evidence which are being taken - that within the planning process of the delivery of this Bill, the needs of people for access, particularly disabled people, are absolutely put to the fore. I think in the case of Romford, we have managed, particularly with the help of Mr Berryman today, to extract a couple of undertakings to Parliament. One is that the Promoters will undertake to work with the council to see if they can develop the foyer of the entrance to this in such a way that it would improve access and exit. The second thing is, given the undertaking to the Committee, they will go away and examine if there is a possibility for a new access which might be of multiple use. I think it is important that we say that because, undoubtedly in other evidence we are going to hear from other Petitioners which will come forward, this question will arise. Let there be no doubt in the mind of the Promoters that we are very, very concerned about access to these stations, particularly for those people who most need it.

7451. MR MOULD: Sir, nothing I said was intended to suggest that we in any way differ from the Committee's position in relation to those aspirations. I was simply seeking to answer the case that has been put in relation to the principal case put by the Petitioners, but I should make it clear that the Promoter is also committed to making a proper and appropriate provision, particularly for the needs of mobility-impaired travellers and others, such as parents with children in pushchairs and so on and so forth, in order to meet those needs as they arise as a result of the Crossrail scheme.

7452. CHAIRMAN: Do not be put off the by the briskness of my accent or my approach, it is just a style like you have got an individual style. I am just making the point because Members are wishing it to be known on that this case and others that may come forward with opinions that we also hold opinions on access particularly for those who need it most.

7453. MR MOULD: Forgive me, I was not in any way suggesting there was any difference between us. I apologise. I am simply seeking to say we agree, effectively.

7454. CHAIRMAN: Let us move on.

7455. MR MOULD: Perhaps I should have said "we agree", it would have been easier!
Mr Straker is going to make a point, I think, about the enforcement of the environmental minimum requirements. There has been a suggestion of correspondence recently between ourselves and the council and it may be helpful, given that the document is in the papers before you, to read into the record there is a letter from the Department on 10 April 2006, which I think is document ten in our bundle of documents, which sets out our position in relation to the point. I am not going to read the letter out because it seems to me that would be unhelpful, but I mention the existence of that letter as a source of our position. Essentially, just to set the point in context, as you have been told already, there are a number of environmental controls in relation to the construction and operation of the Crossrail project, both within the Crossrail Bill itself, in other legislation which applies to the construction and operation of Crossrail and also outside the formal statutory process through what we call the "environmental minimum requirements", which in this context is, principally, the construction code itself which you have been referred to. By way of example, directly enforcing statutory controls within the Bill, an example of which is particularly pertinent in the case of Havering, would be the controls exercised by the local planning authorities, under schedule seven, we have heard reference to that the past, pertinent examples of controls that are outside the Bill but within other statutory controls would be the Control of Pollution Act in relation to environmental impacts under section 60 of the Act, you have heard reference to that and the fact that it applies in relation to Crossrail as indeed to controls on waste management and so on. The Secretary of State's position is that those controls apply with force of statute and it would be inappropriate normally for him to seek to duplicate those controls, it is for local planning authorities rightly to exercise their statutory functions within that Bill in relation to those matters. That set the context for Mr Elvin's undertaking, which you will recall on day one in his opening to this Committee, where he said: "in so far that controls are not directly enforceable within or indeed outside the Crossrail Bill against the appointed and nominated undertaker or other contractors, the Secretary of State will take such steps, as he considers to be reasonable or necessary, to secure compliance with those requirements". That was particularly focused upon the environmental requirements and in particular the construction code. Sir, you have heard that the Secretary of State will enter into a contract with the nominated undertaker that will require contractual provisions which will provide for securing compliance with, amongst other things, the detailed requirements for the construction code. Of course, the contract is enforceable in the usual way by the Secretary of State. That is a model that was developed and used successfully on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, on the Jubilee Line extension and indeed on the terminal five scheme at Heathrow. It is our submission that the contractual route to enforcement by the Secretary of State is appropriate and sufficient to secure compliance with the environmental minimum requirements in practice. That is the fundamental submission. In relation to that, we make the point, I hope reasonably, that the Secretary of State represents the public interest in the proper compliance with those requirements during the construction process and indeed shares the local authorities' desire that the nominated undertaker should carry out the construction of Crossrail in an appropriate manner according to the code and in accordance with those environmental controls that are required by it. The burden of the case that is to be put by Mr Straker, as I understand it, is that there is not sufficient means whereby, if you were a third party, you can enforce the Secretary of State's enforcement of compliance with the code and other environmental minimum requirements, so Havering, he will say, will have no means whereby it can require or force the Secretary of State to enforce his contract. We say that proposition must proceed on a fundamentally unsound basis in these two ways: firstly, it must proceed on a proposition that the Secretary of State will act unreasonably or, indeed, perversely in declining or failing to enforce compliance in circumstances where compliance is clearly required. We say that this Committee has no reason to proceed; it would be wrong for the Committee to proceed on the basis of the Secretary of State acting in that way. Secondly, it is founded on the proposition that Parliament, to whom the undertaking given by Mr Elvin on day one was given, will not take steps to hold the Secretary of State to his undertaking if circumstances were to arise where it was felt that he was not enforcing where he ought to do so. As we say, that is not a realistic proposition for this Committee to take, with respect. On that basis, we simply submit to you that what Mr Straker will seek, which is that Mr Elvin's undertaking should be enshrined in the Bill itself, that is what they are proposing, we say that that step is an unnecessary one and that the undertaking set in the context of the matters that I have mentioned to you is sufficient to secure proper compliance with the requirements which are set out in the code and other relevant documentation. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that the EMRs themselves are subject to continuing detailed discussions with stakeholders including the local authorities through the planning forum process and that process will continue and there is an example of that which I think is being dealt with behind the scenes; we are not going to trouble you with this. There have been discussions between ourselves and Havering in recent days about the issue of where it is reasonably practicable in taking steps to reduce significant adverse environmental impacts, which were found through the environmental assessment process, where it is possible to do so. That is something which is part of the continuing debate through the planning forum process and illustrates the proposition that I have just made.

