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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY THIRTY

Wednesday 10 May 2006

Before:

Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair

Mr Brian Binley

Ms Katy Clark

Mr Philip Hollobone

Kelvin Hopkins

Mrs Siân C James

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

Sir Peter Soulsby

 

Ordered: That Counsel and Parties be called in.

7912. CHAIRMAN: Today we will continue hearing the Petition of the London Borough of Greenwich, but, before we start, can I just remind people who work here regularly and those members of the public who are visiting that this morning the Committee will adjourn at 11.45 so that members can leave the Committee and go down to Prime Minister's Question Time. Mr Jones?

 

MR ROBERT IAN CHARD, Recalled

Examination by MR JONES, continued

7913. MR JONES: We had reached section 3 in Mr Chard's proof. Mr Chard, could you turn to your section 3 please and could you read, starting at paragraph 3.1 please.

(Mr Chard) The scale and speed of possible regeneration around any Crossrail station will be greatly influenced by the accessibility changes which that station will deliver. Accessibility can be defined as the ability of residents and businesses using the station to get to jobs, customers, services or other destinations within an acceptable journey time. Access to jobs by commuters is probably the most important aspect of accessibility, but the ability of local businesses and retailers to access customers is also significant. In this evidence, I only consider accessibility by public transport. Changes to accessibility occur when it becomes possible to reach more jobs or more people within the same travel time, or to reach the same numbers more quickly or cheaply. Usually, all such changes occur when a new station is introduced in a new location. Usually also, the consequential effect is a boost to the local economy. The size of any accessibility change related to a new station can vary considerably and so can the impact of a new station as a consequence. Therefore, when a potential new station is being considered, it is important to measure, and to understand, the size of accessibility change because, in that way, the potential economic and regeneration impacts of the station can be better appreciated. Because accessibility change is multi-dimensional, it is usually measured using computer modelling. For this evidence, the Council appointed Capita Symonds to undertake accessibility change modelling using their ACCESSION model. It was also decided to use definitions and measures of accessibility which are compatible with accessibility modelling undertaken by the Greater London Authority and the Promoters so that comparisons can be made. The key measures used were access to jobs within a 30-minute travel time from a station and access to resident population within a 45-minute travel time, and in both cases by all or any public transport. Comparisons were made between the current 2006 accessibility and modelled 2016 accessibility, which include assumptions about the availability of various new transport projects in London, including Crossrail.

7914. I wonder if Mr Chard's slide 3 could now be put up please.

(Mr Chard) Initially two situations were considered: Crossrail with Abbey Wood station, but not Woolwich station; and Crossrail with both Abbey Wood and Woolwich stations.

7915. That is your figure 3 and you can see that it says, "Woolwich without a Crossrail station", and I wonder if you could just talk us through that figure please.

(Mr Chard) Yes, you can see the Woolwich station with the symbol and this shows the journey times that the model calculates for 2016 when various new infrastructure and services will be in place in London. It shows that you cannot reach central London in 15 minutes and it shows also that you cannot reach all of London even travelling for 60 minutes, which is the blue colour, so the areas are related to the population numbers and the job numbers which you can reach within various time bands. This is a two-dimensional measure of accessibility, whereas yesterday the accessibility was quoted in linear terms along the Crossrail route.

7916. So obviously this includes a lot of places which are not on the Crossrail route and indeed places which do not even have a station?

(Mr Chard) Yes, it takes account of the other rail services and bus services which are assumed to be available in 2016 and would allow you to make the journeys within these times shown.

7917. Of course one can see within it small dots which are slightly larger pink within the red and small dots and slightly larger red within the green and so on. Are those stations?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7918. Can we now move to the next slide please, slide 4, which is, I think, Woolwich with a Crossrail station and obviously what matters is the difference? Can you just deal with that please, Mr Chard?

(Mr Chard) This shows that all the areas in pink increase because Crossrail can take you faster to many destinations and Crossrail, in combination with other public transport through the Crossrail interchanges, can take passengers to a very much larger area of London within various time bands. In particular, you will see that the red, which is less than 30 minutes, now covers the centre of London, the central area of the City and parts of the West End which it did not previously, and it does not just cover the Crossrail stations, but it covers the area you see there in red. We have also got tables which tell us the number of people and the number of jobs which are currently within these areas which have different colours.

7919. You mentioned a difference to the City and the West End, but what about the difference made to the Isle of Dogs?

(Mr Chard) You can also see that that changes to less than 15 minutes and that is particularly important, I think, for the regeneration of Woolwich.

7920. Mr Chard, would you return to your proof now. I think we had got to the word "Subsequently" about a third of the way down page 8.

(Mr Chard) Subsequently a limited number of modelling runs were undertaken to give comparisons to other major town centres to be served by Crossrail stations. Some more detailed information is provided in Appendix 1 to this proof. Compared to many parts of London, and using the GLA measures, the current 2006 accessibility of the borough is not good, partly, but not entirely, due to the lack of London Underground services. Last summer, in evidence to the Thames Gateway Bridge Public Inquiry, the TfL witness, Professor Rosewell, gave evidence to show that, compared to all other London boroughs, Greenwich has below average accessibility. With both the Docklands Light Railway in Woolwich and the Thames Gateway Bridge open, the accessibility of the borough would be close to the London average. The conclusions for Capita Symonds' analysis are that significant additional changes to accessibility can be achieved by Crossrail stations at Abbey Wood and Woolwich. The accessibility changes indicated are very large, especially for Woolwich, and, on this scale, are a rare event in urban development anywhere. In this case, the very large changes occur because Crossrail removes the barrier effect of the River Thames. There are three main components to the accessibility changes: firstly, direct access to central and west London with no interchange time ----

7921. Could you just pause there? How important do you think the absence or presence of interchange is to journeys?

(Mr Chard) I think it is quite important. In my work, I come from Woolwich to central London very often and I do not like ever to arrive late and I find I have to allow more than a theoretical time because the time for interchange is unpredictable to a degree and also the reliability of the rail lines you use at present is also a factor to be considered.

7922. Can you read on? I think you had reached the top of page 9.

(Mr Chard) The second thing is faster line speeds than other lines to central London and, thirdly, a new route and new stations which reduce the travel distances for many trips. The likely effects of the accessibility changes would be: firstly, a rapid increase in commuting, especially from Woolwich; secondly, a boost to regeneration and development; thirdly, increasing wealth and reduced deprivation; and, fourthly, significant local private investment and a reduced need for public money. Not building a Woolwich station would be a major lost opportunity. There would be no gain from all the benefits which would arise from the very large changes to accessibility that the station could deliver.

7923. I wonder if you could now move to your Appendix 1. There is one matter which is not actually in your proof, but I think it is worth pointing out. It is Appendix 1 which is at tab 5, the first document there and it is the third page of this Appendix. I do not have the Promoters' numbering, but it is paragraph 4.3. Appendix 1, "Changes to Accessibility" and actually I can see that it is numbered '340'. Could you please read the first three sentences of paragraph 4.3 please?

(Mr Chard) "The model scenarios indicate that if Woolwich station is not built, Abbey Wood would have better accessibility than Woolwich. The implications of that are that, for some types of development, investment near Abbey Wood would be more attractive. It would undermine the town centre function of Woolwich."

7924. Then I need not get you to read the whole of the rest of that paragraph, but, in essence, you say that would be contrary to government advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, PPG13. Could you return to your proof please? You had just reached the end of that section, so could you deal with the bus catchment areas for Woolwich and Abbey Wood, your section 4.

(Mr Chard) A Crossrail station at Woolwich would attract more passengers than many other stations in outer London because it can be very well served by feeder bus services. The Council has employed Capita Symonds to consider issues of bus accessibility using their ACCESSION model which contains all current 2006 bus timetables in London. With advice from Capita Symonds and local knowledge, it is assumed that rail commuters from a Woolwich station would not be prepared to accept the bus journey of more than 20 minutes or an average walk time of more than about ten minutes. Then, for example, a journey to work at Canary Wharf might take up to 20 minutes on the bus, ten minutes for interchange, ten minutes for train ride and a further ten minutes walking at either end, or about one hour maximum in total. Longer journeys to the station seem unlikely, unless they can be undertaken by car at speeds in excess of the buses. The output from the ACCESSION model is shown in a plan for Woolwich and a plan for Abbey Wood.

7925. Petitioner's slide 1 please.

(Mr Chard) For Woolwich, the green area is the area within which it is possible to get to the centre of Woolwich in 20 minutes or less. The station access in the green area would mostly be by bus, but in the red area a walk of ten minutes or less is an alternative.

7926. Just dealing with the housing estates surrounding Woolwich which we mentioned yesterday, are they within the green and the red areas or not?

(Mr Chard) Yes, they are.

7927. Could you read paragraph 4.5 please.

(Mr Chard) At the time of the 2001 Census, the resident population within the Woolwich 20-minute isochron area was about 60,000. There is obviously a relationship between this population and the potential numbers of passengers using a Woolwich station. In general, the higher the population, the higher the number of passengers. Higher passenger numbers can be anticipated where residential densities are high and where there is a high density of bus routes. Compared to some other Crossrail stations, a station at Woolwich is attractive and would, other things being equal, attract many passengers.

7928. Petitioner's slide 2 please.

(Mr Chard) For the Abbey Wood plan, the green area within the 20-minute isochron is smaller. It had a resident population of about 44,000 in 2001 or about 27 per cent less than Woolwich. Also, for many parts of the Abbey Wood catchment area, the bus services are less frequent than in the Woolwich area. More than four times as many buses per hour arrive in Woolwich town centre compared to Abbey Wood. Therefore, other things being equal, we would expect more than 27 per cent more passengers at a Woolwich Crossrail station than an Abbey Wood Crossrail station. It has not been possible within the time and budget constraints to undertake comparison studies at other Crossrail stations, but it is obvious, even from a limited examination, that some will not get a lot of passengers because they contain significant areas of non-residential land or residential land with low population densities. Some are also poorly served by existing bus services. It is important to consider how the catchment areas of the two stations might change after station opening. In terms of the bus network, our analysis of the development of bus services to serve North Greenwich station suggests that the number of buses serving the Woolwich catchment area might treble or quadruple within 15 years of station opening. It is anticipated that it will generally be possible to maintain average bus operating speeds, even in the peak period, by the introduction of additional bus priority measures. With more frequent bus services and more bus priority measures, bus access to central Woolwich and bus access to the stations will improve even if no new routes are introduced. However, in addition to the intensification of existing routes, there is some scope to introduce new routes and that would increase the area which is accessible to the station within 20 minutes by bus. The population living within the Woolwich 20-minute catchment area will also increase very significantly by 2031. Based on the GLA forecasts of population growth for local areas, that increase is estimated to be between 30 and 40 per cent for the Woolwich catchment area south of the river. Taken together with the extension of the catchment area achieved by new or faster bus routes, the 2031 population is likely to be about 100,000 compared to 60,000 in 2001, which is an increase of 66 per cent. For Abbey Wood, the equivalent changes are less certain. Even if the bus services at Abbey Wood were quadrupled, the numbers of buses serving the station would be much less than at Woolwich and, in the absence of significant new highway works for bus priority, the reliability would be likely to deteriorate. Unlike Woolwich, the demand for bus services would not be throughout the day, but very much concentrated in the peak commuter travel times. That has raised doubts about London Transport's future commitment to provide those services because they might well not be judged to be value for money if the buses have low occupancy for much of the day. There is scope, at least in theory, to expand the catchment area at Abbey Wood by introducing new bus routes, but again frequency, reliability and viability are all issues which create uncertainties for any estimate of future bus access to Abbey Wood. As at Woolwich, there will be an increase in population in the catchment area between 2001 and 2031. In fact, the increase between 2001 and 2006 has already been considerable. The estimated 2031 population is likely to be between 60,000 and 80,000 or 20 to 40 per cent less than Woolwich. A Woolwich Crossrail station is likely to have higher passenger numbers than Abbey Wood because it would be at a hub of the bus network. It would have more frequent and more reliable bus services to serve the station and would have a higher resident population within a short, convenient bus journey to the station.

7929. I would like you now to move to certain documents, apart from your proof, supplied by the Promoters and, first of all, Promoters' page 12 please. Perhaps we could take the map as a whole first of all. There we see something which, at first glance, is a very familiar shape, a London public transport map. When we look at it in a bit more detail, we have the Greenwich Waterfront Transit. First of all, on the whole of that map, how many bus-based routes are there?

(Mr Chard) I believe there are two.

7930. And they are?

(Mr Chard) The Greenwich Waterfront Transit and the East London Transit.

7931. We can see the Greenwich Waterfront Transit going through Woolwich¸ North Greenwich and possibly Greenwich to east London, starting at Galleon's Reach and going northwards. Is that the total number of bus-ways one would have by that time?

(Mr Chard) Those are the two bus-way projects which are being promoted in London by Transport for London. They are intended to be partly segregated and partly on the highway in mixed traffic. There are obviously a lot of bus lanes and there are the equivalents of bus-ways to reach Heathrow Airport on the M4 and also on the Heathrow access road.

7932. In terms of capacity, how would the capacity of the Greenwich Waterfront Transit compare with the capacity of Crossrail?

(Mr Chard) It would be very small and the line speed would be slower.

7933. Let us take it one at a time, first of all, capacity and speed. What are we talking about in the Greenwich Waterfront Transit?

(Mr Chard) We are talking about starting at ten buses an hour, I believe.

7934. So in terms of capacity we are talking about buses, ten an hour, and in terms of Crossrail of course we are talking about trains.

(Mr Chard) Yes. A Crossrail train has, I believe, something between an 800- and 1,000-person capacity compared to something between 50 and just over 100 for a bus, depending on the type of bus.

7935. And in terms of speed?

(Mr Chard) The line speed of Crossrail is faster.

7936. And in terms of access to central London?

(Mr Chard) The bus-ways are designed as local transport services within the Thames Gateway and Crossrail is a strategic cross-London route.

