Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3393
- 3399)
3393. Chairman: This week the Committee
will publish its provisional timetable to take us to 27 April.
Due to the unpredictable nature of these hearings, it is important
to stress that the dates given in the programme are provisional
and maybe brought forward or moved back if necessary. We would
ask for the co-operation of both the Promoters and the Petitioners
in enabling this Committee to use the time we have effectively.
Can I just point out to both sides that there is a possibility
set out in the programme that we may be moving, also, to an extra
two hours of hearings on a Tuesday between 6 and 8 pm, if that
is necessary. So I hope everybody will bear with us.
3394. Also, the good news is that the Commons
Catering Group, the most powerful body in this place, has on request
from the Committee agreed to provide coffee and tea along the
corridor on the upper waiting hall, between the hours of 11.30
am to 12.10 pm. So if anybody—of course, not of the bench,
so to speak—wishes to nip along there for refreshments they
can do. Today we will continue to hear the Petition of the City
of Westminster and I will ask Mr Clarkson to start.
3395. Mr Clarkson: It is me, again, sir,
and I propose, if I may, to do the same as I did for Camden last
week and give you a cameo of the issues where we are agreed, and
we come down to one narrow issue today that we are putting before
you. The area of interest is clear. The Committee went there yesterday
on a partial site inspection. It is map C1(v), between Tottenham
Court Road station through Paddington to Westbourne Park.
3396. The background is one of support. I will
be calling Mr King in due course to set the scene for Tottenham
Court Road to Hyde Park, and a bit of Hyde Park to Paddington.
Paddington needs resolution in due course. There is going to be
substantial discussion, we believe, but again it may be helpful
to the Committee on time. We are hopeful.
3397. Our formal position is this: first we
welcome the principle of the Bill, so long as the works are carried
out so as to ensure that the burdens on Westminster residents
and businesses are justified by the provision of a high-quality
cross-London rail service. Next, it does not need emphasis but
I deal with it shortly: the West End is a major tourist destination
and investment in it benefits the national economy. Westminster
is a major business centre. That overview asserts the positive.
There are concerns of fine tuning. Westminster is a highway authority,
housing authority, public health, recreation, civic welfare, amenity
as well as the economic welfare of its businesses. The Petition
has headings of concern. I do not elaborate them but I headline
them just for the minute: the impact on the West End; performance
of work sites; ventilation and escape shafts; construction traffic;
highways, acquisition of council land; tunnelling; groundborne
noise; vibration and track design, operation of the railways;
listed buildings and buildings within conservation areas; archaeology;
authorisation procedures; social, economic and community impact,
and there is additionally a number of site-specific concerns.
There has been discussion.
3398. I do not propose to rehearse all matters
that have been under discussion or are agreed or are close to
agreement, or susceptible to second House undertakings. There
are many and I hope that the Committee will accept we have saved
you a substantial amount of time by the fact that they are in
discussion, many of which, may I assure the Committee, have been
taking place between 6 and 8 in the evening on Tuesdays.
3399. It is not agreed as to the generic matters
and we subscribe to the single presentation approach to optimise
the use of your time. We, Westminster, present the generic case
for hours of work and recovery of costs related to that. That
will be presented at Paddington, if it is not agreed beforehand,
but we think it might. Westminster supports Newham in their presentation
of a generic case on airborne noise; we support Havering on the
static noise case relating to ventilation shafts. We have concerns,
also, on groundborne noise and support the generic case you heard
last week.
|
