Issues raised in petitions relating
to Environmental Impact
146. We note that the House agreed 'that the Select
Committee, without comment, report to the House for its consideration
any issue relating to the environmental impact of the railway
transport system for which the Bill provides that is raised in
a Petition against the Bill, but which the Select Committee is
prevented from considering by the practice of the House'. Accordingly,
we detail a summary below those issues raised in Committee in
order that the House might give them due consideration. We would
strongly recommend that Members referred to the Minutes of Evidence
given in Committee to gain a full understanding of the issues
summarised below.
Petition No. 27 - James Middleton
147. The Petitioner considered that the Crossrail
project, as proposed, provided a totally inadequate rail network.
The Committee were told that it should be a strategic scheme covering
the wider areas of South East and East of England, based on the
successful Thameslink and Thameslink 2000 strategy, rather than
a slower, all stations, London-only metro operation.
148. The Petitioner believed that although the business
case for Crossrail stressed the need for provision of efficient
and reliable travel across a wide geographical area and the Promoter's
scheme did nothing to provide it.
Petition No. 33 - Christopher Brown
149. The Petitioner informed the Committee that he
felt there would be no useful public purpose by terminating at
Shenfield in the North Eastern branch of Crossrail. The Petitioner
believed public interest would be better served by terminating
Crossrail at Stratford, or such other place on the eastern edge
of the main conurbation of London as might conveniently serve
the principal objective of the Promoter.
Petition No. 34 - LA21 Traffic/Transport Group
150. The Petitioners believed that the South Eastern
route should have been extended to Ebbsfleeet rather than the
proposed Crossrail terminal at Abbey Wood. The Petitioner believed
that termination at Abbey Wood would attract even more traffic
to over-congested roads in Bexley and that there would be insufficient
parking provision in that location.
151. The Committee was informed by the Petitioner
that South East London, without an underground or tram, and an
adequate rail structure, lacked an appropriate public Transport
system. They considered that the lack of a proper extension on
this route would not provide a much needed solution to the current
problem.
Petition No. 43 - Ms. Minnie Cockell
152. The Petitioner proposed that the North Eastern
section should terminate at Stratford, consequently creating links
with all existing Great Eastern services, the North London Line,
the new Eurostar Station and the Jubilee and Central underground
lines and the Docklands Light Railway, that currently served the
region.
Petition No. 65 - Martin Salter MP
153. The Petitioner aired concerns that the Bill
makes no provision for the funding of Crossrail and observed that
no firm target date has been set for the exercise of the powers
sought by the Promoter, or for the commencement of the works to
be authorised by the Bill. The Petitioners was also concerned
that in the absence of funding, and following the successful bid
for the Olympic Games in 2012, the construction and completion
of Crossrail may be postponed for an indefinite period.
Petition No. 68 - Alistair and Susan Ennals
154. The Petitioner considered that the North Eastern
section should terminate at Stratford or London Liverpool Street
rather than Shenfield.
Petition No. 69 - Covent Garden Community Association
155. The Committee heard how the 'liveability' of
the area above and near the proposed route, colloquially known
as the 'West End' would be affected detrimentally. The Petitioner
believed that the West End suffered from chronic overcrowding
and that the streets and pavements were never meant to carry the
large numbers of people and vehicles which currently existed.
The Petitioner considered that the proposed route with its linkage
to stations along Oxford Street would achieve an undesirable increase
of numbers of visitors to the West End. We heard that the Petitioner
preferred a Northern Alignment[40]
that would allow additional numbers of people to be spread out
over a greater area, offering alternative shopping and working
areas which in turn would relieve some of the overcrowding.
Petition No. 72 - London Transport Users Committee
and Rail Passengers Council
156. The Petitioners were concerned about the failure
of the proposed railway transport system to serve London City
Airport. The Petitioners recognised that consideration has already
been given to moving Custom House station further east to provide
a direct link with London City Airport but that the cost of so
doing has been adjudged too high.
Petition No. 87 - Darren Richard Williams and
Petition No. 88 - Heath Lionel Sean McArdle
157. The Petitioners objected to the location of
the terminus of Crossrail at Shenfield. The Petitioners were concerned
that the decision to locate the terminus was based on grounds
of cost, alternative options (for example at Stratford) being
considered too expensive because they required the construction
of a station underground.
Petition No. 88 - Jessica Da Silva and others
158. The Petitioners believed that promotion of the
Bill was premature as alternative worksites, routes and tunnelling
methodology had not been examined in detail and as a result the
best alternative taking all criteria into account had not been
selected in breach of the European Community Directive on 'the
assessment of the effects of certain private and public projects
on the environment'
Petition No. 106 - Belal Uddin and others
159. The Petitioners considered that the Promoter
should have demonstrated proof of the need for and desirability
of the proposals in the Bill, as affecting the Properties, and
that the limits of deviation of Works Nos. 1/3A and 1/3B, the
resulting powers for the compulsory acquisition of subsoil, the
power to construct works and the exercise of works and ancillary
powers within the limits of deviation should be restricted in
relation to the Petitioners' properties to the extent (if any)
to which they could be strictly justified and so as to prevent
interference with the Properties. In particular, the Petitioners
contended that any interest in their properties acquired by the
Promoter (in terms of the area over which it is to subsist, the
form in which it was to take at law and any express or implied
constraints which may be imposed upon the remainder of the Petitioners'
properties) should be strictly limited only to that which was
absolutely necessary for the construction, safe operation and
maintenance of the proposed works
160. The Petitioners therefore believed that the
Promoter should not be permitted by means of the Bill to interfere
with private property rights and interests unless, and except
to the extent (if any) that, there was no better alternative to
the route alignment taking all criteria into account and it can
be demonstrated to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill and
to be in the public interest.