7937. Unless there is anything else you want to deal with on that particular slide, can we move to the next Petitioner's slide, page 13, which is an extract from the UDP? Perhaps we could go to the top half of that please, the policy and the first bit of supporting text. How does the Petitioner's objection relate to Policy SM1 and the objectives of government guidance referred to in paragraph 7.6?

(Mr Chard) Greenwich Council's policy, Policy SM1, in our draft UDP is very much in line with government policy and guidance in PPG13. We are a borough which very much favours the development of public transport.

7938. I wonder if you would move now please to page 14 and that is the draft Local Implementation Plan and perhaps begin with the top half of the page please. This is obviously a draft. We can see mention of SELTRANS, the South-East London Transport Strategy, in paragraph 3.2.5. Could you move down to the second indent of that please, Mr Chard, "Improved accessibility for all to town centres and employment centres, bus and tram stops and railway stations". How does Abbey Wood compare with Woolwich in terms of being a town centre and an employment centre?

(Mr Chard) Abbey Wood is not a town centre, as defined in our Unitary Development Plan, so this policy does not apply to Abbey Wood. It does apply of course to Woolwich which is the largest town centre in the borough.

7939. Can we move a little bit down that page please so that we get the whole of 3.2.6? There we see on the second indent at 3.2.6 a reference to a reduction in the use of the private car. How does providing a station at Woolwich compared with only providing a station at Abbey Wood relate to the policy of reducing the use of the private car?

(Mr Chard) We have had a number of new stations open in our borough in recent years and new railway lines, but, in looking at the data since those railway lines and stations have opened, our assessment is that we do get a road traffic reduction in parallel to very large increases in the number of people who travel by public transport on the new Docklands Light Railway and the JLE. The proportion of people who travel on the new railway lines is obviously related to the number of stations which they have available to them within a convenient distance, so it is my view that adding a Woolwich station will attract more passengers to Crossrail and that will have an effect in terms of a reduction in the use of private cars. That appears to happen whenever you introduce railways and public transport of a large capacity in this area of London.

7940. How important is it, when it comes to reducing the use of the motorcar, that one can get from one's home to the station by bus or other public transport?

(Mr Chard) Well, it is very important in Woolwich because car ownership is very low in Woolwich compared to the national average and compared to most of London, so many people in Woolwich at the present time do not have the car option.

7941. So we have the social importance for people who do not have a car. What about environmental matters?

(Mr Chard) Well, the second issue, I think, is that anecdotal evidence suggests that, if people cannot get to a station conveniently or cannot use it, they may try and do that whole journey or a long part of their journey by car. We get people, we believe, who abandon part of their journey or more of their journey by car if there are convenient railway stations and linked bus services. The other aspect of this is that we are a borough which is particularly concerned about air quality and, from an environmental point of view, we want to reduce car use as far as possible as one of the ways to improve air quality in the borough.

7942. While we are on air quality, I think today Greenwich is the only part of the United Kingdom to have a low emissions zone. That is right, is it not?

(Mr Chard) I am not sure if I am 100 per cent up to date on that, but I believe we might have been the first.

7943. So someone else might have by now.

7944. CHAIRMAN: Mr Jones, just before you move on, Mr Hopkins has a question.

7945. KELVIN HOPKINS: It seems to me very simple that, if there is only an Abbey Wood station and not a Woolwich station, people who live in the densely populated centre of Woolwich might drive to Abbey Wood to make use of Crossrail if there is no Woolwich station, whereas, if there is a Woolwich station, they could walk to it.

(Mr Chard) I am not sure that many people in Woolwich would drive to an Abbey Wood station because, in the peak am travel period, they would of course be driving against the flow to get to Abbey Wood, but they would still have to go through junctions and roundabouts, so their journey would not be uncongested necessarily. In London there seems to be a great reluctance for people to drive out of London to go into central London, even when it is quicker to do so. There is perhaps a psychological barrier to doing that. I am not sure that they would do that. They have other options. They could drive to the DLR station at Greenwich instead and try to go to central London from that station. It is perhaps something that could be looked at, but I am not convinced that many people would actually do that.

7946. KELVIN HOPKINS: The simple point I was making is that local car usage will be greater if there is no Woolwich station than if there is a Woolwich station. I am just supporting your point really.

(Mr Chard) Yes, I think so.

7947. MR JONES: Promoters' page 107 please. As far as that is concerned, is it any part at all of Greenwich's case that there should be a Woolwich station so that people can change from a Woolwich Crossrail station to the Woolwich Arsenal Network Rail station?

(Mr Chard) No, it is not part of our case. Looking at this diagram, I have not seen the Promoters' estimate of how many people would need to make this journey. In my judgment, it is not very many.

7948. Just dealing with the walk time, since they have put evidence in about it, do you have any comments on an 8-minute walk time between station platforms?

(Mr Chard) It is longer than desirable. There may well be so-called interchanges in central London, such as around the Bank, which have similar times. What I would also say is that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to redesign the redevelopment of Woolwich so that that route and that time could be reduced. The distance between the closest points of the station is less than that route.

7949. We now move in your proof to section 5, "Transport Assessments" and could you read from 5.1 please.

(Mr Chard) The Council normally requires developers to produce transport impact assessments for proposed major developments which are likely to generate significant volumes of traffic, in accordance with Policy M1(a) of the emerging, and soon-to-be-adopted, Unitary Development Plan. Planning Policy Guidance 13 recommends that, where appropriate, local planning authorities may require an applicant for planning permission to submit a transport assessment where, in their opinion, there are likely to be significant impacts as a consequence of the proposed development. The London Borough of Greenwich has agreed to act as the lead borough for all boroughs or a number of boroughs concerned about transport assessments at outer stations. It is the boroughs' position that the lack of full transport assessments was a deficiency in the documentation submitted in support of the Bill. In response to the Council's Petition, the Promoters agreed to submit a transport assessment for Abbey Wood station and, in due course, for some other proposed Crossrail stations. The Council provided a scoping document for the work, based on the widely adopted guidelines, which is attached as an appendix. The Promoters have submitted a transport assessment report for Abbey Wood station, but there are still unresolved issues between the Promoters and the Council. It is good practice, recommended by the guidelines, for the transport assessment to cover a period of 15 years from the date of bringing into use the proposed development. Accordingly, the Council has asked the Promoters to assess the period from 2016, when Abbey Wood station is proposed to open, to 2031. Perhaps I can just say that the guidance is the Institution of Highways and Transportation's guidance, and there is an error in the proof.

7950. So cross out "ICE" and put in "IHT".

(Mr Chard) So far the Promoters have been unable to do that because they did not have forecasts of the numbers of passengers likely to use the station during the 15 years after opening in 2016. The Council does not have access to use the forecasting models used by the Promoters. Therefore, the Council have been obliged to adopt a different methodology to assess passenger numbers at Abbey Wood, and also at a possible Woolwich station, during the period of 2016 to 2031. The Council had to undertake some form of forecasting simply to explain to the Promoters that there is an important issue to be considered and because the Promoters failed to produce any appropriate forecasts themselves to clarify the issue. In the absence of any other passenger forecasts for Abbey Wood station in the 15 years after opening, the Council is suggesting that their own estimates have to be used in the transport assessment because passenger forecasts are an essential part of any transport assessment. The forecast suggests that in 2031 between 20 and 30 million passengers per annum are likely to wish to use Abbey Wood station, assuming there is no Crossrail station at Woolwich. A key issue to be agreed between the Promoters and the local highway authorities is the assumed modal split for passengers travelling to the station in the peak a.m. journey-to-work period. For Abbey Wood, the Promoters would like to assume a high mode-share for buses and a low mode-share for cars. That assumption would make it likely that between 90 and 160 buses in each direction would be required in the peak hour in 2031. However, for a number of reasons, the boroughs are not convinced that very low car access can be achieved at stations in outer London and beyond. The estimate of passenger numbers which the Council has considered suggests that, whatever modal split is assumed, there will be a requirement for highway works and bus priority measures in order to maintain and improve vehicle access to the station. The proportion of works required for bus priority and the proportion required for general highway traffic and congestion relief will depend on what modal split is eventually assumed for station access. In any event, the Council maintain that the Promoters should give an in-principle undertaking that the necessary works will be built to ensure that congestion on the highways does not frustrate the desire of local residents to use the proposed station conveniently and to its full potential.

7951. Has such an undertaking been sought by the Council?

(Mr Chard) We have had a number of meetings with the Promoters and we have made ----

7952. You do not need to go into great detail. I will ask for more detail if we need it. Has one been sought?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7953. Has one been given?

(Mr Chard) No.

7954. Please read 5.10.

(Mr Chard) In order to establish what works to highways the Promoters should reasonably be asked to underwrite, the Council have appointed consultants Mouchel Parkman to undertake an independent preliminary assessment.

7955. In 5.11, it should read "The consultant's draft report", should it?

(Mr Chard) Yes. The consultant's draft report suggests that, in accordance with Policy M27 of the Council's draft Unitary Development Plan and similar policies in the London Borough of Bexley, the Promoters should contribute between £20 million and £30 million towards off-site highway works at Abbey Wood. It can be appreciated that the Promoters might be reluctant to accept such an additional cost to the project without further scrutiny. It may be that the highway works can be funded from some other source and, if the Promoters wish to offer an undertaking to that effect, then an amendment to the Bill might be unnecessary. We also understand the Promoters' estimate that, if a Woolwich station is included in the project, then about 25 per cent of potential passengers at Abbey Wood could transfer to Woolwich, and possibly it might be more with appropriate highway management and new bus services. The required highway works would then be less; hence one of the financial benefits of a Woolwich Crossrail station would be cost savings to the Promoters at Abbey Wood.

7956. So essentially what you are saying there is that, in dealing with the costs of the Woolwich Crossrail station, one also ought to put into the arithmetic the saving in terms of highway works in the vicinity of Abbey Wood?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7957. Moving on to the Abbey Wood station access issues, could you read from paragraph 6.1 please.

(Mr Chard) Greenwich Council accepts that passenger forecasts undertaken in support of the Bill were generally adequate, but they are inadequate for the purpose of providing transport assessments to individual stations on the south-east arm of Crossrail. That is because: firstly, they only forecast year 2016 passenger numbers, ie, one year; secondly, they assume an inappropriate growth profile post opening; thirdly, they do not extend to 15 years post station opening; and, fourthly, the forecasting methodology is not good at identifying new trips as distinct from reassigned trips. Consequently, the Promoters' forecast for Abbey Wood is incomplete and likely to be too low. Based on evidence from the Jubilee Line Extension North Greenwich Station, the Council have estimated that, if Crossrail Abbey Wood station has eight million passengers in year one after opening in 2016, it will have between 20 million and 30 million in 2031, 15 years later, or up to 400 per cent of the 2016 numbers.

7958. There is no need to read the next paragraph, so paragraph 6.4 please.

(Mr Chard) The Council's own estimate and assumed growth profile of potential passenger numbers at Abbey Wood is focused on 15 years after the likely station opening date of 2016, that is, 2031. In our opinion, the station should be designed and built to accommodate any likely passenger numbers arising in the 15 years after opening comfortably and without any need for major modification. At the public inquiry into the Thames Gateway Bridge proposals, TfL informed the inquiry (day 56) that with the bridge traffic and with the general growth in other traffic there would be no spare capacity in Harrow Manor Way in 2016, even with the highway mitigation works for the Bridge.

7959. MR JONES: Can we just pause there? For those not familiar with Harrow Manor Way, could you confirm that that is the main route northwards from Abbey Wood Station?

(Mr Chard) North and south is the viaduct and the roads beyond the viaduct and Abbey Wood Station which goes north/south.

7960. So it is a main route from Abbey Wood Station, full-stop. Would you read on, please?

(Mr Chard) Therefore, further highway works will be required to increase capacity to accommodate any traffic generated by a Crossrail station at Abbey Wood. The cost of those works is a cost of the project and an absolute requirement, whether they are funded from Crossrail budget or not. If highway access to the station were not improved then highway congestion would diminish the efficiency and value of the station for any passengers needed to access by car or bus. It would also have a substantial adverse impact on the quality of life of local residents. The council strongly supports policies to maximise public transport use and that includes supporting access to stations by bus in preference to cars, where that is feasible. However, for a station in outer London or beyond, which is not in a town centre, it is unrealistic to assume (as the Promoters have done) that nearly all access to the station can be by walking, cycle and bus. A more realistic and pragmatic approach suggests that, even with an extended controlled parking zone, car access cannot be reduced to insignificant levels. An interim assessment for London Borough of Greenwich for new highway works and for bus priority measures and congestion relief works has been undertaken by consultants Mouchel Parkman. We seek an assurance from the Promoters that in the absence of any Crossrail station they will work with the local authorities to refine those estimates and will, in any event, guarantee the funding for the design and construction of the necessary highway works. With a Crossrail station at Woolwich the problem of Abbey Wood becomes less severe. It can be assumed that about 25 per cent of potential passengers at Abbey Wood might choose, or could be persuaded to use Woolwich instead. It would also affect the modal split of passengers accessing Crossrail stations in the borough. Walk-mode share and bus-mode share would both increase, while car-mode share would reduce significantly. That is because as a town centre Woolwich will always be much better served by feeder bus services. For example, some potential rail passengers in the Wickham area, who can only realistically get to Abbey Wood Station by car, can even now easily get to Woolwich stations by bus.

7961. Could you just say where Wickham is in terms of directions from Abbey Wood?

(Mr Chard) It is southeast. I can ---

7962. Just a broad indication.

(Mr Chard) Sorry, Wickham is southwest from Abbey Wood.

7963. If we can go to section 7, Woolwich Station access issues, I think we can omit paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 from the oral reading. Could you start at 7.3, please?

(Mr Chard) Unlike Abbey Wood Woolwich is a town centre and a hub of the bus network. It is very well served by buses already and further improvements will be necessary in any event. In the town centre there is a controlled parking zone and all parking (except at Network Rail car park) is charged by the hour. Compared to Abbey Wood a higher mode share for buses and a lower mode share for car access to the station is realistically achievable.

7964. In paragraph 7.4 and the first 60 per cent of paragraph 7.5 you deal with future works. I think it is appropriate to note the last three sentences in paragraph 7.5, which relate to those possible future works.