 

7456. We also draw attention to the proposal that there be a Complaints Commissioner, which is dealt with in Information Paper F5, so that any third party may lodge a complaint and ask the Commissioner to pursue that complaint in relation to the performance of the project. Again, experience suggests that that is a proven and effective way in practice of resolving day-to-day concerns and disputes about whether the nominated undertaker or his own contractors are proceeding in accordance with the code.

7457. A final passing shot, which I feel very keenly, is that the approach we commend to you, for the reasons I have just given, is one which is essentially focused upon securing proper practical implementation of the scheme in accordance with the requirements that we have set out in the code and elsewhere. It tries, as far as possible, to minimise the involvement of the legal profession - and I am sure the Committee will wholeheartedly endorse that. The Council's way, by contrast, is founded upon the prospect that Mr Elvin's undertaking be enshrined in the Bill, and is presumably predicated on the idea that people will run off to court and ask the courts to get involved in the performance of compliance with the Construction Code and so on. We submit that is not desirable. That serves to confirm my submission to you that the arrangements we have put forward are adequate, sufficient, proper, and that what Mr Straker is going to suggest is simply unnecessary.

7458. Those are my submissions in relation to that. It is slightly odd, in the sense that I am anticipating what is going to be said, but I hope it will become clearer when Mr Straker has explained his points to you.

7459. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

7460. Mr Straker, we are in your hands. How long do you need?

7461. MR STRAKER: I suspect it will take me past one o'clock, but I am happy to continue past that time. I should have thought I could be finished by quarter past or 20 past.

7462. CHAIRMAN: Ten past would be even better!

7463. MR STRAKER: I shall keep my eye on the clock, bearing that in mind. I am conscious that an apology that one has taken less time is always well received.

7464. Could I start with the matter which has just been touched upon by Mr Mould. The question here is one of enforceability. Can I invite the Committee to have a look at page 6 of 125 in P75, the undertaking which has been given. It is plainly a welcome undertaking. It is given to Parliament that: "insofar as the environmental minimum requirements are not directly enforceable against any person appointed as a nominated undertaker or to whom the powers of the Bill are devolved ... [the Secretary of State] will take such steps as he considers are reasonable and necessary to secure compliance with those requirements." It requires, therefore, the Secretary of State, when one has an environmental minimum requirement not directly enforceable, to take such steps as he considers are reasonable to secure compliance. It is a default power which contemplates a minimum requirement not being enforceable and therefore requiring the taking of steps to secure compliance.

7465. Sir, as we say, it is laudable that an undertaking has been given, but a question distinctly arises as to how the undertaking should be enforced or could come to be enforced. Sir, can I do this illustratively. If it is supposed that a local authority considers that an environmental minimum requirement is not being made but is of a character which is not directly enforceable, the person to whom the local authority would look in that circumstance would be the Secretary of State. They would say to him: "Please consider acting in accordance with your undertaking."

7466. Sir, here we are looking into the future, of course. If the Secretary of State for some unexpressed reason declined to act or said that he would not consider the matter, the local authority would then pose this question: "What is the procedure for enforcing the undertaking? Can it be enforced in the House of Commons?" They would be told - and they would be correctly told - that there is no procedure for enforcing it. There is simply none at all. They might then ask: "Can we go to court to ask that the undertaking should be enforced?" and they would be told, "No, you cannot go to court because the Bill of Rights says that the courts will not entertain proceedings questioning anything which has happened in this House." Consequently, knowing they cannot go to court, they might then ask, "Can we go to the House of Lords to enforce?" and they would be told, "No, because Crossrail have been asked and have declined to repeat their undertaking when this matter goes to the other Place."