Petition No. 107 - Robin Tutty and others
161. The Petitioners believed that the Promoter should
not be permitted by means of the Bill to interfere with private
property rights and interests unless, and except to the extent
(if any) that, there was no better alternative to the route alignment
taking all criteria into account and it could be demonstrated
to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill and to be in the
public interest. The Petitioners had not been provided with full
justification for the proposals in the Bill affecting the Properties
and they were not satisfied that it was necessary or expedient
for the other powers of the Bill to apply at all or in the manner
or to the extent proposed. The Petitioners accordingly considered
that the Promoter should have demonstrated the need for and desirability
of the proposals in the Bill, as affecting the Properties and
that the limits of deviation of Works Nos. 1/3A and 1/3B, the
resulting powers for the compulsory acquisition of subsoil, the
power to construct works and the exercise of works and ancillary
powers within the limits of deviation should be restricted in
relation to the Petitioners' properties to the extent (if any)
to which they can be strictly justified and so as to prevent interference
with the Properties. In particular, the Petitioners contended
that any interest in their properties acquired by the Promoter
(in terms of the area over which it was to subsist, the form in
which it was to take at law and any express or implied constraints
which may be imposed upon the remainder of the Petitioners' properties)
should be strictly limited only to that which was absolutely necessary
for the construction, safe operation and maintenance of the proposed
works.
Petition No. 110 - East of England Regional Assembly
162. The Petitioner supported the principle of providing
extra rail capacity to relieve the heavily congested rail and
underground network within London, which underlie the Crossrail
proposals. The Petitioner also generally supported proposals which
would improve connections from stations to the east of London
and stations to the west of London via Liverpool Street station
and the proposed central London tunnel. However, the Petitioner
was concerned that, because the current proposals did not extend
beyond Shenfield, this would not achieve the full potential of
the Crossrail scheme and would not fully meet the needs of the
East of England region.
Petition No. 119 - Spitalfields Festival Ltd
163. The Petitioners considered that the Promoter
should not be permitted by means of the Bill to interfere with
private property rights and interests unless, and except to the
extent (if any) that, there was no better alternative to the route
alignment taking all criteria into account and it could be demonstrated
to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill and to be in the
public interest. The Petitioners had not been provided with full
justification for the proposals in the Bill affecting the Properties
and they were not satisfied that it was necessary or expedient
for the other powers of the Bill to apply at all or in the manner
or to the extent proposed.
Petition No. 132 - Gregory D Hodgkiss and Claire
M J M Hodgkiss
164. The Petitioners believed that the Promoter's
scheme should cause eastbound Crossrail services to terminate
at Stratford and provide suitable inter-change facilities there
with the existing fast services from Shenfield and beyond. They
considered the requirements of the services for the 2012 London
Olympics should be taken into account.
Petition No. 149 - Brentwood Borough Council
165. The Petitioners were concerned about the impact
of the construction of the railway on existing rail services at
Shenfield station and the operation of the station itself. Shenfield
is an important mainline station for commuters travelling into
London. It provides a fast non-stop route into Liverpool Street
station, and Shenfield station was therefore used by many commuters
across the Petitioners' Borough and beyond. The Petitioners had
serious doubts about whether Crossrail would provide any benefits
at all to residents and businesses in their Borough. They could
not see any advantage in the proposed extension of Crossrail to
their Borough. They believed that the railway should terminate
either at Stratford or Romford; where there would be benefits
to those using the line to access London, Heathrow Airport, or
the west of England, and that it should not be extended to the
Petitioners' Borough. The Committee noted that if Crossrail should
extend, as proposed, to Shenfield, that the Petitioners sought
assurances and undertakings from the promoter about the effect
of construction operations on Shenfield station, and in particular
wished to ensure that service patterns are guaranteed.
Petition No. 155 - Robert McCracken
166. The Petitioner objected to the location of the
proposed route and believed that an alternative northern route
(for many years known as the 'Northern Alignment') should be considered
instead. The Petitioner believed that the Northern Alignment would
not only bring far greater benefits to residents and businesses
than the proposed route, but also that a great number of nuisance
issues related to Crossrail would be avoided were it to be built.
Petition No. 195 - Patricia Gaynor Jones
167. The Petitioner believed that the Promoter should
not be permitted to interfere with private property rights and
interests unless, that, there was no better alternative to the
route alignment taking all criteria into account and it could
be demonstrated to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill and
to be in the public interest. The Petitioner had not been provided
with full justification for the proposals in the Bill affecting
the Property and she was not satisfied that it was necessary or
expedient for the other powers of the Bill to apply at all or
in the manner or to the extent proposed.
Petition No. 206 - Cardinal Group Ltd
168. The Petitioner regarded it as noteworthy and
regrettable that the Environmental Statement accompanying the
Bill did not make an adequate attempt to justify the dismissal
of the alternatives considered before the introduction of the
Bill. The Petitioners objected to the provisions in the Bill.
Petition No. 219 - Thames Gateway London Partnership
169. The Petitioners were aware that there had been
suggestions that the construction of the project should be phased.
The Petitioners were particularly keen to ensure that the South
Eastern section of the line from Whitechapel to Abbey Wood was
built as part of the first phase of construction due to the immense
importance of the project as a driver of the regeneration of the
Thames Gateway and the lack of adequate heavy rail capacity in
this corridor.
170. The Petitioners believed that if the decision
was made to construct the project in phases, an undertaking should
be sought from the Promoter that the South Eastern section and
a Royal Docks station at Custom House would form part of the first
phase of the Crossrail works and that this would not stop short
of the Royal Docks area.
171. The Petitioners sought an assurance that, should
it be determined that the Stratford branch of the project was
to be delayed because of irreconcilable conflicts with the Olympic
construction activities, the southern section from Whitechapel
to Abbey Wood would not be delayed and would be constructed as
part of the first phase and a full service provided.