(Mr Chard) However, in nearly all cases those works - that is the works at Woolwich - are required before 2016 with or without a Crossrail station. Therefore, the cost of the works apart from bus stops in Plumstead Road are not attributable to Crossrail project. This compares favourably with Abbey Wood.

7965. Section 8 deals with deferred construction of a Woolwich Crossrail station. Would you read that, please?

(Mr Chard) In February 2005 the Secretary of State for Transport issued safeguarding directions for Crossrail. Sheet numbers 33 and 34 of the plans attached to the directions cover the area of Woolwich town centre and show an area of surface interest which we are advised was included to allow for the possibility of a Crossrail station at Woolwich.

7966. If we move to paragraph 8.3 and if you would read that, please?

(Mr Chard) The council and the Promoters are agreed that there is no technical reason why a Woolwich station could not be built later, but we are also agreed that it cannot be done at any reasonable cost, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting of 4 April 2006. Detailed costs for construction after the railway is open have not been prepared by the Promoters, as far as we are aware, nor by any of the other parties that have commented on possible later construction. It has been suggested to the Promoters that such construction might involve: temporary closure of the railway for an extended period; more expensive working methods; compensation to the train operating company; and loss of potential cost savings at Abbey Wood. In the Promoter's Response to the council's Petition it is stated on page 12: "The Promoter does not consider that there is a strong enough case for building a station at Woolwich in view of the cost of doing so." While we completely disagree with that statement we can agree that there appears to be no reasonable case for building a station at Woolwich with the very much higher costs which would be involved if construction were to be undertaken while the railway is operational. Subject to further investigation cost alone is likely to be a good enough reason to dismiss the possibility of later construction, but it may not be the most important reason. The benefits would be greatly reduced, not just because the benefits would be deferred but also some benefits would be lost forever. New opportunity costs not related to construction are also likely. For example, without an immediate prospect of a Crossrail station developers will still develop their sites but, as EDAW and DTZ reports confirm, that development would be significantly less value than the likely development with a Crossrail station. Once built the development cannot be changed, so the opportunity and the benefits it would bring would be lost forever. Also the over station development site, worth millions of pounds, would be blighted by safeguarding and would probably remain undeveloped. A Crossrail station built later would have a benefit cost ratio much inferior to the benefit cost ratio for a station built with the rest of the railway. In all probability it would be poor value for money and would therefore fail to get funding clearance from either the Department for Transport or TfL because the business case would be so poor. I am aware of only one analogous case. The DLR underground station at the Cutty Sark in Greenwich was designed with passive provision for extension. However, when detailed plans were prepared to upgrade the line and the stations from two-car trains to three-car trains it was discovered that extending the platforms underground would be very expensive. It would have required risky and costly engineering work as well as temporary closure of the line and large revenue losses to the operating franchisee. It was decided that station platform extension underground would be too costly to justify; so Cutty Sark is now the only station on the line proposed to have short platforms and selective door opening. In conclusion, if a Crossrail station is not built at the same time as the rest of the railway it is almost certain it would never be built.

7967. If we move on now - we do not need to go to the undertakings, they are in the text - you deal with construction working hours, and I do not ask you to read this section, but perhaps you could read the first sentence at paragraph 9.7?

(Mr Chard) The council therefore seeks an amendment to Schedule 7 of the Bill to allow local planning authorities to control working hours for planning and highway reasons. Apart from the example given there may be other instances, as yet unforeseen, where it may be necessary for the Nominated Undertaker and a Local Planning Authority to agree limited extended hours for planning and highway management reasons.

7968. In section 10 you deal with disruption to the North Kent Line services and there is an undertaking proposed there. Section 11, planning permission for station buildings. Apart from just flagging up the third sentence in 11.5, "The council only seeks a planning application in respect of the station building because it is a public building and not for other parts of the station," I do not think it is necessary to read that, and there is an undertaking there. Section 12 has been resolved but it might be very convenient to move to Petitioner slide 12, so that the Committee is informed how it has been resolved. As far as that is concerned would you just confirm that the council is content if clause C at the bottom and the paragraph that follows clause C are removed, and that clauses A and B, although slightly reworded, are not changed in substance, and that the introductory sentence remains unaltered?

(Mr Chard) Yes, that is correct.

7969. Other Petition clauses in your section 13, if you could just move to Ebbsfleet so that the council's position in respect of that is clear. It is on page 30 and would you read paragraph 13.9, please?

(Mr Chard) While recognising the potential benefits of an extension the council would not wish to support a change to the Bill for an Ebbsfleet extension if it would increase the cost of the Crossrail project. A note sent to the Promoters is in the appendix to this proof.

7970. MR JONES: Thank you, Mr Chard; would you wait there, please?

 

Cross-examined by MR TAYLOR

7971. MR TAYLOR: Mr Chard, I want to begin by asking you some questions about accessibility changes, just very briefly, and you address those in paragraph 3.7 of your proof at page 301. You have explained here that current accessibility in the borough is not good, but you point out in the last sentence that: "With both a Docklands Light Railway in a station in Woolwich and Thames Gateway Bridge open the accessibility of the borough would be close to the London average."

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7972. If we add Crossrail as proposed in the Bill with the station at Abbey Wood to that average situation that would make accessibility for the borough above average for London, would it not?

(Mr Chard) Slightly, yes. Because Abbey Wood is very marginal to the borough, it is on the boundary.

7973. If we add again the Greenwich Waterfront Transit Scheme that also would increase the available public transport in the borough yet further, would it not?

(Mr Chard) By a miniscule amount, yes, because to some extent it just replaces bus services.

7974. I see. A lot of the questions I have for you this morning relate to the issues surrounding traffic at Abbey Wood, and that is going to be the main focus of the questions that I have. Just to set the context for all of that, can you confirm that it is national planning policy to encourage a move to more sustainable forms of transport?

(Mr Chard) Yes, it is.

7975. Indeed, the council is subject to provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997.

(Mr Chard) Yes, we are.

7976. Which requires it to look at ways of reducing traffic in the interior?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7977. And the council is in the process, as I understand it, of formulating its Unitary Development Plan and within that development it explains that the council does not support road schemes that would lead to a generalised increase in road capacity within the borough.

(Mr Chard) That is correct, but with certain caveats.

7978. I have an additional set of documents that were produced this morning, with an extract from policy M13 of the draft UDP, and in particular paragraph 7.30, which is on page 4. 7.30 begins: "The council does not support road schemes that lead to a generalised increase in road capacity, especially if they could be used for a more radial car-based community."

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7979. So within the borough's policy and within the context of national policy, in essence the way forward is to use the available road space more effectively for public transport?

(Mr Chard) Yes, we do seek to do that.

7980. In essence that means by improving the service provided by buses.

(Mr Chard) That is one of the things, yes.

7981. It would not be consistent with that policy picture, would it, to provide additional highway capacity to relieve congestion to general traffic?

(Mr Chard) Two key words in this are "generally" and "radial car-based community". What we are trying to achieve here is getting people on to public transport, which is a slightly different matter.

7982. But providing more road capacity for people to ride around in their private cars would not be consistent with that objective, would it Mr Chard?

(Mr Chard) It depends what the net effect is. If we discouraging people from driving all the way into central London or into inner London by allowing them to drive a shorter distance and then doing most of the journey by train then the net effect is to reduce road traffic.

7983. If you are trying to encourage people to take the bus to the train station, if you were to provide an increase in road capacity that would mitigate away from that objective, would it not?

(Mr Chard) We entirely support encouraging people to use buses but in outer London and in the rest of the UK encouraging people to use buses and not to use their car is a difficult task and we have to be pragmatic and realistic about what is achievable.

7984. Encouraging people to drive to a station rather than to take the bus to the station would be contrary to national and local policy, would it not?

(Mr Chard) Yes, it would.

7985. So if we are looking at the highways in relation to the Abbey Wood Station, if Crossrail were to lead to an increase in general road traffic the policy would be not to provide additional highway capacity to cater for that traffic, would it not?

(Mr Chard) I do not know where we will eventually get to. I think it depends on how the transport assessment finally evolves. I do not think we have reached that stage yet.

7986. I will put the question again. It is a hypothetically based question: if Crossrail were to lead to an increase in general road traffic the policy would indicate that we should not provide additional highway capacity to cater for that additional road traffic. That must be right, must it not?

(Mr Chard) Are you taking that particular stage on Crossrail or not? You said Crossrail; are you talking about Abbey Wood Station?

7987. Yes, or indeed anywhere.

(Mr Chard) The important thing is that we maximise the use of public transport, that is one of the council's objectives. If maximising public transport involves changes to the highway then that may have to be done.

7988. I am trying to establish a simple point with you, Mr Chard. The real question here is not whether Crossrail should provide additional capacity for general traffic, but whether Crossrail can impact upon the provision of buses. That is the central issue in relation to Abbey Wood Station, is it not?

(Mr Chard) Yes, there is a need to accommodate buses and give them priority on the highway network; we agree that buses should have priority.

7989. In order to examine what the potential impacts of Crossrail would be at Abbey Wood and on the local highway network around the station obviously we have to have regard to some forecasting, unfortunately.

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7990. You have been in discussions with the Promoter about the way to carry out that forecast, and as a result of those discussions a detailed report was produced in January of this year by Halcrow. You are aware of that report?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7991. As I understand it that went some way to meet your concerns but there are two central aspects of that work about which you have concerns. Firstly, the assessment year that has been adopted, that Halcrow modelled to 2016 and you, I believe, advocated an assessment year of 2031.

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7992. The second aspect is the mode split that has been assumed, that is to say the proportion of people travelling by whichever transport mode, albeit walking, cycling, buses or private car.

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7993. In your evidence at page 306, paragraph 5.4 you set out the point relating to the assessment year of 2031 and you, as I understand it, have produced your own forecast for the number of passengers in 2031 in paragraph 5.7 on page 306, and you estimate between 20 million and 30 million passengers per annum are likely to wish to use Abbey Wood Station.

(Mr Chard) We got no 2031 forecast from the Promoter so we had to think what it might be, and we did some calculations based on what is actually happening and what is forecast to happen at North Greenwich. I do not particularly think that this is the best estimate that we will eventually get to. We do not have access to the models which the Promoters have and I think we want to work with them to try and improve this estimate.

7994. I do not accept that the 2031 forecast has not been produced - and we will come to the Promoter's 2031 forecast in a moment. The evidence you have set out and given this morning to the Committee in relation to the likely impact of Crossrail on Abbey Wood in 2031, as I understand it, is based upon forecasts of between 20 million and 30 million passengers per annum. That is right, is it not?

(Mr Chard) Based on, sorry?

7995. On forecasts of between 20 and 30 million passengers per annum?

(Mr Chard) We have discussed this with our consultants, Mouchel Parkman, who also act for a number of other Petitioners and that is the number that is in their draft report, which I understand has been given to the Promoters. I would repeat that I think that we all have to consider this number further and work on it towards an agreed figure.

7996. Based upon those forecasts, in paragraph 5.8 at the bottom of page 306, you identify the demand of between 90 and 160 buses in each direction in the peak hour in 2031.

(Mr Chard) We gave good information on the relationship at North Greenwich between the number of buses which serve the station and the number of passengers that go through the station over the last six years. So we have simply applied similar ratios to Abbey Wood.

7997. I will come to that later. On the next page, 307, you indicated in your evidence, which I think we received on Thursday, that the council have appointed consultants Mouchel Parkman to undertake an independent preliminary assessment of what works the Promoters should be asked to underwrite.

(Mr Chard) Yes.

7998. That was received on Thursday and that was the first indication that the Promoters received that you had commissioned work; is that right?

(Mr Chard) I am not sure when they became aware that we had consultants working on this.

7999. The Promoters then wrote and asked you to provide a copy of the assessment that Mouchel Parkman had undertaken, did they not?

(Mr Chard) They did.

8000. And on Monday I think you had a conversation with somebody who worked for the Promoters and you declined to provide a copy; is that right?

(Mr Chard) I explained that it was a working document that was still in draft, and in fact I also received a later version of the draft on Monday, which is the version you now have.

8001. I was handed a copy of the draft at 20 to ten this morning; that is right, is it not?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8002. MR TAYLOR: I will do my best to deal with the points that I can in the limited time I have been given.

8003. CHAIRMAN: Mr Taylor, as I understand it we are talking about estimates which have actually been done for Abbey Wood.

8004. MR TAYLOR: Estimates from the Promoter.

8005. CHAIRMAN: He has indicated that this has been done but it was not felt necessary to get them to Greenwich.

8006. CHAIRMAN: No, sir. The Promoter, Crossrail, has produced forecasts for 2031 and provided them last week to Greenwich. Greenwich have also carried out a forecasting exercise of their own and that was handed to me at 20 to ten this morning. I am going to do my best to take the points that arise in this document, but it is in the context of me having one copy and 20 minutes to look at it.

8007. CHAIRMAN: Is it not a case of being hoisted by your own petard in that it was late anyway?

8008. MR TAYLOR: Sir, I have to say I do not accept that. There has been a lot of discussion between the parties and the first that Crossrail knew that consultants had even been appointed to produce figures by Greenwich was when they received the proof on Thursday.

8009. CHAIRMAN: What I am trying to get at is what we are doing is crossing between two sets of areas here and I think that the Committee well understands the points that are being made, although it is from two different perspectives of models.

8010. MR TAYLOR: I will take the points that I have and we will see where we get to, and if the Committee feels that there needs to be more discussion or more time to crystallise the issues then we will proceed from there.

8011. CHAIRMAN: We will do that quickly.

8012. MR TAYLOR: Mr Chard, if I hand over a copy of this draft report to Mr Fry. I am interested in paragraph 4.4, which is the summary at the end of the forecasting section of this report. Here Mouchel Parkman conclude, having examined the capacity of the links, that is to say the roadways between the junctions, in the vicinity of Abbey Wood, that the issue of whether or not the Thames Gateway Bridge is in the baseline assumptions has a significant bearing. Without Thames Gateway Crossrail can demonstrate that the highway impact in 2016 is minimal. Yes?