7467. The situation is one, therefore, where there could not be enforcement in the House of Lords where there is a process for enforcement. The only possibility, sir, that we can see would be for a local authority in that circumstance to seek the cooperation of a private member to raise the matter on the floor of the Chamber, pointing out that which had occurred.

7468. Now, sir, we would readily accept that we are contemplating a circumstance which it is hoped will not arise, but if, sir, we are to be seriously concerned about the environmental minimum requirements, as we ought to be, we ought just to contemplate that possibility. Accordingly, bearing in mind that there is no present mechanism for enforcement, we have suggested that precisely the same terms of the undertaking should be put into the Bill. If I could ask for page 2 of 125 within P75 to be put on display, you will see in that clause that exactly the same terms are being put into the Bill. Faced with a response by the Secretary of State, "I simply will not consider your request," that would enable the local authority to go to court in order to be able to secure, at the very least, an explanation from the Minister as to why he was not even considering the exercise of his undertaking. That may be a remote possibility, and it is to be hoped that it is.

7469. Contrary to what my learned friend says, the involvement of the law can very often reduce the involvement of the lawyers rather than increase it, because if the matters are clear and there is a mechanism for enforcement then people operate accordingly. That is the exercise that we seek. We seek, therefore, a recommendation to that effect.

7470. In the absence of a recommendation to the effect that there should be a new clause in the way given, the second best solution - which is a long way behind - would be a recommendation that the undertaking should be repeated in the House of Lords where there is a mechanism for enforcement. In the absence of that, the third best suggestion we would make is that there should be an indication that undertakings are plainly a matter of great importance, and the suggestion could be made that consideration be given to a procedure for enforcement so that there is one here as well as in the House of Lords.

7471. Sir, that is all I want to say on that particular matter and I will turn, if I may, to a residual point which I can take from page 14 of 125. You will see that within our material, right at the bottom of the page, we were asked about concern for cumulative impacts. I can invite you to look on to page 128, where the Promoter is indicating at (b) that they will "adjust where reasonably practicable, having regard to the overall construction programme, the timings and/or extent of works to reduce the adverse environmental impacts that construction of Crossrail will cause .... from the likely significant adverse impacts identified in the environmental statements ...." You will recollect, sir, that we gave evidence to the effect that we do not want that to be linked exclusively to the environmental statements. The reason for that is straightforward; namely, that we contemplate the possibility that, notwithstanding the extensive material, there might be something which emerges which has not actually been identified form the environmental impact in the Environmental Statement.

7472. That is a straightforward point there, dealing with that undertaking, and it enables me to move then to noise and then Romford Station.

7473. As far as noise is concerned, the position is as follows. First, it is agreed that over the past 25 years, noise has become, as Mr Thornley-Taylor said in his evidence (reference transcript 7147), "very much greater". This has found, as he said, expression in some of the policy documents mentioned by Mr Methold. Those policy documents include local plans and unitary development plans which are produced by local planning authorities following inquiries and subject to control by the Secretary of State. If they are out of line with practice, they are subject to control by the Secretary of State. Those policies, as Mr Taylor indicated (reference transcript 7127), do not reflect the Crossrail assessment, so we have a range of policies of recent origin which do not reflect the Crossrail assessment. However, Mr Thornley-Taylor said (reference transcript 7121 and 7122) that those policies should be met if possible; otherwise, he went on to say, it would be a matter of difficulty for the local planning authorities. He accepts that local authority policies should be met if possible.

7474. Thameslink 2000 has an approach consistent with what the local authorities are here suggesting, requiring that the noise produced by plant should, at the facades of properties, be 5dB less or quieter than the background noise. Please, I ask the Committee to note, there is a substantial overlap between the equipment for Crossrail and for Thameslink. As Mr Thornley-Taylor said, it was appropriately dealt with in the way in which it was framed for Thameslink. On that basis, he indicated (reference transcript 7194) that L90-5 was the agreed way forward for Thameslink. But for Crossrail it is being suggested that the noise provided by the plant should, at the facades, be 5dB noisier than the background noise - that is 5dB more, or "noisier" as I would put it, than the background noise.

7475. Of course it has been acknowledged that concern over noise creep has increased; indeed, Mr Thornley-Taylor went out of his way to condemn it and said it was of considerable concern. It is inescapable that if one produces a noise into a situation where there is already noise, the background noise goes up. With the greatest of respect to my learned friend, it is an incorrect approach to the matter to say that you could then measure your background at a quiet time so as to receive hereafter the suggestion that thereafter the background noise has not gone up. That is why, when one gets to the position of noise being introduced, one has to be concerned about the situation. What is the difference? Mr Thornley-Taylor said that the difference in a nutshell - and that was his word - was that for Crossrail it was being suggested background plus 5 for everything; whereas for the Petitioners it is being suggested background minus 5 for everything, with the possibility, if that could not be achieved, that best practicable means should then be used.