172. The Petitioners wished to emphasise the importance
of the timely delivery of the project and reiterated the belief
of all of their partners that it would be imperative that Crossrail
progressed on its current schedule, in order to create a climate
of confidence among private sector investors, upon whom the successful
regeneration of the area ultimately rested.
Petition No. 227 - John Akker; Petition No. 228
- Oliver Theis and others; Petition No. 229 - Ali Nehru; and Petition
No. 230 - The Spitalfields Practice;
173. We noted the Petitioners' concerns that a project
of this sort would now be subject to much more detailed design
work than it appeared had been undertaken. They were concerned
that not only was such detail missing and as such the current
scheme and its impact had not been properly analysed and the most
appropriate tunnelling methodology, and worksites and route alignment
had not been chosen taking all criteria into account but the Petitioners
understood that no or no sufficient budget was available for its
progression at this stage. The Petitioners believed that in consequence,
the impacts upon their properties, businesses, neighbourhood,
families and other interests were still ill-defined and they were
handicapped in their ability to engage with the Promoter in a
positive fashion to safeguard their interests.
Petition No. 238 - Derek James Hurst
174. Whilst acknowledging the benefits of rail travellers
being able to cross London without having to interchange there,
the Petitioner considered that it was unnecessary to run the line
to and from Shenfield.
Petition No. 240 - Roy Archer Wise and Dorothy
Monica Wise
175. The Petitioners felt that there were little
or no benefit for Shenfield and had been informed by experts that
this scheme was likely to inhibit the semi-fast non-rush hour
train service, as well as freight trains, due to the proposed
use of the slow lines by the Promoter' trains. They believed there
was no justification for the proposed terminus to be placed at
Shenfield in the heart of a desirable residential area because
of the obvious lack of its viability.
Petition No. 240 - Jean Doris Austin and Frank
Austin
176. The Petitioners believed that as South Essex
was already well served with an efficient and fast rail service
that the Promoter should endeavour to locate the Crossrail Terminus
in the East London area. The Terminus should be located at Stratford
where existing services were already in place and connections
have proved satisfactory. This would be less damaging to housing
and more economic. They felt there was no justification for the
proposed terminus to be placed at Shenfield in the heart of a
desirable residential area because of the obvious lack of its
viability.
Petition No. 241 - Michael Peter Kingshott and
Janet Ann Kingshott
177. The Petitioners while accepting the benefits
of Crossrail to Greater London saw no significant virtue in its
extension to Shenfield bearing in mind the environmental impact
on Shenfield and its residents. The Petitioners suggested that
the Promoter therefore consider a cheaper and less disruptive
location for their terminus either closer to or further out of
London.
Petition No. 246 - Madeline and Robert Wright
178. The Petitioners believed there was no reason
why the proposal should be brought out as far as Shenfield. They
considered that the opportunity afforded by the success of the
2012 Olympic Bid should have given the ideal opportunity for the
turn round terminal to be sited at Stratford during all the redevelopments
thus reducing costs and massive supplementary disruption to the
Shenfield area over several years.
Petition No. 247 - Michael Wood and Natalie Victoria
Wood
179. The Petitioners objected because the benefits
presented by the Promoter for terminating the Crossrail service
at Shenfield were inconclusive. They believed that termination
of the Crossrail service at Stratford would retain the existing
fast and 'all stations' services into Essex and East Anglia, as
well as allowing interconnection with main line, underground,
light railway and Eurostar services. They considered that termination
at Shenfield offered none of those advantages and therefore the
business case for termination at Stratford as opposed to Shenfield
should be re-examined.
Petition No. 250 - David William Dunsdon and Diane
Lesley Dunsdon
180. The Petitioners could not understand the provision
of the improved rail service as a 'fast' train service was already
available from Shenfield to Liverpool Street station and this
was the only line that was used by the majority of commuters,
including the Petitioners, travelling to the city.
Petition No. 251 - Philip Edward Davies and Karen
Elizabeth Davies
181. The Petitioners contended that the loss of car
parking facilities, traffic congestion, noise and the cost of
constructing the service through to Shenfield Station was not
justified given the limited demand and the minimal saving in time
in travel to London. They considered that the existing service
to and from Stratford was adequate and that the Promoter should
terminate the Crossrail service at Stratford.
Petition No. 254 - Amanda Louise McShee
182. The Petitioner could not understand why a small
town such as Shenfield would be subjected to the amount of turmoil
that Crossrail would create for a period of 18 months or more.
Petition No. 256 - Peter and Queenie Cross
183. The Petitioners believed that should the maintenance
depot be located at an alternative site other than the North Eastern
route, then the Promoter's case for extending the route to Shenfield
would be undermined.
Petition No. 258 - Ian and Doreen Marshall; Petition
No. 260 - John and Helen McNess; Petition No. 261 - Kenneth Charles
James Cork and Marion Jill Cork; and Petition No. 274 - Janet
Weller for the Hutton Mount Association
184. The Petitioners were concerned about the proposed
construction of the Romford Depot. Whilst its construction was
not in the vicinity of the Petitioners, they contended that its
selection as a depot site, and by implication the rejection of
alternative sites, strengthened the Promoter's case for extending
the North Eastern Route to terminate at Shenfield which would
have otherwise been weakened. The Petitioners believed that if
the maintenance depot was located at an alternative site that
was not on the North East route, then the Promoter's case for
extending the route to Shenfield would be undermined. The Petitioners
also believed that the selection of Shenfield as a terminus was
strongly influenced by the selection of Romford as a depot site.
The Petitioners considered that the cost/benefit analysis only
proved favourable to the Promoter if the current Metro 'slow train'
service was merged into the Promoter's planned services. They
considered the absence along the North East route of a maintenance
depot would dilute the cost/benefit requirements of the Promoter.
The Petitioners also considered that the proposition for merging
the current Metro service into the Promoter's Crossrail service
was considerably weakened if the depot was not constructed at
Romford or elsewhere on the North East route.