(Mr Chard) I do not know whether that is the case or not.

8013. That is what your consultants are saying to you.

(Mr Chard) Indeed.

8014. As I understand it, those conclusions are drawn from an examination of the implications of the Promoter's forecasts for 2016 which can be found in table 4.1 earlier in the document, I think at page 19, and in this table, Mr Chard, we have an examination of the changes in the link flows on the various roads in the vicinity of Abbey Wood in 2016, without Crossrail and with Crossrail. And columns 1 and 2 are based on the Promoter's forecasts, are they not?

(Mr Chard) This is the consultant's document; the consultant is not giving the evidence. I received this on Monday morning and it is still being assessed by our highway engineers. The council does not necessarily accept all of it. We have employed the consultants to do the work and they have been advising it. I am not really in a position to discuss it in full detail.

8015. In that case are you prepared to accept an undertaking that we will continue discussions to resolve this, Mr Chard?

(Mr Chard) I think that both parties should continue to discuss to resolve this but we have certain matters which we would like to be agreed at this stage and we would like agreement that the TA Guidance will be followed; we would like agreement that the 15-year assessment period is agreed from the date of station opening; and we would like agreement that the Promoters will produce a forecast for 2031 and then we can discuss the implications beyond that. I think we have to do it that way in practice because half of the station catchment area is in the London borough of Bexley and we have yet to hear what ‑ well, I have some idea of what their views are but not everybody in this room is aware of their views.

8016. So I think the answer to my question is you would be prepared to accept an undertaking to discuss, is that right?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8017. In that case I will not ask you any further questions on the forecasting. I just want to turn to some other matters that you deal with in your evidence. If we turn to page 314, section 9, paragraph 9.1, you address to construction working hours. Now, it is the case, is it not, that Westminster City Council are the lead authority in relation to that particular issue and discussions are on‑going between the Promoters and Westminster City Council?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8018. And you are happy, are you not, for those negotiations to continue and for the Committee to be informed of progress at a later stage?

(Mr Chard) For normal working hours, yes.

8019. That suggests that you are not content about some aspects of the negotiations that are on‑going with Westminster in relation to abnormal working hours?

(Mr Chard) Well, Westminster is not actually the lead in respect of our concerns about working hours, so I do not know where those negotiations have got to. I am aware, however, that the Promoters, as far as I am aware still, do not agree to the amendment to Schedule 7 to the Bill which a number of boroughs are seeking, I think including Westminster.

8020. That is part of the negotiations with Westminster, is it not?

(Mr Chard) Yes, but they did not announce to the Committee that they were speaking on our behalf, so we are speaking on our own behalf.

8021. So you do not believe Westminster is the lead authority representing you on that issue?

(Mr Chard) We are not sharing their costs and therefore they do not necessarily speak for us on everything.

8022. What is the undertaking you are seeking from the Petitioner in relation to the working hours, then, Mr Chard, because I do not see one in your proof anywhere?

(Mr Chard) We have not put it in the form of an undertaking. We have just made the same point that a number of other boroughs and Petitioners have made, that it will assist all the local planning authorities in their view if there is an amendment to Schedule 7 which restores a clause which is in Schedule 6 to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, which is otherwise identical, to enable the local planning authority to control working hours for planning and highways management reasons. Obviously if noise is the reason why working hours are going to be controlled then it should be done under the more specific legislation which is in Section 61 of the 1974 Act, but that only relates to noise.

8023. We are not going to deal with this today; we are obviously going to report back once the negotiations with Westminster have been concluded, but you have made your point to the Committee so I have done my job in that respect. Now, disruption to the North Kent Line is the next aspect to be raised on page 22, paragraph 10.2, and here you seek an undertaking that is specified that when the nominated undertaking for the North Kent Line work is appointed, they shall require that nominated undertaker to ‑ and then there are four elements to the undertaking sought on page 316, a), b) and c). The first is to "prepare a detailed construction programme for the approved works, including programming any working outside normal working hours... any railway possessions or blockades, and any proposed variations or changes to the normal passenger services and timetables." That is the first element. When possessions are undertaken or blockades are undertaken at the moment on the North Kent Line, is the local authority provided with a detailed construction programme for those works?

(Mr Chard) No.

8024. Secondly, b), implementation of any works, the programme is to be submitted to the relevant local authorities and the transport users group to allow comment. c): It requires careful consideration of the comments received, particularly in relation to adverse effects to residents, and d), it requires that the work is not constructed other than in accordance with the programme of work and a schedule of mitigation measures which have been submitted to and agreed by the London borough of Greenwich. When work is done on the North Kent Line at present, does the London Borough of Greenwich have control over the programme to the extent it cannot be carried out if the Council disagrees?

(Mr Chard) No.

8025. Why is it that you are seeking, then, to obtain such control in relation to possessions and blockades associated with Crossrail?

(Mr Chard) We think that the local authority and the London Transport Users Committee should be a consultee to the proposed programme of works. I understand that the generality of the planning regime will require the Promoters or the nominated undertaker to submit to the local planning authority a programme of work and a schedule of the consent applications they are going to submit under the planning regime. That was the way the system worked under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act. Our present understanding is that a similar arrangement will be put in place for qualifying authorities under this Bill, so what I think we are saying is that these blockades and possessions should be included in that programme, which the nominated undertaker is, I understand, going to submit anyway to the local authority for their comments.

8026. Your undertaking as it is drafted at present requires the submission of that programme before any work begins, does it not?

(Mr Chard) That, again, is in line with the arrangements on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

8027. Have you undertaken any research as to when knowledge of the dates and times for possessions becomes available under the process as it exists in relation to NetworkRail?

(Mr Chard) In my experience they are often agreed and scheduled years in advance of them actually happening.

8028. And have you investigated the process that is involved in obtaining possession on the railway?

(Mr Chard) Well, I worked on secondment for British Rail for a time and I listened around the office to the procedure.

8029. You see, my understanding is that, given particularly the scale of the work in relation to Crossrail, the dates for possessions or, indeed, blockades, although I do not believe a blockade is proposed here, are not such that they are available years in advance. In particular your undertaking does not provide for the dates to alter, does it?

(Mr Chard) We do not want to be unreasonable and we have said that agreement would not be unreasonably withheld. What we do not want to happen is to be cut out of the decision‑making process without consultation in the way that happened with the DLR and Woolwich because the Council needs to represent the interests of local people.

8030. Would you be prepared to accept an undertaking that offered consultation on the details of the work identified in paragraph a) and which also offered to take into account the responses from that consultation as set out in paragraph c)?

(Mr Chard) Well, I think we would want c) as well ‑‑

8031. I am offering that to you, Mr Chard.

(Mr Chard) (a), (b) and (c)?

8032. I am offering (a) and (c). (b) we cannot do because we do not necessarily know the dates prior to the implementation of all the work.

(Mr Chard) I think this needs to be tied into the planning regime for qualifying authorities. I am not disagreeing with what you are suggesting: I am saying that it needs to be looked at in that context, to get a final version that fits with the consent arrangements within the planning regime which is still being developed.

8033. CHAIRMAN: Is that a no?

(Mr Chard) It is a yes.

8034. MR TAYLOR: The last matter, then, is planning permission for station buildings. As I understand it, you are suggesting that the local planning authority should consider a full planning application for the station at Abbey Wood?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8035. And I am right in saying, am I not, that the Bill makes provision for a sort of form of outline planning permission through Schedule 7, does it not?

(Mr Chard) That is correct.

8036. And in essence what it does is it provides for Greenwich to have approval of plans for works; it provides for Greenwich to require additional information if it wants it; it requires the development to be carried out in accordance with plans approved by Greenwich, and there are grounds for refusing to approve, are there not?

(Mr Chard) There are.

8037. And included in those grounds are matters relating to the built form of a station building?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8038. And the grounds for refusing to approve plans are that the design or external appearance of the station ought to be modified a) to preserve the local environment or local amenity, b) to prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on road safety or on the free flow of traffic in the local area, or c) to preserve a site of archaeological or historic interest or nature conservation value and that the design of the works is reasonably capable of being modified. Yes?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8039. Now, what is it about that regime that does not give London Borough of Greenwich sufficient control over the design of the station?

(Mr Chard) The normal planning regime has been disapplied with a new regime put in its place which is beneficial to the Promoters and less beneficial to the planning authority, and what we are saying is that we cannot see that there is justification for not using the normal planning process in this particular instance.

8040. Presumably through the normal planning process you would retain control over the design and appearance of the station, would you not?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8041. And do, under the provisions of Schedule 7?

(Mr Chard) Not to the same degree. The problem is that good design may take time and one of the things the replacement planning regime does is it takes away time and puts the local planning authority under pressure because, if they do not do something within the very tight timetables then it is a deemed approval, and that has disadvantages to professional town planners and architects who are trying to move towards a good design where the design is in the public interest and where there is a lot of local interest. There is no reason why more time cannot be given in this circumstance.

8042. If the normal planning process applied, one of the things that Greenwich would be able to require would be highway improvements connected with the station, would they not? Indeed, they would be able to insist on it through either a Section 106 planning application or an agreement under Highways Act Section 278, if those works were necessary?

(Mr Chard) Yes, that is a possibility. With any full planning application you can have conditions under Section 106 agreements.

8043. And, if there was a disagreement about the particular highway improvements that might be required associated with Crossrail, then the only avenue would be to appeal to the Secretary of State and for a planning inquiry to be held into the station and the issues relating to how the highway improvements and highway infrastructure?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8044. What is the sort of timescale for getting an inquiry at the moment, Mr Chard? Are you aware?

(Mr Chard) It could be six months or a year, but what I would like to say is that does not mean to say that the station would not operate during that period. We had a similar issue with the Cutty Sark DLR station where the station operated because the platforms and ticket machines were there but the over station building took a long time to sort out a good design which was required because it was in the World Heritage site, so I do not think the requirement for a full planning application for a station building would prevent a station from operating in the interim.

8045. So what you are saying is that we can construct the station without planning permission?

(Mr Chard) Well, the platforms, because they are not building, and there are existing use rights for a station so presumably it continues while the construction work is on‑going, but if we are talking about the particular new station building, then that is a new public building which the local authority for various reasons has significant interest in.

8046. Well, I am going to leave the Committee to form their own view as to whether or not that is a sensible way forward but can I just suggest to you that perhaps the reason that the Council is wishing to retain control over the planning permission in relation to the station is not so much concerned with the design of the station itself but more concerned to ensure that it has a strong position in terms of negotiation for highway improvements, Mr Chard?

(Mr Chard) We are not unaware of that. Hopefully the highway issues will be resolved long before we get to the design of the station building, and Greenwich Council does have a track record of being involved with station building design and planning applications related to station buildings. For example, I was very much involved in DLR Woolwich, and what the planning authority did was prepare a planning brief, we had a legal agreement with the Promoters of DLR Woolwich station which was very useful because it fixed some parameters of the design and integrated the station building which was to be owned by the railway company with the over station development which was to be built on top, so I think the Council has experience and has a good track record of working with railway promoters to integrate stations in their surrounding area and to develop comprehensive designs and get them done on time and efficiently and not hold up the railway project.

8047. CHAIRMAN: Was that a yes?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8048. MR TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr Chard. It is a shame we did not have a chance to go into the figures on forecasting; I would have enjoyed that! Those are all the questions I have, thank you.

 

Re‑examination by MR JONES

8049. MR JONES: You were asked about reductions in road traffic at the very start of cross‑examination today and you said: "Correct, with certain caveats". Can you just tell us what Transport for London's attitude to policies favouring reduction in road traffic was when it came to Transport for London's promotion for the Thames Gateway Bridge?

(Mr Chard) Yes. Thames Gateway Bridge is a new highway and the Council and TfL had to consider whether constructing a new major highway in London was compatible with their policies for road traffic reduction. They concluded that, bearing in mind the caveat to the policy on road traffic reduction in new highways, building a new highway over Thames Gateway Bridge and the connecting highways was not in conflict with the policies of generally not building new highways in London, and we as a borough came to the same conclusion in relation to our own policies, that there was not a conflict between our policies and the construction of the new highways for Thames Gateway Bridge.

8050. I think perhaps again, dealing with reduction in road traffic, and I know it pre‑dates the Act but not Greenwich's policies with regard to road traffic, as far as the Greenwich peninsular is concerned were roads built to give access to North Greenwich station?

(Mr Chard) Yes. Roads exclusively for buses and roads for general traffic as well.

8051. You mentioned in answer to a question in respect of a programme for the North Kent Line your concern about what happened in respect of the Docklands Light Railway station at Woolwich. Can you just tell the Committee what is going to happen in respect of that, or what did happen?

(Mr Chard) There was a provision in the Transport and Works Act Order for a temporary platform to be built just east of Woolwich Arsenal station and we were told that the purpose of that was to use that temporary platform while the existing platform was out of use in order to construct the Docklands Light Railway. We took it on trust, I suppose, that that was what was likely to happen. It was only halfway through the construction period, or well into the construction period, that we realised that was not going to happen and that the railway companies had got together and agreed amongst themselves with the contractor that they would not build that temporary platform so people who were coming down from London would not be able to get off the trains anywhere in Woolwich for a period of, I think, a month or six weeks that the station, that the platform was going to be closed.

8052. This is Woolwich Arsenal station?

(Mr Chard) Yes.

8053. And how important a station to Woolwich is Woolwich Arsenal?

(Mr Chard) It is very important. It is the main station.

8054. Can we move to design? It is suggested that the Council was not motivated by design concerns but by highway concerns. You mentioned about the Council's policy to design stations. Are you able to comment on Greenwich Council's general approach to design and its importance or unimportance in planning in general terms?

(Mr Chard) Yes. Quality design is an important matter for our Council. We employ a design specialist in our planning team. The Council has won a number of awards for good designs where we work very closely in partnership with developers to get top quality designs, so we have a track record, we commit to professional resources, and we have had involvement, particularly with the over station development at Cutty Sark in the World Heritage site and now also on‑going in Woolwich with the DLR Woolwich station.

