Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420
- 439)
420. Mr Elvin: It simply carries forward
the Crossrail policies we see in the UDP.
(Mr Rees) Except that, by that time, we had
been led to believe that there would be an enhanced station at
Liverpool Station with a separate entrance to and from the ground.
421. Mr Elvin: I am going to come to
that. I am going to question whether that is accurate as a matter
of fact. Your LDS is June 2005, is it not?
(Mr Rees) That is correct.
422. Mr Elvin: We will come back to that
particular point about what you knew and the consequences of that
in a moment, but you still do not have any policy, whether it
is a UDP policy or some form of informal policy, which seeks to
constrain development unless and until Crossrail is secure?
(Mr Rees) Without Crossrail, it is not a serious
problem.
423. Mr Elvin: So you perceive, do you,
the level of development that you expect absent of Crossrail and
the implications that has for what Mr Laurence described as an
existing situation at Liverpool Street to be acceptable in planning
terms?
(Mr Rees) It can be accommodated through use
of the various stations in the City, yes.
424. Mr Elvin: Therefore, the fact that
new development is for ever increasing and putting pressure on
Liverpool Street is something which you expect Liverpool Street
to cope with without any assistance from the City? Is that right?
(Mr Rees) Absent of Crossrail, yes.
425. Mr Elvin: So it becomes quite clear
from that line of answers, Mr Rees, that Crossrail is being expected
not only to redistribute passengers around the network, but to
deal specifically with the problems which already have built up
at Liverpool Street, not just in the macro level, but in the very
local level as well?
(Mr Rees) No, it is needed to cope with the
effects it causes by the redistribution which occurs as a result
of the building of Crossrail.
426. Mr Elvin: Well, your entire case
then pivots on Crossrail making a critical difference to the amount
of passengers going through Liverpool Street.
(Mr Rees) From the planning point of view,
yes.
427. Mr Elvin: Can I ask in general terms
whether you accept that there would be a balance to be struck
with a degree of overcrowding and a degree of beneficial development
which aggravated the overcrowding because you might see that there
are other benefits which outweighed that disbenefit?
(Mr Rees) People accept that in a busy City
there will be a degree of overcrowding on public transport. What
they find difficult to accept is that the station will be closed
when they arrive at their place of work.
428. I am sorry, do you accept the general proposition,
though, that simply because you may decrease the quality of the
experience of going through the ticket hall, or however you want
to phrase it, just because it becomes a little more crowded in
the ticket hall and there may be a little more congestion, you
do not see that as a reason to refuse planning permission? You
would regard that as acceptable because of the other benefits
the development might bring.
(Mr Rees) If there were simply more crowding
and nothing worse than that I would not see that as a problem.
429. Would it be the case that you would accept
that the same principle would apply to Crossrail?
(Mr Rees) Provided something works and has
adequate capacity to cope with what it is creating and the growth
allowance for that new project, yes.
430. Would you accept, therefore—and I
am only putting this on a hypothetical basis, because the Committee
will need to see all the other material first—that if Crossrail
does deliver benefits which, of course, extend well beyond Liverpool
Street Station, if they caused a degree of additional overcrowding
at Liverpool Street in one or more of the ticket halls, providing
that did not make the station unworkable, the fact that the situation
might be aggravated in a number of locations would not, taken
with the overall level of benefit it would achieve, justify necessarily
the steps that you are suggesting should be taken? It is only
if it reaches the extreme position of making the station, effectively,
unable to operate.
(Mr Rees) Correct, even if that be on an occasional
basis.
431. Can I ask you about what the City knew?
You said to the Committee earlier that it came as a surprise at
the time of Bill deposit that the new ticket hall, the arcade
ticket hall, was removed from the scheme, and that what the City
has done since then flows from that.
(Mr Rees) Yes.
432. The fact is the City was told in December
2003, was it not, that there was no longer a business case for
that ticket hall? That is right, is it not?
(Mr Rees) I do not know. I am not aware.
433. Can I have circulated—
(Mr Rees) I know the safeguarding line showed
one.
434. The safeguarding line was imposed when
-1991?
(Mr Rees) It was still in place at the date
you mentioned.
435. This is of a meeting at which Mr Weiss
was present. I am giving him advance notice by putting the point
to you because you said it came as a surprise to the City.
(Mr Rees) No doubt he will be grateful.
436. You will see this is a meeting note with
the Corporation on 3 December 2003.[6]
We can see that amongst the attendees were Joe Weiss, who is giving
evidence. If you go to the next page, the second page, 2.6, under
the heading "Buses and Taxis", two-thirds of the way
down there are two references to Richard Davies. The second says:
"Richard Davies advised that the arcade ticket hall did not
currently appear to be justified in terms of the business case".
(Mr Rees) Yes.
437. So there was at least a warning in December
2003 from Crossrail that the ticket hall did not stack up in terms
of the business case.
(Mr Rees) The matter may have been mentioned
at a meeting. I was not aware of that and it certainly had not
caused alarm bells to ring so it cannot have been made very forcibly.
438. Mr Weiss is the Strategic Transportation
Director.
(Mr Rees) That is correct.
439. Can I now have circulated meeting notes
from 21 February of last year, at which Mr Weiss was also present?[7]
It is a meeting with the Corporation of London on 21 February.
Mr Weiss was present. This is a week or so after the deposit of
the Bill and the Environmental Statement. If you go, please, to
1.14: "JW [that is Joe Weiss] advised he was pleased that
the arcade was no longer included in the scheme." Yes?
(Mr Rees) That is what it says.
6 Committee Ref: A5, Crossrail Meeting Note with Corporation
of London, 3 December 2003. Back
7
Committee Ref: A6, Crossrail Meeting Note with Corporation of
London, 21 February 2005. Back
| 