Petition No. 259 - Thomas and Mairead O'Driscoll
185. The Petitioners considered the whole project
to be unnecessary and felt that it would cause very severe disruption
to Shenfield and the surrounding areas during construction. They
also felt that Stratford should be the terminus on the North Eastern
route.
Petition No. 262 - Maxine Fanning, Thomas George
Fanning and Ross Fanning
186. The Committee note that Shenfield was a small,
quiet, close knit community and the Petitioners were fearful that
the Promoter's intentions with regard to the station and surrounding
area would have a detrimental affect on the Petitioner's immediate
environment. The Petitioners therefore felt that the Promoter
should look to cease their intended works at Stratford or Romford
which would allow the Promoter to cater for the proposed increase
in population following development of those areas without the
need to inflict unnecessary and unwanted changes on Shenfield
and its residents.
Petition No. 263 - Mr Pete Best and Mrs Marjorie
Best
187. The Petitioners accepted the benefits of being
able to cross London from East to West by train with the minimum
inconvenience, but believed that as there was already an excellent
Metro service through Shenfield and also a fast train service
from Colchester, Ipswich, Norwich, etc that stop at Stratford;
there seemed to be little advantage in view of the significant
disruption to Shenfield and the significant cost, of starting
the Crossrail service at Shenfield rather than at Stratford.
Petition No. 265 - Beryl Joyce Clark
188. The Petitioner considered that documents produced
by the Promoter indicated no significant increase in rail traffic
between Shenfield and east London (Environmental Statement Vol.
3 Para. 10.20.47) whilst indicating that most of the traffic would
be carried between Whitechapel, Bond Street and Paddington (Environmental
Statement - Non Technical Summary, Page 9).
Petition No. 266 - Leonard William Ralph Webb
and Gwendoline Webb
189. The Petitioners considered the Promoter's view
belief of easier and quicker travel into Central London are for
most travellers incorrect. They felt that Network Rail already
did and would continue to provide fast through trains to Stratford
and Liverpool Street, where most journeys terminate, or that travellers
transfer to one of the many underground or suburban lines or to
the buses to complete their journeys.
190. They also felt that the Promoter of the Bill
had failed to adequately consider alternatives to Shenfield as
the site for the Essex terminus. They believed that the obvious
place for the terminus would be Stratford which would have left
the east coast line unaffected. It was the Petitioner's opinion
that should development at Stratford or its near environs be prohibitively
expensive a further option would be to build a new station and
terminus on currently uncultivated farmland and woodland at Mountnessing
Parkway, two miles beyond Shenfield. The Petitioners would propose
that the Mountnessing Parkway be sited alongside and to the east
of the main east coast line at Arnolds Wood and bounded to the
north by Lower Road Mountnessing and to the south by the Southend
branch line. The Mountnessing Parkway could be constructed, using
up to date technology to provide maximum security for pedestrians
and parked vehicles and optimised for ease of access for public
and private transport. A major advantage would be an optimal track
layout and an adequate sized car park for current and importantly
future needs.
Petition No. 267 - A D Sutherland and Rachel A
Sutherland
191. The Petitioners objected to the Bill because
they believe it was unnecessary for the railway transport system
to be built to Shenfield. They considered there was a widespread
view that few people would use the service at Shenfield since,
as the Promoter stated at a public meeting in Shenfield, the existing
faster trains to and from Stratford and London Liverpool Street
were to be continued. The Petitioners considered that their interests
could be protected by the amendment of the route of the proposed
railway to terminate where substantial customer demand wasexpected,
such as at Stratford.
Petition No. 270 - Valerie Hibberd and Evelyn
Watson
192. The Petitioners considered that Crossrail could
commence at Stratford rather than Shenfield. There was already
an excellent rapid rail service to both Stratford and Liverpool
Street, as well as a regular metro service between those stations
and Shenfield thus, they believed, Crossrail would introduce an
element of duplication.
Petition No. 271 - Chris and Nicola Ashton
193. The Petitioners believed that the proposal to
extend the Crossrail out as far as Shenfield would be of no benefit
to Shenfield residents or businesses, and nor would it be of any
benefit to anyone travelling from Essex to Heathrow.
Petition No. 272 - Jan and Michael Pointer
194. The Petitioners considered that the vast expenditure
for the Stratford to Shenfield extension as presently proposed
and the inevitable disruption and noise during necessary works
were totally unjustifiable in terms of anticipated usage, service
quality and financial return and would seriously disadvantage
users of the existing commuter and long distance services.
Petition No. 273 - Clive Jonathan Corris and others
195. The Petitioners believed that the costs, to
residents, to rail travellers, users of the retail businesses
in Shenfield and the environment, associated with the Promoter
proposal to make Shenfield the eastern terminus, in preference
to terminating their railway transport system at Stratford, significantly
outweigh any demonstrable benefits.
Petition No. 277 - Brentwood Chamber of Commerce
196. We noted that 93 per cent of respondents to
the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce believed that Crossrail should
not end at Shenfield, but rather that it should end at Stratford
in the London Borough of Newham.
Petition No. 278 - Stuart and Tamsin Owens
197. The Petitioners believed that the provision
for Crossrail to terminate at Shenfield had not been sufficiently
investigated and termination at Stratford would still meet all
of the requirements for a cross London rail link and would cause
less upheaval and disruption.
Petition No. 278 - Mia Forbes Pirie
198. The Petitioner considered that the Promoter
should not be permitted by means of the Bill to interfere with
private property rights and interests unless, and except to the
extent (if any) that, there was no better alternative to the route
alignment taking all criteria into account and it could be demonstrated
to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill and to be in the
public interest. The Petitioner had not been provided with full
justification for the proposals in the Bill affecting the Property
and she was not satisfied that it was necessary or expedient for
the other powers of the Bill to apply at all or in the manner
or to the extent proposed.