8055. MR JONES: Thank you, Mr Chard. I have no further questions.

8056. CHAIRMAN: Then I think this is an appropriate moment, five minutes earlier than expected, to rise until 2.30 this afternoon. I will just remind people about problems we may experience later on in the day outside, if you can try and get back a little bit earlier.

8057. MR ELVIN: Could I just say that this afternoon I am going to call two witnesses, and in light of Mr Chard's agreement about discussions on Abbey Wood they are going to be shorter than I thought so I hope, depending of course on Mr Jones' cross‑examination, we can conclude the Greenwich Petition this afternoon.

8058. CHAIRMAN: Excellent!

 

After a short adjournment

 

 

 

8059. CHAIRMAN: We will begin with Mr Evlin.

 

MR DAVIDANDERSON, Recalled

Examined by MR ELVIN

8060. MR EVLIN: If convenient, as I said, I am going to call two witnesses. First of all, I am going to call Mr Anderson, who is already well known to the Committee so introductions are not necessary. Mr Anderson, can I deal with some matters relating to Woolwich first, and then we will deal even more Abbey Wood given the position we reached this morning. The position appears to be largely common with Helen Bowkett, who gave evidence yesterday for Greenwich. That is to say the benefit cost ratio, a factor which, again, is relied upon, is only one of the elements required to be taken into account when the Department for Transport is assessing whether or not to proceed with some infrastructure. What I would like to understand from you, Mr Anderson, is what elements are also significant in the context of assessing Woolwich?

(Mr Anderson) It was clear from the Buchanan Report, which we commissioned, that the other important category is East Greenwich, and that covers both integration with policies but also issues such as transport interchange.

8061. Can I ask you briefly for a view on the interchange issue so far as integration is concerned?

(Mr Anderson) It is clear from what we have heard so far that Woolwich would not provide any significant interchange with other railways, but then it would not be intending to. The important thing about the south-east branch of Crossrail is that it connects into the National Rail networks south of Willow(?) and it does that at Abbey Wood. At Abbey Wood we can provide a very high quality interchange. That simply is not possible at Woolwich, so we get the benefits from South-East Greenwich by the connection at Abbey Wood.

8062. How easy is the interchange at Abbey Wood?

(Mr Anderson) I think there was a figure in our exhibits which demonstrates that if you are travelling on a train from North Kent you will simply alight at Abbey Wood, walk across the platform and you would be able to board a Crossrail train.

8063. In terms of the economic issues, we have the letter from the Minister which deals with that, so I do not need to ask you any questions. However, can I - indeed, it would not be appropriate for me to do so - ask you about the benefit cost ratio range? What the Department has agreed is that the BCR for Greenwich lies within a range, the lower end of which is two and the upper end of which is four. What factors influence a judgment on the value for money issue in terms of the BCR?

(Mr Anderson) I think there are three things one needs to consider. First of all, the scale of growth, and various scenarios have been tested, secondly, there is location for growth and, thirdly, the timing of the growth. Across the three tests that we have reported on, it is clear there are different assumptions on those, with the exception of timing. On the scale of growth, clearly EDAW is one end of the range - and we have heard that the assumptions there are to try and maximize the re-development potential in the areas around the station - at the bottom end of the range we have the London Town forecasts and then in the middle of the range we have a high growth test that we did based on our understanding of the emerging development assumptions in the Woolwich area.

8064. In terms of the forecasting in the appraisals that were used to test the Crossrail stations generally, what approach was adopted, in terms of the forecasts that were adopted, and which set of figures were taken?

(Mr Anderson) They are all based on the London plan.

8065. Mr James referred, in re-examination yesterday, to individual assessments at stations with development potential and the like, does that have any significance as to whether or not there was a level playing field for the assessment of the other stations?

(Mr Anderson) Clearly, I think the proposition of a station at Woolwich has been subject to very intensive scrutiny. Very largely we have further work in terms of where development might be located. We have not done that for the other stations, it is fair to say.

8066. Can I ask you this question, the cost of a Crossrail station at Woolwich would be of the order of £260 million. Can you give the Committee an idea of how that compares with other stations within the proposal of the Bill scheme?

(Mr Anderson) It would be on a par with the Central London stations which are similarly located deep beneath the ground, and obviously that gives rise to greater significant costs. They will be significantly greater than the cost of rebuilding other stations at town centres in London on the surface sections of the railway.

8067. For example, would you be able to give the comparative costs of Ealing, which is another town centre station which lies outside the Central area?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, with Ealing the station building is being rebuilt and the scale of cost would be in the order of £50 million.

8068. Can I then turn to the question of the omission of Woolwich in the process? I asked some questions of Mr McCollum yesterday, can I get from you your knowledge of the situation. We know Woolwich has never been in the Bill, was it in the benchmark scheme or in the business case which was tested by Montague?

(Mr Anderson) No, it was not. The business we submitted to governance in the middle of 2003 did not include the station of Woolwich. Where Woolwich may have featured was in much earlier consultation on the very wide range of options for Crossrail which were in documents back in 2002.

8069. Was it considered in the Montague options? Montague considered a whole variety of options?

(Mr Anderson) No.

8070. In very brief terms, why, so far as you are aware, was it excluded?

(Mr Anderson) The principal reason was the capital cost of the scheme, which was regarded as very high.

8071. Can I ask you about the comparison that was made between the growth to be expected in Woolwich and the growth which has taken place in the North Greenwich Peninsula, which is the area around the Dome? Mr McCollum was drawing some comparisons yesterday, and I asked him some questions about that. Can you give your own view as briefly as possible, please?

(Mr Anderson) In terms of the future, our forecasting has assumed very significant growth, well over 150 per cent, a lesser level of growth in the Woolwich area, about half of that.

8072. In terms of the Abbey Wood area, how comparable are the two?

(Mr Anderson) They are not really comparable at all because Abbey Wood is a largely residential area, so we would not expect to get the development-driven growth in Abbey Wood that we might do at either Woolwich or indeed the Peninsula. We get much lower levels of growth, something in the order of 20 to 30 per cent.

8073. Can I turn to Abbey Wood. In the light Mr Chard's agreement that we continue discussions regarding the infrastructure of the highways and public transport issues, I am only going to ask you a question relating to Mr Chard's contention that Greenwich should have greater powers over planning at Abbey wood. What is yours' and CLRL`s views about that?

(Mr Anderson) I am not sure that the position is very different to that of our normal Transport and Works Act order process. My understanding is that the regime contained within the Bill gives control over those matters which are also subject to controls under the TWA process.

8074. For example, can you tell the Committee what happened with the DLR at Woolwich? What level of control was given to the planning authority once the TWA order had been granted?

(Mr Anderson) I think there was a very similar level of control on the sorts of issues that would be subject to further detailed consideration on the size and location of the facility within the order specified in the TWA order?

8075. So far as the consequences, if Greenwich were to be given greater powers over planning, it is a station which lies across two administrative areas, would you have any concerns if they were given greater control and, if so, what would they be?

(Mr Anderson) I am not sure why we should veer to this location compared to many other locations on the railway. Abbey Wood is an important part of the project. It is one of the termini, so it is quite important that we are able to deliver that in accordance with the programme for the rest of the scheme. It seems to me that a twin-track process in terms of approval could lead to some delay.

8076. Thank you?

Cross-examination by MR JONES

8077. MR JONES: Dealing with that last matter first. Abbey wood is, of course, one of only two new over-ground stations in the project, is it not?

(Mr Anderson) I am not sure I would agree with that. Clearly we are rebuilding existing stations on the city line at many locations. There are several locations on the Great Eastern, indeed we have heard recently evidence on the situation of Romford, so there are quite significant rebuilding of stations taking place elsewhere.

8078. Moving on to another question. At the very beginning of your cross-examination you were asked about the Department for Transport tests in the context of benefit cost ratio. You started talking about whether this was an interchange or not. I was slightly surprised, I thought you would go to page 19 of your evidence which does set out the Department's test. Can we move to page 19 of the Promoter's documents. If we can focus on the centre of the page, please. This is one of your documents, or the Promoter's documents, and there we see the basis for ministerial decisions. We see value for money. Essentially the test for value for money is assessed in benefit cost ratio, is it not?

(Mr Anderson) That is correct.

8079. We know the benefit cost ratio is at the very least 2:1 and therefore it is a high benefit cost ratio come what may?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, in terms of the DfT guidance.

8080. The probability is that it will be higher than 2:1, will it not?

(Mr Anderson) It is likely to be higher, yes.

8081. Your figures were worked out before the very large increase in housing for the Thames Gateway which occurred only within the last two or three years.

(Mr Anderson) I am sorry, which figures are you referring to there?

8082. The figures which you have used to work out a cost benefit ration of 2:1.

(Mr Anderson) The figures we used for that were based on the London Plan which is an extra 800,000 in the population and 600,000 extra jobs.

8083. In terms of a level playing field, many boroughs covered by the London Plan have not great changes in their housing requirements since then, but the Thames Gateway Bridge has had very great changes since then, has it not?

(Mr Anderson) Did you say the Thames Gateway Bridge?

8084. The Thames Gateway, I beg your pardon.

(Mr Anderson) Clearly, yes, there have been developments in the thinking there.

8085. To rely on the London Plan, which everyone knows will not provide the housing figures for this part of London because it is out of date because of the latest Thames Gateway figures--- Indeed, progression of the Thames Gateway figures will give a low benefit cost ratio, will it not?

(Mr Anderson) I have already indicated how I would expect it to be higher than the 2:1, but in terms of what the position is going to be, I think we need to weigh the review of the London Plan, which is starting now and is one of the reasons that we have some interim advice forecasts from the GLA. I think we need to weigh the outcome of the review of those forecasts and the revisions to the London Plan to fully answer that answer.

8086. If we go down those indents that we can see on the screen, am I right that the only one which the Promoters say is not satisfied for Woolwich is affordability? Am I right that you agree that every other indent is satisfied?

(Mr Anderson) It is a question of degree, is it not, as to how far the others are satisfied or not satisfied? I would not want to say they are all 100 per cent satisfied. Also, we are sending information in the form of the various tables that we have already seen and that is put forward to those making the decision. I assume they make that decision, as it says at the top there, "Ministers make the decision on the basis of the information put to them".

8087. Apart from affordability, do you say that any one of those indents is not satisfied?

(Mr Anderson) I do not think it is a simple yes or no answer, it is largely a question of degree and things to be weighed in the balance. Clearly that is what ministers do.

8088. Did you say that any one of those, apart from affordability, Woolwich does not score well?

(Mr Anderson) I am not sure they would score particularly well on practicality and deliverability. I think the difficulty of providing a station at that location is one of the reasons why we have the higher costs.

8089. You have got a station box within your own design, you have got to design for a station there. Outside the affordability element, what is impractical or not deliverable about it?

(Mr Anderson) It helps for the construction of places within the project.

8090. That is an affordability point.

(Mr Anderson) That really depends on how you interpret practicality and deliverability.

8091. You gave evidence that the cost of the station would be similar to other stations below ground. Which other stations have had a benefit cost ratio calculated together with low ground stations.

(Mr Anderson) I have not prepared a BCR for any of them.

8092. Just for example, picking one out of thin air, we know what the position is for Woolwich but we have no idea what it is for Bond Street.

(Mr Anderson) We know what the cost of Bond Street is.

8093. For the benefit of construction?

(Mr Anderson) No, we have not prepared a benefit cost ratio for that individual station, and I would not necessarily expect us to.

8094. As your evidence established, the Montague review did not consider Woolwich, it was not put to him and therefore did not reject it, did it?

(Mr Anderson) I think the Montague Review did refer to the fact that further work was ongoing and whether a Woolwich station should be added.

8095. And did not reject it?

(Mr Anderson) It did not reject it, no.

8096. It did not pass any adverse comment on it?

(Mr Anderson) No, I think it was mutual on the matter.

8097. Thank you, Mr Anderson.

 

Examined by the COMMITTEE

8098. CHAIRMAN: Mr Anderson, quite a few Members have indicated that they want to ask questions, but there are a couple of questions I want to ask you. Sticking with this question of value for money. Were there any other stations which have been agreed that offer less value for money?

(Mr Anderson) The appraisal was not built up in that way, if I can explain that. The way we build up an appraisal is largely the way the Montague did it during the Crossrail review. What we are looking for is to divide sections of the routes which are operationally self-contained and then we will seek to add to that. This is the way Montague built up the review of the business case so one could identify a core railway which is the central section. Of course we do look at the performance of the individual station, particularly in the way they perform operationally. What we do not do there is just simply take out one station and work out the benefits or disbenefits.

8099. The reason I ask that is because one of the key planks of your argument and evidence today is that it was high cost and that was the major reason for not including the station. If the argument is, "Is it not value for money", could we not look at another part of the route being cut for the same reason. Also, bearing in mind there are other things included, like why we should be doing these sorts of things, particularly in an area of deprivation like Woolwich. If that is part of the purpose of delivering the railway like this and it fits all the criteria, why should we not look at that for trains that go out to Abbey Wood? If you are looking at value for money and costs, you have got to give a reason why something else was not cut rather than Woolwich?

(Mr Anderson) I think it is very difficult to trade-off individual stations against each other. The approach Montague took was to work out the value for money of individual sections, some of which were subsequently not included in the Hybrid Bill at the time the review was undertaken, there was a route to Kingston, for example. Montague presented the benefit cost ratio for that route and it was subsequently not included in the Bill for a variety of reasons. I do not think it is simply the case that we trade-off the value for money with one section against the other.

8100. That was just part of it. Can you go to the Mayor's map. If you are saving money, I want to ask a couple of questions on that. First of all, the estimate of £260 million, can we have an analysis of that? It has just been said that it is £260 million.

8101. MR EVLIN: Sir, I have to say, those estimates are agreed with Greenwich, there is no dispute about the £260 million.

8102. CHAIRMAN: There might not be a dispute, but I am asking a question about how it worked out because I want to look at whether or not we could create savings elsewhere and take different decisions. I want to see the analysis of that, whether or not Greenwich agreed with it. £260 million pounds, as we have just seen in evidence, is that it is the equation of a box which is already one of the options, which are homes. I want to know how that analysis was done.