7476. In my respectful submission, this is really no contest between the Petitioners and Crossrail. First, background minus 5 is Thameslink. Second, background minus 5 reflects more accurately the local planning authorities' policies. Third, background minus 5 is achievable for everything on Crossrail save a minority, so it is said, of the ventilation shafts. Fourth, for that minority, we know that we are not going to go over background plus 5. That is what Mr Thornley-Taylor said (reference transcript 7204), so that, if one has L90-5 with an allowance that if that is not achievable one can use best practicable means, it would not lead to the high numbers which Mr Thornley-Taylor suggested. All his observation to that effect shows is that, supposing Mr Methold is wrong and one cannot in a cost-effective way further mitigate the ventilation shafts to L90-5, if one has L90-5, one has produced in the vast majority of places a result in accordance with policy and producing a better result, with the ability for Crossrail to proceed in a perfectly sensible way.

7477. Sir, that is why we have put forward, in the form that we have in the document which has been seen, the undertaking. As I say, there is no contest there; it is straightforward. It is minus 5 on one side, which can be achieved sensibly; and plus 5, which is out of line with all the policies and with Thameslink and would produce an unfortunate situation. And plainly there would be an effect upon amenity, because my learned friend is completely wrong, if I may respectfully say so, simply to tie his mast to the question of complainants, because it is commonplace, of course, that one has those people who get so annoyed, so disturbed that they will write in, and then, beneath them, if one may put it in that way, there is a range of people who are concerned but cannot sufficiently bring themselves to complain. They may be annoyed or disturbed, but it may be that they are not sufficiently provoked to write in, so one can see, even though one is not reaching levels of complaint, that one is protecting amenity.

7478. Sir, can I move from the question of noise to Romford Station. Here there is an obviousness about the whole matter, if I may respectfully say so. Two matters are obvious. The first is that it is obviously better if one can have a pedestrian access on the bus station side. The second matter which is obvious is that what has happened here is that Crossrail first thought, and indeed gave evidence, to this effect: that it would be nice to have the station so that it opens out on to the bus station side, and then thought about whether we could have the ticket halls and so forth underneath the tracks, having effectively the station that side, and came to the view that we cannot. That was Crossrail's position. They have not ever thought about not that solution but the present position being put forward by the Petitioners: "Do not worry about having the station facilities there, the ticket hall and so forth, all we want is to have people be able to walk through." That is a matter where there has been no report prepared as to whether you can have a pedestrian passage, no report as to the extent of the disturbance which we would suffer, no measurements as to the effect of the work which would be done, and no work in fact done. We do not even know what the materials contained within the Victorian structure are. All we know is that it has been broken through in the past by way of a pedestrian passage.

7479. Sir, can I therefore ask the Committee to look ahead and to contemplate a circumstance in 2016, or whatever year one cares to think of? In that situation, if the Crossrail proposals as presently formulated go through, the circumstance that will happen will be that one can sensibly predict that there will be people who will ask this question, when day after day after day they have to tramp around from the bus station to the new entrance and they see people being pushed in the chairs or the buggies going around as well: "Why on earth do we have to do all that? Why can we not go through into the station from the bus side? Look at the wall there, would it not be a simple operation? Why on earth do we have to do that?" The answer they would be given if they dug around and researched the matter would be: "The reason why you have to do that is because Crossrail did not investigate whether you could have a pedestrian route Crossrail did not investigate the level of disturbance which would arise from that investigation, they did not carry out any research into that particular exercise." However, they did look, so it is said, at the possibility of having the ticket hall underneath and arrived at the view: "No, we cannot do that, therefore we cannot do anything." Sir, that situation, in my respectful submission, reveals why it is so obviously sensible to go down the route of the undertaking proposed by the London Borough of Havering which simply says: "If there are reasonable engineering reasons why it cannot be constructed, well so be it, but at least let us see whether there are reasonable engineering reasons, and if there are no such reasons then for goodness sake let us do it."

7480. In my respectful submission, it is, once again, a no contest position, because it is so blindingly obvious that that is what ought to be done that I respectfully commend it upon this Committee.

7481. Sir, I can do so with an apology that I have gone one minute past the time. That is all that I wanted to say, unless I am reminded of anything or unless you would wish me to address any other topic.

7482. CHAIRMAN: That is fine. Thank you very much indeed.

7483. We will adjourn now until next Thursday at 10 am. There will be a private session of the Committee on Tuesday. We look forward to meeting you next week.