Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440
- 460)
440. Whatever one wants to read into that, and
I am not going to ask you any questions about what one reads into
that, the very least one can get out of that is that he, the Strategic
Transportation Director, was aware within a week that the arcade
hall had been removed from the scheme and was not in the Bill.
(Mr Rees) I can only comment on the words in
front of me; you must ask him to comment on that.
441. Were you aware of that at about that time?
(Mr Rees) I was aware that there were discussions
about the access to street level and to the areas of safeguarding.
I was not aware that a separate entrance to the air, if you like,
had been dropped from the scheme. At no point was I made aware
that the only way out of the Crossrail towards Liverpool Street
would be into the existing ticket hall.
442. The only way out is not via the ticket
hall; there are four ways out. There are ways out to Moorgate
and the two MIP.
(Mr Rees) I am sorry, the first into the ticket
hall. You have to come out through the hall into ticket hall B.
443. If you are coming out through Liverpool
Street and you are not using the MIP access, yes. There are four
exits.
(Mr Rees) I am sorry, the others are at Moorgate.
444. Two are at Moorgate and two are at Liverpool
Street. One is mobility impaired and one is the general access
to the ticket hall.
(Mr Rees) I am sorry, I am talking about the
large numbers of able-bodied people using Liverpool Street Station.
445. Just making sure we are absolutely accurate.
Can I now have circulated, finally, (and this is my last question
on this small group of questions) a letter from the Corporation
of 17 March of last year, so just after a month after the meeting
between Mr Weiss and Crossrail.[8]
It is a letter from Mr Weiss, and the purpose of this letter is
a review of the important points of concern which the City had
following Bill deposit. If you look at the bottom of the first
page, the penultimate paragraph: "Now the hybrid Bill is
deposited we are keen to take up the Minister's invitation and
seek resolutions of our key concerns". Then, in the last
line: "There are an exceedingly wide range of issues ...
could we please discuss our main concerns which are briefly indicated
in the attachment to this letter." Then Mr Weiss signs the
letter. Then we have the attachment: "Issues of Major Concern
to Corporation of London". Whatever you know at this point
we certainly know that Mr Weiss knew that the arcade ticket hall
had gone. Can we just look at the penultimate page, which has
on it "Finsbury Circus" and "Liverpool Street"?
The concerns which are set out here do not touch on the loss of
the ticket hall, do they? Perhaps you would like to read it through.
(Mr Rees) I do not see a reference
to it, no.
446. The concerns are in four bullet points:
construction process for works; construction methodology; traffic
impact analysis, and the bus service stops and routes on which
the buses are to be relocated during the works. We know that the
issue of overcrowding was in the mind of Mr Weiss because it is
in the last three lines, but that is in relation to issues arising
from construction works and construction methodology. So we get
a letter from Mr Weiss, the Strategic Transportation Director,
who knows that the ticket hall has gone, setting out the major
concerns of the City and not, in a single place, do we see any
regret at the loss of the ticket hall, or any concern. Is that
right?
(Mr Rees) With regard to this particular communication,
that is the drift of what it is saying.
447. Thank you very much, sir.
448. Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr
Elvin. Mr Cameron, I presume you will want to come back with the
witness, but not today.
449. Mr Cameron: You presume correctly,
sir.
450. Chairman: If we can arrange that
with the Clerk, we can do that as best suits the Committee. Mr
Elvin, just to answer a few of the things that you have requested.
The first thing is you did show us a slide from the Environmental
Statement a little bit earlier. If you could get clear copies
of that sent to Members—
451. Mr Elvin: Could I ask for your guidance,
sir? Would the Committee like a complete set of the plans? I am
not going to suggest the Environmental Statement because otherwise
you will break your arms but there is a relatively small bundle
of plans for the central section, setting out what is proposed
in the environmental impact. It is Volume 4a.
452. Chairman: If it can be put in a
small bundle and given to Members. In answer to some of your other
queries, first the one you asked about the noise expert. The Committee
has taken a view it may be necessary to make visits to understand
the arguments about specific noise levels. However, we do not
agree it appropriate to actually demonstrate these in Committee,
as we could not actually take them as evidence. What we would
be willing to accept is anything in writing—say, graphs,
or whatever it is—and that may cause us to wish to visit
an area in connection with that sometime later.
453. Mr Elvin: Could I just raise one
point? The only point I think that is important for the Committee
to hear demonstrated, and it may be we have to deal with it by
way of evidence and rebuttal through a later Petitioner than simply
explain it to you if you feel it is not correct to hear it straight
off, is that some Petitioners are raising the issue of the difference
in perception between an increase in noise of one decibel as opposed
to three, which is a question of the level of perception. That
is all we wanted to demonstrate with the general presentation.
454. Chairman: Yes, in the context of
a visit but not in Committee. That is the view.
455. Mr Elvin: Would you be prepared
to hear it, however, if it is in rebuttal to a Petitioner's case?
456. Chairman: We will review that request.
457. Mr Elvin: We will try and accommodate
it in some way in which the Committee feels it can hear it.
458. Chairman: On the summary question,
which you asked us, we do not agree that summary statements from
Petitioners would speed up the process of resolving particular
issues. The Committee is ordered by the House to consider Petitions
in their entirety themselves, individually, and we intend the
summary of the Petition is for them to have the opportunity to
actually raise objections themselves. We expect each case to be
dealt with accordingly. Finally, the response of Promoters. We
are happy for the Promoters to make short closing statements at
the end of each group of Petitions. However, Petitioners will
also be entitled to make the same statements if they so wish.
We would, however, like to point out to Promoters that we want
to ensure that any statements made by the Promoters will not become
inflexible, because of that, in any negotiations which are on-going
with particular Petitioners.
459. Finally, we would like the opportunity
for other people to be present at the visit tomorrow, if they
so wish, but we are aware, as a Committee, that the size of the
delegation of sorts which goes to Liverpool Street is so large
that it may cause problems with the operations of Liverpool Street,
and we do not want to be blamed for causing panic in the City.
So we would ask, unless people find it absolutely necessary to
be there, to just leave it to the Committee and the experts who
go along. Is that clearly understood by everybody? Yes.
460. Mr Cameron, if you could liaise with the
Clerk in relation to your witness being brought back, we would
be grateful. Just to say to all Members present that the visit
starts tomorrow at 8 o'clock and the transport will leave from
New Palace Yard at 8.00. The Committee will meet again in this
room at 2.30 pm.
8 Committee Ref: A7, Letter from Mr Weiss, Corporation
of London, to Mr Norman Haste, Chief Executive, CLRL, 17 March
2005. Back
| 