(Mr Anderson) The analysis has been done and there is a detailed breakdown, but it does include the whole station including ticket halls and so on. We have provided that to Greenwich. I should say, we did look at the costs very hard because at the time of the Buchanan Report the cost was significantly higher, at £350 million, and we spent quite a lot of time seeing if we could get it down.

8103. It does not seem to be an extraordinary large amount of money to have to spend on a station. Can we get a note about that? Can you beam in on this area around Woolwich like you did before, in specific the costs and the savings. We have the other line which is running along the side of this which is going to go to the Woolwich Arsenal. We are talking about the integration and co-ordination of railway interchanges and links. It strikes me that there is an awful lot of similarity going on there. You are about to drive a tunnel under the Thames for one, could that tunnel not be enlarged to be used for both, and could that then not have an impact on planning and how you could link together a station?

(Mr Anderson) I will give you an initial answer on that, but I maybe able to take more advice on the engineering aspects. They are two quite different types of railways with different sizes of trains. Crossrail is built on a gauge of a surface railway, whereas the DLR is a much smaller gauge and a much different type of railway. As you can see, it has many, many more stops on it. I suspect the impact of driving that smaller tunnel under the Thames would be significantly less than Crossrail.

8104. What I am saying is if you are digging a hole, you could dig two holes together or make one slightly larger. If we are talking about costs perhaps might be a consideration. Do you think considerable savings could be made there?

(Mr Anderson) I think it is unlikely, but I can take advice on that. Obviously they do have their powers and they are getting on with it at the moment, but I can take advice on it.

8105. MR BINLEY: I am also concerned about the social contribution, because Crossrail is going to create a lot of social havoc. It is clearly aware of its social responsibilities and therefore will clearly take into account the social contribution it makes to the areas that it lives in. You have done some sort of survey on its contribution to this area. I wonder how you judge that because sometimes the contribution is positive and sometimes it is negative. I know this area a little, and I know that from my little knowledge - and I say that because it can be a dangerous thing - the potential of regeneration in this area of Woolwich could be quite sizeable. How have you analysed and come to conclusions about social contribution in terms of regeneration?

(Mr Anderson) I think the methodology here is reasonably common, and I think the approach we have adopted is similar to that of Mr Chard. The changes in regeneration and job freedom are generally related to changes in the accessibility of an area, so we relied upon the relationship between improved accessibility and the ability not only to attract into an area but improve the opportunities for people to travel to other locations where they might find work.

8106. As I understand it, Woolwich wins hands down over Abbey Wood in this respect because of the types of areas we are talking about. Is that so?

(Mr Anderson) On that particular aspect that is certainly true. I should say, I do not think the issue here is providing Woolwich Station or Abbey Wood Station, it is actually providing a connection to the much wider Thames Gateway area.

8107. I understand that, however, we have done this sort of work in Woolwich and, as I understand it, not in any of the other stations of any consequence. Is that right or am I misguided?

(Mr Anderson) Woolwich is the only station obviously that must be subject as a station to this level of scrutiny. We have looked at the social effects, ie the regeneration effects across the whole scheme, not just on the Thames Gateway area but the other regeneration area.

8108. Woolwich has had specific attention on this, why is that?

(Mr Anderson) Simply because following the decision not to include it in the scheme we were asked to look at it again and we were willing to do that.

8109. Is that not a rather odd way of doing it. Would you not rather look at it and say, "What can this bring?" instead of saying, "We are not going to deal with it but we need to know the figures so that we can argue against it". That approach surprises me.

(Mr Anderson) We did know what it would bring to Thames Gateway generally. If you look back at the information that was assembled, when the project was appraised - Indeed, Montague did cover this to a degree - we did have the information on the effects of regeneration across the whole scheme.

8110. I still do not see why you do it after you have decided not to have the station. I do not understand that thinking, help me.

(Mr Anderson) All I can say is that at the time the decision was taken the principal reason for not doing this station was cost.

8111. With respect, that is not my questions. My question is you did the sort of work on regeneration value after you decided not to build a station. I do not understand why you did that. Can you explain and help me to understand that?

(Mr Anderson) I think in broad terms the effect on regeneration would have been understood by those taking the decision at the time.

8112. You still have not answered my question. Why did you decide to do this work after you decided not to build a station? What was the purpose of doing the work when you said, "We are not going to build a station anyway"?

(Mr Anderson) We did say we would look at the building of Woolwich Station again, and indeed, Montague alluded to that, so we agreed to do the analysis. At the time of the original decision I do not think the analysis of an individual location was done in detail for any point.

8113. Was it in order to possibly review the decision about Woolwich that you did this work? Was that the reason you did it after you made the decision not to go ahead with the station?

(Mr Anderson) In a sense, it was to look at the case again in more detail.

8114. But the evidence suggests that that would add to a positive decision about Woolwich rather than a negative decision, would it not?

(Mr Anderson) That is really a matter for the Minister to judge.

8115. In terms of the figures you have given me, that would suggest to be the case. I do not understand the thinking of a body like yours spending money on a survey of some kind of analysis after you have decided not to have a station there. I am commercial man, I am a businessman, I do not understand that thinking and you have not reassured me as to why.

 

(Mr Anderson) All I can say is that I do not think we did a specific survey after the decision was taken. What we did do was utilise the information we already had to look at specific effects in terms of Woolwich itself.

8116. MR BINLEY: I bet you wish your position was stronger and you were more on the front foot, do you not? I can say that, Mr Elvin. I know that, Mr Elvin; I can say that and ask that. I have my answer.

8117. KELVIN HOPKINS: As I understand it the original plan was to at least have the possibility of a station at Woolwich, that it was put in at the original design, and it went through the centre of Woolwich, which suggests that that was one of the faults. And at a later stage when costs looked as though they were going to be high some bits had to be lopped off and Woolwich was one of those bits that was taken out to save money. Is that a fair summary?

(Mr Anderson) I do not think it was taken out to save money per se. I should say that at the time I was not part of the decision-making body, if you like, but I think that the decision was taken because of the high capital cost of providing a station in that location, not a desire in itself to save money.

8118. Once a decision like that has been made and it has to be justified is there not a temptation to build up the costs as much as possible to make it a stronger case for leaving it out?

(Mr Anderson) I do not believe so. The difficulties we have here, we are very deep and as I understand it the ground is not particularly good and the geography is really against us. What I can say is that since the Buchanan Report that we commissioned and published last year we did look to try and drive down the costs and did succeed doing that from £350m down to the £270m we have now. So I do not think it is the case that we have tried to drive costs up; quite the opposite.

8119. Looking at the project overall it is pretty clear that there are many more stations on the north eastern branch of Crossrail than the south eastern branch of Crossrail. The stations are much closer together and there are many more of them and the populations served by some of those stations are rather smaller than that which might be served by Woolwich station, is that fair?

(Mr Anderson) I think that is fair. Of course on the Great Eastern Line we are going along an existing line where stations already exist and Crossrail is a service that will stop at those stations. So it is not quite comparable. Of course, on the south eastern branch we have to run through the Docklands area, which is still reasonably unpopulated at the moment, and of course one has to bridge the river. So there is notably quite a long gap there while we do that.

8120. But that long gap, which contrasts greatly with the gap between stations elsewhere on the line, goes through a densely populated area which needs regeneration and which could well do with a station which would help with that regeneration.

(Mr Anderson) I think undoubtedly it would help regeneration, yes.

8121. MR LIDDDELL-GRAINGER: How far is Abbey Wood in miles, if possible, if there was a station at Woolwich? How far would that be? I worked it out at about 3.5 kilometres.

(Mr Anderson) You are probably right.

8122. So roughly two and half miles, three miles. Is one of the reasons behind it that once these trains, which are quite big and long, get up to speed it is going to be slowing down? Is that the thinking behind it? It is actually so close.

(Mr Anderson) I am not aware that that is an important factor in the decision.

8123. Because Abbey Wood is going to be the terminus for it. If you look at the rough spacing of these stations along the whole of the route, all the way around, they are all fairly equidistant. It just intrigues me that if you go from Abbey Wood up to Custom House and then on to the Isle of Dogs and then up to Shoreditch, Whitechapel they are all fairly equidistant, but that one would not be, that would be very, very close. There was no thinking behind it - rather like Embankment and Charing Cross - that it is too close?

(Mr Anderson) I do not believe that was the factor.

8124. Not at all?

(Mr Anderson) I will take advice from my colleagues but I do not believe that was the case.

8125. Something must have happened; if it is not to do with costs it is to do with something?

(Mr Anderson) I think the position was that the station was not included in the scheme and the principle reason was the high capital cost. I think now we have done a lot of further work for ourselves and the borough has as well, and I think that what we see now will in turn be a matter for the Minister.

8126. CHAIRMAN: The distance is extraordinarily long. The whole purpose of Crossrail is to get a new railway across London from one part to the other, and here you are going from Custom House and even the Isle of Dogs. How far is that? Is it about nine kilometres - five miles, six miles? How far is that from Custom House to Abbey Wood?

(Mr Anderson) I think it is a bit less than that, sir. Perhaps the best thing is if we note down the distances for you and let you have a note on that.

8127. It is certainly over five miles, is it not?

(Mr Anderson) Yes. I think one is getting perhaps a slightly unfair comparison here because you have the DLR very much in the foreground here and the tube and you would expect the distances for those to be much shorter than for a national rail service.

8128. If you go back to what we were discussing earlier, on page 19 of the Promoter's case, and all the different aspects of the decision-making factors which make up the decision, it seems to be doing nothing else but driving the railway through. It does not seem to be anything to do with sustainability of population communities of anything else, or regeneration, it just seems to be driving the railway.

(Mr Anderson) Sir, I do not think that is the case. The strategic reason for having the southeast branch at all is to connect into the national rail network south of the river, and thereby connect into the Thames Gateway. We do get significant movements from the North Kent area on to Crossrail at Abbey Wood.

8129. There is a public participation in this as well as government support. It gets the whole ethos of government policy; it is all about sustainable communities and a sustainable railway. It just seems that going that kind of distance it is only traversing trains out of the area - through, but never stopping.

(Mr Anderson) The principle reason for that link is the connection into the railway south of the river.

8130. Not the people.

(Mr Anderson) Yes, because clearly from Abbey Wood onwards you would connect with that and we have already connected north of the river with the docklands area.

8131. It is a crossrail, across London railway, and it seems to be going through an area which is densely populated which is probably the most deprived in the city and yet you are not stopping, not even to wave - just going straight through.

(Mr Anderson) All I can say is that it is very deep below ground and that is what has driven the high cost and I think that is what has led to the decision.

8132. MR JONES: Sir, I hope that this is the proper thing to do and not in any way wrong, but figures for the distances that have just been asked about were supplied a little while ago in a note from the Petitioner to the Promoter and I do not think they are disputed. They were Custom House to Abbey Wood, 7.55 kilometres, in round terms four and a half miles; Custom House to Woolwich was 4,150 metres; and Woolwich to Abbey Wood was 3,400 metres.

 

Re-examined by MR ELVIN

8133. MR ELVIN: Mr Anderson, can I come back to the questions that the Chairman and Mr Binley were asking about consideration of regeneration benefits. I would like to take the Committee through the process of what was assessed and whether regeneration issues were taken into account before the business case and the benchmark schemes were prepared. Can you explain what the latter approach is and what it involves and how we got to the case that was put to Montague?

(Mr Anderson) Yes. I think we have already heard evidence on the five categories, which include economy, integration, accessibility and so on, and the regeneration aspects come up under integration and that is where we get the integration with other government policies such as those of regeneration. We can assess the effect of regeneration using the method I outlined earlier, that we actually work out the changes in accessibility across London, but particularly in relation to designated regeneration areas, and from that we can develop estimates of employment growth, and indeed these were cited in our statement. So that effect overall would have formed part of the vast assessment that was put to Montague.

8134. Let me put the matter into plain English. The Committee clearly what to know from you to what extent the regeneration benefits of the different areas that are being targeted by Crossrail were taken into account, and in plain terms were they looked at and were they appraised?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, they were.

8135. Can we look at the Montague Report because it refers to some of these items? It is in the Promoter's bundle, exhibit 57. This is from the Montague Business Report. We have the section headed "Wider benefits" and we see at 160: "Wider benefits are identified in three main areas. One is support for London's position as the pre-eminent FBS Centre," the City of London, the Isle of Dogs and elsewhere. "Support for the planning and transport policies for government, the GLA," et cetera. And thirdly, "Regeneration effects, particularly the Thames Gateway." The Committee can see, for example at 163, employment growth issues; 164 and 165 issues as to how you work those out. We see at 165 in particular, "CLRL believes that Crossrail has the potential to contribute significantly to the government's wider regeneration objectives, particularly Thames Gateway where a range of initiatives is planned in relation to housing, education and to health." Can I just understand this - and perhaps you can explain this to the Committee - that although a station at Woolwich is not proposed is it expected that benefits to the town's gateway area will be delivered by Crossrail, looking at the area generally?

(Mr Anderson) Clearly, yes, a large proportion of the jobs indicated there would be related to the Thames Gateway. Indeed, I think strategically one of the reasons for actually taking the railway south of the river is to connect into the Thames Gateway.

8136. Can I ask you about the reasons for taking it south of the river? In terms of the connections into the wider rail network that you mentioned earlier, what are the benefits in terms of the connection to the main line and the North Kent line?

(Mr Anderson) It allows us to provide a high quality interchange with services from the Thames Gateway area.

8137. But what does that do in real terms for those actually using the North Kent line?

(Mr Anderson) It means that they can get off the train at Abbey Wood and walk across the platform and then get a ---

8138. Yes, but what that does that do for the quality of the service that is available?

(Mr Anderson) It is much better, particularly if they are travelling into the Docklands area and the City area.

8139. In terms of the benefits, therefore, coming south for connection, is that a benefit that is targeted at Abbey Wood, or is it a benefit that is targeted at North Kent?

(Mr Anderson) It is targeted at a much wider area.