Petition No. 291 - Fairfield Conservation Area
Residents Association
199. The Petitioners considered that the Promoter's
approach had been to develop a proposal based on a particular
route rather than to consider the options and alternatives. Such
a proposal was essentially an engineering solution to a series
of challenges resulting from a predefined selection. The Petitioners
believed that the proposal presented its own justification without
adequately exploring alternatives.
Petition No. 304 - Clive David Diebelius
200. The Petitioner questioned the need for Crossrail
to run trains between Stratford and Shenfield to replace the One
Great Eastern service. The Petitioner raised the question as to
why the Crossrail line was not running via the Thames Gateway,
given population trends suggest the biggest redevelopment will
be in the Thames Gateway. The Petitioner would like the Thames
Gateway option surveyed in greater detail as it would appear that
Crossrail had not undertaken a major survey or review in light
of recent developments.
201. The Petitioner considered the possibility of
terminating the Crossrail service at Stratford, as Stratford would
be a hub for the Olympics and the current One Great Eastern train
service would remain unaffected.
202. The Petitioner also considered that the current
One Great Eastern Service could be upgraded to ten carriage trains.
This would increase capacity into Liverpool Street by 25 percent.
He felt the only requirement would be for platform lengthening
and the modification to the track layout at Liverpool Street,
which could be done without vast investment in comparison to Crossrail.
Petition No. 305 - Woodseer and Hanbury Residents
Association
203. The Petitioners believed that other alternatives
had not been properly or in some cases considered at all that
neither of these aspects was considered before settling upon the
current scheme and the route.
204. The Petitioners requested that the Promoter
provide a detailed Transport Case or any other underlying reports
as requested previously.
205. The Petitioners would be concerned if the principle
of the Bill was to include the provision of an intermediate station
at Whitechapel, for which the Promoter had not yet proved the
case.
Petition No. 307 - Jemima Broadbridge
206. The Petitioner considered that the Promoter
should be required to demonstrate that all outstanding and justified
concerns together with the environmental impacts of this project
on the Spitalfields area, and which were set out in her Petition,
had been addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the Petitioner
according to current environmental laws.
207. The Petitioner felt the Promoter should be required
to provide comprehensive evidence and justification as to why
the end-to-end tunnelling method of construction for the central
London tunnel was not considered as a more appropriate means of
proceeding with the project.
Petition No. 310 - Thomas Sparks and Susan Goodbody
208. The Petitioners felt that to spend so much money
developing a new rail service, with its attendant infrastructure,
from scratch, seemed incomprehensible. They considered that the
money could be better spent improving the existing Underground
and Railway network in the South East area of which they considered
a huge percentage of infrastructure already existed. They believed
both those forms of transport could well do with investment, as
any regular commuter on either service could testify. They were
unsure as to whether another type of rail service to Heathrow
would be necessary and questioned whether the money could not
be more profitably used, extending and improving the Central,
District, Piccadilly, and Metropolitan lines. They also considered
that the majority of these lines were, at their extremities, overland,
and therefore could be extended and routed at a small fraction
of the cost of the Crossrail project. They felt the remaining
monies could then be spent bringing the underground service into
the twenty-first century, which they considered would be appreciated
by all Londoners.
Petition No. 311 - Robert Wilson MP
209. The Petitioner understood that Crossrail would
be a metro scheme, not a regional commuter scheme, which existed
to support the Mayor of London's transport strategy. However,
he considered that Crossrail's scope west of London should be
much more ambitious. The Petitioner believed that Crossrail should
provide a regional service linked to major transport hubs, which
would make economic and environmental sense. He felt Crossrail
would not serve new and growing population centres, so the projected
additional revenues barely covered the projected additional operating
costs. He believed a potential nightmare scenario involved more
traffic on regional roads outside London as freight would be pushed
off the tracks and passengers would decide that they could not
and would not accept a slow stopping service.
Petition No. 319 - London Borough of Camden
210. The Petitioners considered that the nominated
undertaker should be required to undertake all works concurrently
that impact on the surface, in particular those at Tottenham Court
Road station. They were concerned that blight and disruption would
be exacerbated if part of the proposals contained in the Bill
were postponed for any reason.
Petition No. 321 - Westminster City Council
211. The Petitioners stated that they remain to be
convinced that the proposals set out in the Bill for all engineering
and construction activity had been designed to take account fully
of the needs of residents and businesses across the Petitioners'
City, or that all options had been explored, or that all available
mitigation measures were incorporated.
Petition No. 321 - The Spitalfields Small Business
Association Ltd
212. The Petitioners objected to the route proposed
for the tunnels via the Hanbury Street shaft and Whitechapel station,
east of the safeguarded alignment between Paddington and Liverpool
Street. They believed that the route was the 1991 safeguarded
route only slightly modified and represented a totally inadequate
and ill thought out design solution for tunnels wanting to terminate
much further east. The Petitioners believed the proposals did
not meet the fundamental design criteria set for the construction
of the lines and insufficient consideration had been made of the
environmental, social and economic impacts on the Brick Lane area
of not digging end to end.
213. The Petitioners did not believe there was a
proven need for the Whitechapel station nor the construction of
the tunnels from the Hanbury Street and Pedley Street shafts and
worksites and considered that all those aspects should be deleted
from the Bill.
Petition No. 324 - Shahjalal Community Group
214. The Petitioners, who form part of the community
that was said to benefit from the building and development of
Whitechapel Station, requested that the Promoter be asked to prove
that a Crossrail station at Whitechapel was needed in purely transport
terms and in the public interest.
Petition No. 326 - The Residents' Society of Mayfair
and St. James' and The Grosvenor Mayfair Residents' Association
215. The Petitioners felt there had been a campaign
to overstate the wider economic benefits which were likely to
accrue for Crossrail. The Petitioners considered that there had
been no comparable analysis by any economists of the equivalent
benefits that emanated from an alternative Crossrail route, Crossrail
Northern Interchange Route (CNIR) which in the opinion of the
Petitioners and their advisors was likely to be just as good as
Crossrail or better. They believed it should have been independently
analysed by an agreed independent economist. It was not the intention
of the Petitioners to detain Parliament unduly; but it was pointed
out that, the previous Opposed Bill Committee members of Parliament,
when rejecting the same Crossrail Central London Alignment in
May 1994; called for an integrated London rail scheme including
direct airport lines. However, no such official planning work
had been done. The Petitioners' advisors had worked out a number
of low cost original options which taken together would be far
cheaper than Crossrail and some of them should come much before.
This involved upgrading existing rail lines and altering them
to the minimum. They considered that various tax funding proposals
had been made such as development land taxes which had never worked
in the past and/or produced little and also local business and
domestic tax precepts in London, which would fall upon the entire
metropolis, only part of which could benefit from Crossrail and
was therefore inequitable. The Petitioners' advisors pointed out
that with an airports related scheme such as CNIR (and their wider
proposals) there was a fair and reasonable possibility of an air
movements tax which might be a fair trade off with the airline
industry.
216. The Petitioners considered that their current
proposals concerning the CNIR should have been given proper consideration
in the light of the benefits that the Petitioners believed their
alternative route would bring compared to the route proposed by
the Promoter in the Bill, particularly in view of the fact that
London has been awarded the 2012 Olympics which raised issues
of potential conflict between the programme management of the
Crossrail project and the programme management for the Olympics.
The Petitioners believed those benefits included inter alia:-
(a) better tube connections, connections to London airports and
interchanges, connecting with nearly every London Underground
line and helping to relieve congestion on the London Underground
system. In particular, approximately £4 billion could be
saved. CNIR postulated an approximate overall saving, as against
Crossrail, of some 30 percent in capital cost. That did not take
account of other benefits from regeneration etc. of areas which
need it by deleting several kilometres of disruptive new Crossrail
Line between Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf. They felt that
this intrusive scheme was very similar to an earlier discarded
alignment of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which the Select Committees
for that Bill wisely ensured was diverted following an East End
outcry. That scheme now ran sensibly under the North London railway
from Stratford to near St Pancras. The Petitioners considered
that Crossrail proposed to repeat this same error and quite unnecessarily.
CNIR incorporated a low cost and predominantly surface railway
in order to serve Canary Wharf and the Thames Gateway in general.
Furthermore, the Petitioners believed that section of CNIR could
be constructed ahead of and to support the 2012 London Olympics.
That was primarily because it amounted to a surface railway from
Stansted to Stratford, Woolwich and Abbey Wood etc. The only subterranean
section would be four tracks in the tunnel under the Thames at
Woolwich, replacing plans for three other separate sets of costly
Thames tunnels, which would form an all purpose railway including
freight. Canary Wharf was served by a short branch on the surface
from near Canning Town (in via the back door). The Petitioners
believed it would be necessary to re-construct parts of the Docklands
Light Railway (DLR) which was a comparatively very cheap option.
The Petitioners informed the Promoter of this proposal (with the
exception the backdoor branch into Canary Wharf) at the minuted
meeting on 12 December 2001, but received no adequate response.
Oxford Street was served already by five tube lines and CNIR would
enhance: (a) tube interchanges radically (e.g. Portland Place,
for tube interchange only) there should be greatly improved travel
to and within the West End; (b) less disruption to residents,
less environmental impact by tunnelling mostly under roads, parks
and the use of the alignment of existing underground sections
of railway, less risk to the built heritage including listed buildings
and the greater capacity for the movement of tunnelling spoil
and construction materials by rail and fewer lorry movements;
(c) considerably less expensive than Crossrail with fewer engineering
costs and other expenses such as disruption to businesses in Central
London through less demolition, lesser risk of settlement, the
shortening of the tunnel route in the central section by nearly
a kilometre in length and minimising private sector claims and
distress thereby resulting in fewer compensation claims; and (d)
improved links for rail freight in East London and the Thames
Gateway with direct connections to the Channel Tunnel.
217. The Petitioners felt that the CNIR would run
along an east-west alignment to the north of the current scheme
proposed by the Promoter, running roughly parallel and below the
existing Circle and Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City London
Underground line with an altered Paddington station and then double-ended
stations at Marylebone/Baker Street; Euston/ St. Pancras/Kings
Cross; Barbican/Moorgate and Liverpool Street/Bishopsgate. They
believed that CNIR would provide a direct rail connection between
Terminal 5 to Heathrow Airport and St Pancras for the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and many more improved connections generally
with Heathrow and Stansted airports. The Promoter referred to
a previous version of the CNIR proposal in Volume 1 of the Environmental
Statement (paragraphs 6.3.18 to 6.3.22). However, the Petitioners
strongly refuted the Promoter's arguments in that respect particularly
as the Petitioners believed that that assessment was based on
known to be outdated proposals put by the Residents' Association
of Mayfair, the forerunner of one of the Petitioners, the Residents'
Society of Mayfair and St. James', in early 1992 which were amended
to the Promoter's knowledge with comments by 1993/1994. The Petitioners
believed that overall these have since been amended and improved
several times and were now represented by the current CNIR proposals
as advanced by the Petitioners to CLRL in 2001/2002 and 2004/2005
which addressed any alleged shortcomings of earlier proposals
and the Promoter had therefore failed in its statutory duty to
conduct either any study or a proper study of the Petitioner's
alternative scheme as required under European Law and under the
EIA Regulations 1999.
Petition No. 328 - The Spitalfields Society
218. The Petitioners considered that the Promoter
should not be permitted by means of the Bill to interfere with
private property rights and interests unless, and except to the
extent (if any) that, there was no better alternative to the route
alignment taking all criteria into account and it could be demonstrated
to be necessary for the purposes of the Bill and to be in the
public interest. The Petitioners had not been provided with full
justification for the proposals in the Bill affecting the Properties
and they were not satisfied that it was necessary or expedient
for the other powers of the Bill to apply at all or in the manner
or to the extent proposed.