8140. In terms of the appraisal of the benefits of Crossrail you have already said that BCRs were not done for individual stations. How does the appraisal process for a major infrastructure project like this look at the value for money issue? How are the regeneration issues looked at?

(Mr Anderson) The value for money issue is looked at through the benefit cost ratio benefit of the project as a whole.

8141. Yes, but how is the project divided up for that purpose?

(Mr Anderson) It will be divided up into the various sections, and I think Montague went through a number of these sections individually and reported on the value for money that would be attracted by each of them. There is then a further analysis on the regeneration and jobs effects and they would all come together in the appraisal.

8142. Why are stations not appraised individually?

(Mr Anderson) Clearly a station on its own is of little use; it is part of an integrated network and it tends to be those self-contained sections of the network and the project that we appraise. That is the approach that we took and it is the approach that Montague took as well.

8143. So focusing on Woolwich, in terms of its BCR, would that be consistent with the appraisal which Montague carried out for the project as a whole?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, I believe it would.

8144. What I would like to ask you about, again with the intention of giving the Committee a further insight into the assessment process, is the question that you mentioned of linking into the network. How important - let us take two stations as an example, let us take Whitechapel and Bond Street - for example is Whitechapel in terms of interchange and why?

(Mr Anderson) I think Whitechapel is probably one of the most important stations on the Crossrail network in terms of interchange. I think that is illustrated by the transport map that we were looking at earlier. It provides connections into the District Line, the Metropolitan Line and, importantly, the newly extended East London line. Certainly the forecast that we prepared for the railway indicated that there would be a very high desire to change to and from Crossrail at that location. For example, if you were travelling from the east of Crossrail and wanted to go to the south of the City you might change at Whitechapel rather than go to Liverpool Street. Similarly if you are travelling from south of the river on the extended East London line you can change at Whitechapel to join Crossrail to access Liverpool Street and the surrounding area.

8145. In terms of that integration approach, how would Woolwich compare?

(Mr Anderson) Clearly Woolwich does not provide an interchange.

8146. Can I ask about Bond Street as another potential comparison? What would happen, for example, if Bond Street were taken out of the Crossrail programme? It is a cost at a significant level - similar, you said earlier. Why can you not just take Bond Street out? What significance would that have?

(Mr Anderson) I think this is something that I have discussed with the Committee on a previous occasion, I think when we were looking at the Mayfair area. Clearly Bond Street is the principle West End destination for Crossrail, so it is serving that very high value, high employment area in the West End. Clearly also it does provide significant interchange. We know that one of the things that Crossrail does for the transport network is to meet the Central Line, clearly by serving Bond Street. So we can serve directly and more quickly the area around Bond Street. Additionally, if Bond Street was not there we would immediately get a larger load on the GLC stations, particularly Tottenham Court Road, which is something that we would have to look at very carefully.

8147. The Committee raised with you what about the possibility of reducing the service on the Great Eastern side - that is the Metro service from Shenfield. In terms of the stations that are being served on the Great Eastern line, to what extent is it necessary to intervene greatly in the existing stations in order to accommodate Crossrail?

(Mr Anderson) We do need to rebuild parts of the station to accommodate the line that would arise from Crossrail. There are several locations where that is necessary.

8148. In comparative terms with a build such as Woolwich, how do the Great Eastern stations compare?

(Mr Anderson) Clearly it is much smaller as they are all above ground.

8149. Can I ask you a point that Mr Hopkins raised with you on the costs of the Woolwich station? Have those costs been analysed critically to drive them down from previous estimates?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, I have indicated that they have; that is the case.

8150. I appreciate that the Committee wants to see how it is broken down, and we will provide that breakdown to the Committee - and I appreciate that it does not bind the Committee in any way - but those driven down costs were discussed with Greenwich and are not disputed?

(Mr Anderson) That is correct.

8151. So that the Committee will have this when they look at those costs, have those costs had the input of technical experts, quantity surveyors and the like, so that we have a reasonable degree of assurance as to their scope?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, clearly they have; they were prepared by our quantity surveyor advisers.

8152. Have Greenwich checked the costs, so far as you are aware?

(Mr Anderson) I am not aware of that. We did put the costs to them and did discuss them at a meeting and they indicated that they would not seek to challenge them.

8153. Do you have any view as to whether there is any real likelihood of driving down those costs significantly any further?

(Mr Anderson) I think that is unlikely. Clearly we have been through the exercise once and we have driven down quite a saving. Of course I will need to speak to colleagues about this, but the advice we have is that there is not much more scope to reduce costs at all

8154. Can I come back to some points that Mr Jones raised with you, and that is the London Plan and the fact that it is out of date and the like? Does that mean that it is a legitimate comparison to look at Greenwich's own figures for Woolwich and compare them with the Crossrail figures for employment and residential growth at the other stations?

(Mr Anderson) Not necessarily because we have used the London Plan assumptions for the rest of the network and the rest of the appraisal.

8155. If you updated the appraisals for the whole of the network which is proposed in the build scheme would it necessarily come out with the same figures to compare with the EDAW figures for Greenwich?

(Mr Anderson) Not necessarily. Clearly that would be a very, very extensive exercise for the whole loop; but it would likely lead to a different conclusion perhaps at some locations.

8156. MR ELVIN: We will provide the breakdown in costs that the Committee requests. It is readily available because, as I say, it has already been given to Greenwich. Would a one-sheet breakdown suffice for your purposes, sir?

8157. CHAIRMAN: That would be helpful, Mr Elvin. I would also like it if you would give us a value for money breakdown on all the stations on the route.

8158. MR ELVIN: It cannot be done.

8159. CHAIRMAN: Why not?

8160. MR ELVIN: Because it has not. Because the way, as Mr Anderson has explained, that the BCRs are done for route sections and not for individual stations. That is the way transport infrastructure is assessed; you do not take it station by station, you take it a section at a time.

8161. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I am going to ask for some analysis of that because although I accept in terms of the Bill we cannot alter the terms, but we could actually either add stations or indeed change stations.

8162. MR ELVIN: Sir, I would ask you to reflect on that particular request because, firstly, the exercise has not been done and it would require an absolutely massive and lengthy piece of work examining every station in the Bill. Secondly, because BCR is only one of the many factors - and you have seen the DFT Guidance - you would also have to know the basis upon which the stations were selected, regardless of the BCR. You would also effectively have to re-run the Montague exercise which took - how long, Mr Anderson?

(Mr Anderson) It was many, many months.

8163. MR ELVIN: I am not trying to be obstructive and I will provide as much assistance as possible.

8164. KELVIN HOPKINS: If the exercise was undertaken for a small number of comparable stations which are entirely new and perhaps outside the centre - there are not that many of them - that would be an easier exercise, surely? You pointed out that many of the stations on the Essex line already exist so it is rather pointless doing an exercise there because it is not a fair comparison, but taking two or three stations which are being entirely newly constructed, and doing the exercise of comparison there, would be easier, surely?

8165. MR ELVIN: My recollection of the approach is that you may find that the stations at the periphery are in general cheaper than the stations in the strategic central section because those in the central section require a greater deal of intervention, they have more structure surrounding them and you can just imagine the issues of Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Liverpool Street and the like. It may not give you the sort of comparison you need. I will take instructions on it and if necessary I will come back to the Committee.

8166. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, I would like a detailed note - and it does not have to be a full Montague re-run - at some time on the kind of things that were examined. It is essentially because I do not really think it is good enough, whenever we ask various reasons behind costings and economics, just to be told by the witness - and indeed you said it yourself - that the costs have not been challenged by, in this case, Greenwich. They clearly do not have the expertise to do that. They are a planning authority, yes, and yes they do have economists working for them but they do not have the level of expertise, which Crossrail would, to get the undertaking from analysis.

8167. MR ELVIN: Sir, with respect I do not accept that because they have the ability to instruct national names and they called DTZ and EDAW to give evidence to you at this hearing.

8168. CHAIRMAN: I do understand that but I do not think it is an answer just to say it is unchallenged ---

8169. MR ELVIN: It is agreed.

8170. CHAIRMAN: It might not be an area of their expertise and if they were simply to accept that it could be very easy for any person planning such a project as this to just keep putting up a whole range of arguments which they would find unaffordable to challenge.

8171. MR ELVIN: I perfectly well understand from that point of view, sir, but you are not dealing with a Petitioner in that position. I entirely understand where you are coming from in respect of that concern, but you are dealing with a London authority - and you have only seen the tip of the iceberg, there have been a vast amount of discussions, meetings and papers going backwards and forwards, report and the like. This process has been going on for many, many months. I am not shrinking from it; we are going to provide you with the issues.

8172. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, I understand that. This is a very, very large project indeed with many billions of pounds involved in it, but what we are saying is that we need to look at a cost analysis for a station because we are accepting some of the arguments that are being put forward as being valid, but whether or not we rule in their favour is at some time in the future in its own discussion. But if we think that some of the arguments put forward are not valid and things that we should look at, then therefore we want to examine as fully as we possibly can any information that we can glean on the methodology of costs.

8173. MR ELVIN: Can I suggest this - sir, and if it does not come up with what you need then no doubt you will tell us - that if we provide a range of costs or a multiple series of examples of costs of other stations on the route - and I cannot give you the BCRs for the reasons I have indicated, they have simply not been done - we can probably provide you with a series of costs for a selection of stations, probably quite a few stations if not most of them, fairly quickly, for other stations within the scheme. Would that assist the process?

8174. CHAIRMAN: That would assist but we may come back to it.

8175. MR ELVIN: I am just trying to produce something (a) which will help you and (b) which is manageable in the timescales involved, because I do not want to promise something which we cannot manage. We will obviously give you the cost for Woolwich but if we give you the costs for other stations as well it may be possible to provide you with some additional information on top of that and then perhaps the Committee can let us know if you require anything else to assist in the process.

8176. CHAIRMAN: Mr Anderson, before you leave your seat, you were tested a few times on that it was either Woolwich or Abbey Wood. Of course, Abbey Wood is the terminus and it is quite a different stop on the line. The thoughts are that what had been proposed by Greenwich is not a terminus at all, just a stop.

(Mr Anderson) Correct, yes.

8177. MR ELVIN: Of course, Abbey Wood and Crossrail and the mainline coincide and, as we know, they are an eight minute walk apart at Woolwich.

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

8178. So you could not have the terminus coinciding with the mainline if you were looking for a direct interchange with the North Kent line?

(Mr Anderson) No. I come back to what I said earlier, that is the reason for going south of the river to connect in with the national rail network.

8179. MR ELVIN: Sir, we will produce that information and no doubt you will let us know if you want more.

 

The witness withdrew

 

MR ROB COLLEY, Sworn

Examined by MR ELVIN

8180. MR ELVIN: Mr Colley, you are Rob Colley; you are a partner with Drivers Jonas; could you just explain briefly to the Committee your area of expertise?

(Mr Colley) Yes. I am Rob Colley. I am a partner of Drivers Jonas and have been since 1999. I joined the firm in 1991. I run our strategic consultant team of about twenty people and we deal with Treasury Green Book, office appraisals, estate strategies and a fair amount of regeneration of property economics work.

8181. Do you have development and valuation experience?

(Mr Colley) Yes. Principally on the valuation side.

8182. Thank you. Now, I would just like you to explain your position on the differences of approach taken by Greenwich and their advisers EDAW and Crossrail to the estimation of benefits and growth which will accrue from Crossrail?

(Mr Colley) I think it is fair to say that our approaches are very similar. The estimation of jobs and, indeed, population are based on a number of key assumptions. One is the number of sites selected, their potential development capacity which leads to development density assumptions, and the type of developments. We made our main assessment back in 2004/5 and we considered ten sites in the town centre which broadly equated to a 1 km zone around the Crossrail station. EDAW considered 14 town centre sites so they included a few more than we had in our early schedule, but also included 38 council estates, some within the 1 km zone and some within the 2 km, so there is a lot more residential in there than we looked at. In our 1 km zone we looked at around 110,000 square meters of development which we assumed would be split fairly evenly between residential and commercial development, and we suggested that about half of the commercial development would be attributable to Crossrail. For residential we adopted around 2750 units which were from the ODPM zonal action plan figures for Woolwich and we suggested about 10 per cent of those units would be directly attributable to Crossrail on the assumption that we believe that most of those units would be built out in any event without the scheme, without Crossrail. Of the residential units, obviously you have heard the EDAW figures yesterday and they seemed a lot more, a net increase of about 18,000 of which about 4,000 was attributable to Crossrail, so in terms of our approach a very similar sort of approach looking at sites and development capacity. I think where we differ is more on the assumptions to some of those key variables.

8183. Let's look at the differences. Firstly, points of agreement. There is no dispute between you and EDAW and, indeed, between Crossrail and Greenwich, but there would be a positive impact on regeneration from a Crossrail station?

(Mr Colley) Correct. Our view is that there would be a significant impact with Crossrail that would be bigger than if Crossrail were not to have a station in Woolwich, so our basic premise is similar. Where we perhaps differ is in the order of magnitude of those benefits and the degree to which the incremental marginal amount is due to constructing a station there.

8184. Now the EDAW evidence, and perhaps we can have a look at the bar chart again in the Promoters' evidence, and if we could go please to exhibit 17, there we have London Plan, CLRL Highgrove Scenario, the EDAW Assumptions and the GLA Latest Forecasts. The Committee are familiar with this, having seen it yesterday. What assumptions go into that EDAW forecast, which I put to Mr Jones as being the highly optimistic end of the scale, which you would take issue with?

(Mr Colley) I think the main issue is that EDAW, in my view, have done a very good and competent study, and obviously spent a lot more time and energy and effort on it than we had available at the time we did our figures, but what has been done is a development capacity study so we have looked at every possible site that could be included in the 1 km zone and, indeed, within the 2 km zone of the station that assumed the maximum number of sites are developed out, with or without Crossrail, that the maximum amount of density of development is included, and the degree to which that is attributable to having a station there is included, so it is really the consequence of a series of assumptions that have a cumulative effect on the final answer. So we perhaps would be a bit more measured in what we thought would be built out in the time available, and there is one exhibit that was shown yesterday which showed the 1 km and 2 km zones with all the residential sites shaded pink and the town centre sites shaded yellow, which represented most of the land mass of potential land within a walking distance of the station. Now, that to me looks like it would take a generation or two in some cases to develop that out, so the quantum of development proposed, whilst possible or indeed probable in the long term, in the medium term I think is probably unrealistic mainly because of funding and delivery issues. Some of the papers I have read have assumed that for some of the housing renewal programmes, which we did not include in our figures, it would take two generations to transform some of the housing stock into the standard it should be in.