Petition No. 335 - Garden Properties Ltd and Farnham
Properties Ltd; and Petition No. 336 - GMV Three Ltd and GMV Ten
Ltd
219. The Petitioners considered that the nominated
undertaker should not be permitted by means of the Bill to interfere
with private property, rights and interests unless, and except
to the extent (if any) that, this could be demonstrated both to
be necessary for the purposes of the Bill and to be in the public
interest. The Petitioners had not been provided with any justification
for the proposals in the Bill affecting your Petitioners' property.
The Petitioners believed that the nominated undertaker should
demonstrate and be put to the strictest proof of the need for
and desirability of the proposals in the Bill as affecting Petitioners'
property and that the limits of deviation of the scheduled works,
the resulting powers for the compulsory acquisition of interests
in the property, the power to construct works and the exercise
of works and ancillary powers within the limits of deviation should
be restricted in relation to the Petitioners' property to the
extent (if any) to which they could be strictly justified and
so as to minimise or prevent interference with that land. In particular,
the Petitioners contended that any interest in any of their land
acquired by, or on behalf of, the nominated undertaker should
be strictly limited both to the immediate needs of Crossrail and
as respects any express or implied constraints which may thereby
be imposed upon the remainder of your Petitioners' land.
Petition No. 341 - Jean Lambert and others
220. We note that the Petitioners objected to the
omission of a railway from Canal Way, Ladbroke Grove to Richmond
via Willesden Junction, the South West line and the North London
Line; the omission of a railway from Heathrow T5 station west
and then north along the old GW Staines branch to rejoin the GWML
with a west facing junction near Iver; the omission of a railway
from Windsor to Slough; the omission of a railway from Old Oak
Common to Uxbridge via South Ruislip and the omission of a railway
from Greenford East Junction to West Baling Junction; and the
omission of a railway from Romford to Ebbsfleet in Clause 1 and
Schedule 1.
221. The Petitioners also objected to the proposal
that over half the westbound trains would terminate at Paddington
and turn back in sidings at Westbourne Park. They believed it
would be a wasted resource as it would not serve west London adequately.
They felt other branches should be included to make better use
of these trains. The Petitioners proposed new routes improved
public transport access in a swath of West London, which included
branches to Uxbridge (via South Ruislip), Castle Bar Park (anti-clockwise
loop using Greenford branch), Windsor (via Slough) and Richmond
(via Willesden Junction and the North London Line) and were mainly
on existing or former railways with short linking spurs. The Petitioners
felt that even if those branches were not included in phase 1,
provision for them, with appropriate junctions, should be made
in phase 1.
222. The Petitioners opposed to the omission of a
railway from Windsor to Slough as part of Crossrail as they considered
this would take over the existing railway together with a grade
separated junction with the Great Western Main Line somewhere
between Iver and Slough. They believed that an improved public
transport access between Windsor, Heathrow and central London
would lead to a reduction in road traffic in the Heathrow area
and a reduction in air pollution.
223. The Petitioners also opposed to the omission
of a railway from Old Oak Common to Uxbridge via South Ruislip.
They considered a Crossrail service on this route would provide
improved access to residential areas and the regeneration area
at Park Royal. The Petitioners believed it would encourage modal
shift from cars to rail and so would benefit the environment.
They felt existing railways from Old Oak Common West junction
to a new junction near Ruislip Gardens (Wycombe line) and the
Metropolitan line from Ickeham to Uxbridge together with a connecting
chord located under sidings at the London Underground Central
line Ruislip depot would become part of Crossrail.
224. The Petitioners also objected to the omission
of a railway from Romford to Ebbsfleet They felt that there should
be a Crossrail line between Romford and Ebbsfleet, connecting
together the two branches to the east, to form a loop via a new
tunnel under the Thames at Northfleet. The Petitioners believed
that this would serve and link parts of Thames Gateway north and
south of the river and that even if this loop was not included
in phase 1, provision for it, with appropriate junctions, should
be made. The loop would use the existing lines between Romford
and Upminster and Upminster and Grays.
Petition No. 346 - Laing Homes Ltd
225. The Petitioner considered that it was not necessary
to use their land for the purposes intended when there were other
routes available to the Promoter.
Petition No. 349 - George Galloway MP
226. The Petitioner considered that, in the ordinary
course of a project of this sort, it would be currently subject
to much more detailed design work than it appeared to have been
undertaken. He believed that not only was such detail missing
and as such the current scheme and its impact had not been properly
analysed and the most appropriate tunnelling methodology, worksites
and route alignment had not been chosen taking all criteria including
risk assessment, noise, pollution, vibration, environmental harm,
traffic levels, health and safety into account but the Petitioner
understood that no sufficient budget was available for its progression
at this stage.
227. The Petitioner believed the promoter had not
produced any evidence to show compliance with NATA, (the Government's
New Approach to Transport Appraisal), which assesses five criteria;
economy, safety, accessibility, integration and environment.
228. The Petitioner understood that Channel Tunnel
Rail Link engineers comprehensively considered alignment alternatives
for each section and produced an audit trail justifying their
choice of the preferred route. He considered that the promoter
had failed to produce any systematic comparisons of alternatives
and also failed to provide adequate reasons for this failure given
the likely impact on the Spitalfields area.
229. The Petitioner also considered that the inclusion
of the Whitechapel Station was premature given the confusion over
the statement of the principle of the intermediate stations until
the full information in relation to its inclusion had been provided.
Hence in his opinion , the case for the inclusion of Whitechapel
Station was unproven.
Petition No. 349 - Annetta Pedretti
230. The Petitioner believed that the curve in the
tunnel directly to the east of Liverpool Street Station was ill-considered
and that it would be premature and counter-productive to provide
an unspecified undertaker with powers to carry out works whilst
this remained unproven.
231. The Petitioner suggested that the scheme be
subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of an independent, internationally
informed and interdisciplinary design process and scrutinised
in a public forum, with a view to the development of a clear and
sustainable design brief with socially responsible design guidelines.
232. The Petitioner considered that Whitechapel Station
was added to the scheme at the insistence of their local council
to 'put the area on the map' for alleged 'regeneration' benefits.
She did not believe that a station at Whitechapel was in the best
interest of an effective rail link or for the benefit of 'regenerating'
Whitechapel.
Petition No. 357 - Spitalfields Housing Association
233. The Petitioners objected to the route proposed
for the tunnels via the Hanbury Street shaft and Whitechapel station,
east of the safeguarded alignment between Paddington and Liverpool
Street. They thought the route appeared to be merely a modification
of the 1991 safeguarded route, which represented a totally inadequate
and ill-considered design solution for tunnels which would now
terminate much further east. They believed that even though the
proposals did not meet fundamental design criteria set for construction
of the lines, insufficient consideration appeared to have been
given to alternative solutions. They felt that a specialist tunnel
engineering report produced on behalf of the London Borough of
Tower Hamlets endorsed the fact that a more rigorous analysis
of the route would suggest that the best solution was to construct
the tunnel end to end.
Petition No. 359 - Mr John Payne
234. The Petitioner objected to the Bill as he believed
a better route for the Central section linking the stations at
Paddington and Farringdon would be via the mainline railway stations
of Marylebone, Euston and St. Pancras.
Issues raised in petitions deposited
against the third set of Additional Provisions relating to Environmental
Impact
Petition No. 6 - Spitalfields Community Association;
and Petition No. 6 - Woodseer and Hanbury Residents Association
235. The Petitioners considered that the Promoter's
present choice for the tunnel alignment going under the Spitalfields
area was wrong. The Petitioners believed that the main reasons
and considerations were absent and the available information showed
they were not for the purposes of building a successful railway
scheme or in the wider public interest. The Petitioners also believed
that the southerly route was possible and had been discounted
without good reason. The Petitioners required the Promoter to
provide a more detailed and comprehensive comparative assessment
of the need for tunnelling under Spitalfields. The Petitioners
sought proper consideration of a southerly route.
236. The Petitioners did not believe the Promoter
had justified the need for Whitechapel Station in relation to
the Crossrail scheme. They considered the case for Whitechapel
Station was unproven for the Petitioners and taxpayers alike.
They also believed they would be adversely affected by the proposal
and taxpayers would pay more than £400 million for a station
that was considered unnecessary. They felt the Promoter had been
inconsistent in its approach to this scheme.
Petition No. 12 - Mr John Payne
237. The Petitioner considered that a better alignment
for the Central section would link the stations at Paddington
and Tottenham Court Road via the Edgware Road and Bond Street/Cavendish
Square/Oxford Circus, which would avoid the Petitioner's property.
The change in alignment, the Petitioner believed, would save billions
of pounds in costs and would make further large savings and improvements
at Farringdon and Liverpool Street Station.
Petition No. 12 - Leo F. Walters
238. The Petitioner objected to the Bill and the
scheme amendments proposed by Crossrail and published on the 15
November 2006. He felt that there were better arrangements and
amendments which should be considered. In particular, the Petitioner
believed extensions of works north of Oxford Street by Crossrail
pointed to an obvious reconsideration of the superior, sound and
less intrusive scheme which took the Bond Street station alignment
a very short distance north of Oxford Street, under Wigmore Street
and in particular with a full connection to Oxford Circus underground
station which would recycle the major 'brown-field' site of the
publicly owned Cavendish Square underground car park.
FURTHER ISSUES
239. We further note that two issues have arisen
before us in the context of environmental assessment concerning
either: the alleged inadequacy generally of the environmental
assessment process for the Bill and the Environmental Statements
produced for Crossrail, and the failure to consider alternatives.
A number of Petitioners have sought to argue that Crossrail had
not adequately considered the alternatives to the current proposals.[41]
We have been frequently assured by Counsel to the Promoter that
what has been produced in the Environmental Statement meets the
legal requirements of providing an outline of the main alternatives
studied by the developer and an indication of the main reasons
for this choice, taking into account the environmental effects.
We understand that there was no requirement to set out full information
on alternatives. We note that the main alternative study was summarised
in chapter six of the main Environmental Statement deposited in
February 2005.
240. The Promoter also told us that the environmental
assessment process adopted for the Bill complies with the Environmental
Assessments Directive and we see no reason to dispute their conclusions.
241. We are content that the Bill should proceed
through the House and that the information provided in the Environmental
Statements, together with that obtained from the public through
the consultation process on the Environmental Statements, will
form part of the information to be taken into account by Parliament.
We conclude that the Environmental Impact Assessment process has
been conducted in what we are advised is a suitable and reasonable
manner and we understand that it has therefore met the relevant
requirement of the Directive under European law.[42]
38 The first Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES1) was published on 26 May 2005. On 18 January 2006, a second Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES2) for Crossrail was published. A third SES (SES3) was published on 7 November 2006, an SES 3 errata was published on 25 January 2007. A fourth SES (SES4) was published on 16 May 2007. Back
39
On 18 January 2006, Amendment of Provisions Environmental Statement (APES1) for Crossrail was published. On 9 May 2006 a second Amendment of Provisions Environmental Statement (APES2) was published. A third APES (APES3) was published on 7 November 2006. A fourth APES (APES4) was published on 16 May2007. Back
40
The Northern Alignment is an alternative tunnel route taking the
tunnels north of the alignment set out in the Bill. Back
41
Paragraph21423[MrDElvinQC] Back
42
Ibid. Back