8185. Now, an issue I raised with Mr McCollum yesterday was the question of land ownerships within the central area of Woolwich and the lack of big unified ownerships which exist in the North Greenwich Peninsular, and it was suggested that compulsory purchase powers could be sought to assemble the land. Is that a speedy process?

(Mr Colley) No. In any town centre situation land ownerships are generally more fragmented than other larger industrial areas, and we looked at plans yesterday that showed the area of land in the North Greenwich Peninsular which was principally formerly in the ownership of British Gas. In the town centre you do not have that. I agree that in Woolwich perhaps compared to other town centres there are one or two land owners, the Borough included, the Powis Street Estates and formerly the MoD, so that it is perhaps less fragmented than other town centre areas but nevertheless it is not unified ownership so to deliver comprehensive development CPO may well be needed, and although Greenwich have demonstrated they do have the appetite to do compulsory or promote compulsory purchase orders, that in itself takes time, so yes, there is some question of the deliverability and the length of time that would take for the town centre.

8186. And the pink areas we can see on that plan are the estates proposed for redevelopment within the capacity study?

(Mr Colley) Yes.

8187. In terms of the arrangements for consulting with tenants, making arrangements, satisfying them and possibly compulsory purchase, and then not forgetting the need actually to find premises to decant existing tenants into while the redevelopment is taking place or as an alternative, again, how rapid a process is that?

(Mr Colley) It is a lengthy process. My understanding is that four of those I think 38 sites are in the current investment programme, but I would stand to be corrected on that if that is not the right number. I also understand that the level of right‑to‑buy options have not been exercised in Greenwich as they have in some other boroughs, partly because of the quality of the estate itself so there has not been a major incentive to buy there, but still the decanting of tenants into new schemes whilst the existing sites are redeveloped is a major logistical exercise, and I have not the figure of the number of people involved to hand but that would be a major consideration, and might well take one or two generations.

8188. Finally, the bottom line, to what extent do you think that regeneration and development in Woolwich is dependent on a Crossrail station coming forward?

(Mr Colley) My view is that Crossrail would have a positive effect on regeneration in Woolwich, there is no doubt about that, and I agree with Mr Lambert's comments that the effect of a transport scheme like Crossrail is purely down to accessibility and capacity issues. There is partly an image question of putting places on the map, but going to visit Woolwich now there is a lot of development activity going on; the Woolwich Arsenal site has been and continues to be developed and units are selling out; there is a lot of development activity; and this is partly driven by the fact that Woolwich is on the river and riverside developments are very popular and sell at a premium presently, but also there is the degree to which Woolwich fits into the whole residential supply of London. There is, as we all know, a major mismatch between demand and supply for residential in London and Woolwich, like any other area, is responding to that and units are being built and sold out along the river, but also around the town centre, so I would expect a large amount of development to continue without Crossrail going there ‑ partly on the strength of the DLR station, talking to local agents and Berkeley Homes selling Woolwich Arsenal sites, who are saying their purchasers are citing DLR as a reason. So there is a momentum of development happening that would be furthered by Crossrail but the majority of the regeneration effects do not depend on Crossrail being built, with the station at Woolwich, in my opinion.

8189. Mr Lambert said yesterday that he would expect a surge of development to accompany the likely opening of the DLR in 2009. Would you agree with that?

(Mr Colley) Yes.

8190. So to what extent have the positive impacts of the DLR been fully felt at this stage in Woolwich town centre?

(Mr Colley) They are already being felt; you can see the development going on and the sales of units. Developers tend to be fairly slow to react to transport schemes. The promise of the scheme is not normally good enough; when they see it coming out of the ground that is a different matter and that is happening with respect to the DLR. You can see the tower cranes in Greenwich and Woolwich town centre so that has been a major spur to developers, and purchasers as well.

8191. And we know from Mr Lambert and his report there are three major retailers putting forward proposals for new stores within Woolwich town centre and he expects them to come forward regardless of Crossrail. Do you have any views about the significance of that?

(Mr Colley) I agree with those findings. Schools is one of the other factors that people take into account in moving to an area over and above other items, even transport. So that is certainly going in the right direction as far as development and regeneration is concerned, and inward investment in Woolwich.

8192. What does the fact that three major retailers are looking to move into the town centre ‑ I think he mentioned Tesco and Sainsbury, I am not sure he mentioned the name of the third ‑ signify in terms of the position of the town centre?

(Mr Colley) I think it demonstrates the existing density of population which supports the growth in supermarkets and retail space. I think Woolwich has probably suffered from an under investment over the years in retail provision and so to a certain extent it is catching up on that and that is what these retailers are responding to, but they are also responding to future anticipated increase in population and spending patterns and they can see the number of units going to Woolwich Arsenal, and just to the north east of this plan on the chart there is Galliers Reach as well, which presumably would be within the catchment.

8193. Thank you. Then, finally, in terms of the regeneration issues, the question of offices. We know from Mr Lambert that Woolwich is not an office location at the minute. He referred to its possible growth as a back office location. What views do you have about that as a realistic approach?

(Mr Colley) Well, I think many of the peripheral stations along the Crossrail route at any peripheral centres around London are not office locations and will never become office locations, and I think Woolwich is one of them, partly to do with the fact that although there may be some fragmented demand for back office locations what drives business costs now more than the property costs and rental costs are wage costs, and there is a significant differential wage cost between any London borough and moving out of London. We have done some work on relocating a government department and the interesting factor was that Birmingham, as it was, was 15 per cent lower in wage costs than London and it did not really make much difference how much the property costs were. Also, what seems to be happening in London is the reinforcement of the central London cluster, and we have mentioned the finance and business services in the centre of London, so that is the West End, mid town, city and Canary Wharf. That is where the jobs are and that is where the clustering of the agglomeration benefits are. You do not get that sort of clustering benefits in peripheral town locations. There are not similar firms you want to interact with or support services, so there may be one or two office occupiers that would move small offices here but nothing major, so I do not think either Woolwich, or Abbey Wood for that matter, are likely to become office locations.

8194. MR ELVIN: Mr Colley, would you wait there, please, thank you.

 

Questioned by THE COMMITTEE

8195. KELVIN HOPKINS: Mr Colley, just briefly, the major generator of additional income for a local population might be jobs in the locality perhaps having better access to the jobs in London, as you say, where wages are high. Woolwich is not dissimilar in many ways from my own town of Luton, which I represent, where we service a lot of towns roundabout and we need good transport facilities for people who do not do the higher paid perhaps higher qualified jobs, but the police officers, the train drivers and people like that who need good access, and the more good transport access they have got to other areas nearby the more they are likely to earn and bring wealth and good incomes into the area. That is the major benefit of having good transport links, is it not?

(Mr Colley) Yes, and I would not dispute that, but I would say that Woolwich is not devoid of transport at the moment and we spent some time yesterday comparing Woolwich with North Greenwich which, before the Jubilee Line went in, had no public transport to speak of and that is not the situation here. We have heavy rail into London Bridge, we have DLR coming in and intensive bus networks, so we are not starting from the point of a blank sheet of paper in transport terms, but I agree with what you are saying. Also, I think the good news story from the point of view of the residential developments that we are seeing growing up at ever higher densities in the peripheral town centres is there is a lot of local employment generated by housing both in the public services, schools, hospitals, doctors' surgeries, but also local support services ‑ restaurants, bars and legal services ‑ so it does mean that without having to link your transport into central London to get the higher value FBS jobs, there is a lot of local employment generated through the provision of high density housing which seems to be the case in Woolwich and other locations.

 

Cross‑examination by MR JONES

8196. MR JONES: I would like, first of all, to deal with your calculations that led to the figure on Promoters page 17. I think your calculation is that you work on the basis of 2,750 new homes, is that right?

(Mr Colley) Yes.

8197. So you have 2,750 new homes in Woolwich. Can we just do the arithmetic from that? Presumably in that arithmetic you allowed for the 2,517 new homes that have been provided in the Royal Arsenal?

(Mr Colley) Correct.

8198. So that left 243 new homes in the whole of the rest of Woolwich?

(Mr Colley) Yes.

8199. And that is the London Plan figure effectively, 243 new homes in the whole of Woolwich. Now, what weight did you give to regeneration of any of the housing estates in Woolwich when you calculated the number of homes?

(Mr Colley) As I said earlier we did not include the housing renewal sites at all.

8200. So unless it is right to allow only 243 non Royal Arsenal homes in Woolwich, and unless it is right to give no weight to regeneration housing estates, that left‑most bar on the chart must be wrong, must it not, and significantly wrong?

(Mr Colley) That is a population figure rather than housing units.

8201. But it is derived from housing, is it not?

(Mr Colley) Yes.

8202. So it must not only be wrong but significantly wrong?

(Mr Colley) It appears so but I would need to go back and check.

8203. If that is significantly wrong we know that the 2:1 benefit cost ratio is a significant underestimate, do we not?

(Mr Colley) That has already been discussed, yes.

8204. Do you have a copy of the document that is referred to yesterday, which is a Crossrail Technical Report Assessment of socio‑economic impacts to hand? (Same handed). As we can see that is a document and Drivers Jonas was one of the two bodies, along with Colin Buchanan, which produced it, and there were questions asked yesterday on this, and can we look at the first substantive page of the document which has 81 on the bottom, paragraph 6.3.7? We see here the methodology that was used by Crossrail and we see: "Outside Central London, property information is patchy with no single source of information. Information has been pieced together on the property market and future development data from a number of sources including:... schedules of development", and at the top of the next page, page 82 at the bottom, the continuation of the sources of information, we can see that in effect the London Plan was only one of nine items. I am not suggesting that Heathrow is necessarily one to be counted, but it was only one of nine points taken into account?

(Mr Colley) Correct.

8205. So that was your approach. Perhaps I could move to the next page which deals with the next point of examination, page 86 at the bottom, and if you look to begin with at the top of that page, please, you mentioned that land ownership would cause significant problems, and we have already heard undisputed ownership at Woolwich town centre is principally owned by Powis Estates and the London Borough of Greenwich. Can we see what was stated in this Crossrail Report about land ownership for the Royal Docks? If we turn to Royal Docks, we see the third sentence: "The LDA have significant land holdings, so site assembly and availability is not a constraint on development". One could equally say for Woolwich, Powis Estates and the London Borough of Greenwich have significant land holdings? Very significant land holdings, could one not?

(Mr Colley) I would disagree to the extent to which the relative proportions of land ownership in Royal Docks and Woolwich town centre are comparable. In fact, I am currently engaged by the GLA to look at the Royal Docks in more detail and it is very apparent that large tracts of land comprising many, many hectares, hundreds of hectares, are, indeed, in local authority or LDA ownership or control, so I would be of the firm view that deliverability on those sites is more likely to happen sooner, given market demand, than it would in the Woolwich town centre.

8206. Do you know what proportion of Woolwich town centre is owned by Powis Estates and the Borough put together?

(Mr Colley) I have not got a figure in my head, no.

8207. Then we look at Abbey Wood, and perhaps you could just read that paragraph to yourself, paragraph 6.4.19. Ignoring the two figures of 1500 and 50 per cent, what, stated in that paragraph, would not apply to Woolwich?

(Mr Colley) Well, the first sentence would. The last sentence ‑ you have obviously not referred to the figures in the middle sentence ‑ the accessibility improvements and image would deliver benefits in Woolwich town centre, as I have already said, but I would not say that 50 per cent would be attributable to the line. I would say a lower proportion of development in Woolwich would be attributable to the construction of a Crossrail station in Woolwich.

8208. And then you mentioned the developments in Woolwich. How many major sites are you aware of being developed other than the Royal Arsenal site?

(Mr Colley) If I can just go back to my opening comments in that I referred to ten sites, and it also applies to your taking me through the socio‑economic report and those bullet points which were the source of information, for information outside the centre of London where property agents provide a lot of information it is more difficult. In the Greenwich situation we relied on information principally provided by the London Borough of Greenwich itself, so our ten sites that we included there were provided by Greenwich, as were the housing sites as well. So that was the principal source of information that I adopted.

8209. My question may not be very clear. How many sites apart from the Royal Arsenal, major sites, are you aware of which are at present being developed in Woolwich town centre?

(Mr Colley) I am not aware of any with tower cranes on top of them or units being built. I am aware of the plans for Peggy Middleton House and for the Kidbrooke Estate to the south.

8210. Peggy Middleton House is, of course, the local government offices that will be redeveloped. The Kidbrooke Estate, otherwise known as Ferrier, is in the south west part of the London Borough of Greenwich and by no means in Woolwich town centre, is it?

(Mr Colley) No, but it has been cited and I think is included in the EDAW figures and is on the plan which showed the pink array of sites around.

8211. MR JONES: Thank you, Mr Colley.

8212. MR ELVIN: I have no questions, sir, thank you.

8213. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Colley.

 

The witness withdrew

8214. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, do you want to sum up?

8215. MR ELVIN: I think in the light of your request for further information I would rather do that in the morning, sir, if you do not mind. I will see if I can get you some more cost information because it may affect what I say tomorrow, so we are going to try to get you some of the information before we close tomorrow, if that is acceptable.

8216. CHAIRMAN: That is fine.

8217. MR JONES: I rise because I would have mentioned this in my closing; I was going to invite the Committee to seek when it asks for costs in respect of stations not merely the building of the station but also associated works such as new highways that go with them so you have a total figure for the cost of the station when you are making a comparison.

8218. CHAIRMAN: Yes. That discussion may be useful, yes. So, Mr Elvin, tomorrow?

8219. MR ELVIN: If that is acceptable to the Committee.

8220. CHAIRMAN: Then we will resume tomorrow at 10.00 am.