Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5360
- 5379)
5360. There are two points to make on the impacts
at this stage. One is that we are doing further work to assess
the impacts because it seems possible that they may have been
overstated in the ES to some degree, but, perhaps more importantly,
of course the Environmental Statement is drawn up at a stage when
the design is still not particularly detailed, so as we go through
from the moment of starting the work, a far more detailed design
will be drawn up. Certainly the experience from the Channel Tunnel
Rail Link was that the level of noise impact fell significantly
at detailed design stage because at the Environmental Statement
stage it is necessary to take a pessimistic view.
5361. Turning then briefly to car parking, there
are four car parks around Shenfield Station and it is worth the
Committee just noting them. There are two pay and display car
parks. The one at Friars Avenue to the north-west of the station
will be taken as a worksite by Crossrail in its entirety and the
other pay and display car park is at Hunter Avenue which will
not be affected at all by Crossrail, so that car park remains
in its entirety. There are then two commuter car parks owned by
Network Rail. The pay and display car parks are owned and operated
by the Council and the commuter car parks are owned and operated
by Network Rail. The one at Mount Avenue is wholly unaffected
by Crossrail and the one at Hunter Avenue, which has proved to
be the most contentious, to the east, in the Environmental Statement
it was assumed that the entirety of the Hunter Avenue car park
would be taken by Crossrail for the works obviously only during
the construction period. We have worked further on that and the
position that we are now at, and have offered to the Council in
an undertaking, is that we will take no more than 50 per cent
of the Hunter Avenue car park in any event, so that is an absolute,
with reasonable endeavours to take no more than 35 per cent and
we will go further and seek to occupy a lesser amount where reasonably
practicable, so 50 per cent is the absolute maximum we can take,
we believe we can achieve 35 per cent and we are going, as far
as possible, to reduce it even further. Mr Anderson, either today
or tomorrow, will give evidence on the car parking situation.
5362. The other impact to mention briefly is
vegetation and for this we can show our photo 23 just so the Committee
know where the vegetation in issue is.[7]
It is the area I have already shown you on a previous plan. To
the north-west of the station there is an area where there will
be vegetation lost because of the extension of the platforms and
the need to erect the embankment. There will then be a much larger
area where there is existing vegetation which will not be affected.
It is worth saying on vegetation at this point that the land is
currently owned by Network Rail and there clearly has been some
removal of vegetation there already and the Committee may have
noticed in its own travels around the country that Network Rail
seems to be carrying out quite extensive tree-cutting work in
any event. That of course has nothing to do with us at the moment
and may well happen anyway.
5363. Can I then finally say on evidence that
to a great extent we are in the Committee's hands on evidence
today. I have four witnesses available: Mr Berryman to talk about
works and the engineering; Mr Anderson to talk about the general
environmental impacts and car parking; Mr Taylor on noise; and
Mr Smith on compensation and purchase policy which arises from
a number of Petitioners. I do not want to repeat evidence today
that I need to call tomorrow, but equally I do not want to disadvantage
Petitioners by not giving them the opportunity to hear evidence
today. What I would suggest is that perhaps we hear the Petitioners
first, some of whom are represented by counsel, some of whom are
representing themselves, and then perhaps at lunchtime or sooner
the Committee might give an indication as to what evidence would
be useful for the Committee to hear or I can give an indication.
5364. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Yes, thank
you, Ms Lieven.
5365. Ms Lieven: That was all I was going
to say at this stage.
5366. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you.
Mr Jardine?
The Petitions of Minnie Cockell and Mr Frederick
and Mrs Lilian White were read.
Mr Christopher Jardine appeared as Agent.
5367. Mr Jardine: Thank you, Chairman,
and Committee members for listening to me. Perhaps I can just
say that, unless there is something counsel knows that I do not,
we are firmly outside the London boroughs and I hope that we are
going to remain so!
5368. My name is Christopher Jardine and I am
acting for Minnie Cockell, my mother-in-law, under Petition 43,
and I am also acting for the White family under Petition 253.[8]
I am going to deal firstly with the points that have been accumulated
in respect of my mother-in-law.
5369. Mrs Cockell resides in Hunter Avenue and
has done so for 49 years. The front of her house faces the end
of the commuter car park furthest from the station, in other words,
the northerly end. Your Petitioner, despite the information contained
within the Promoters' Response Document, remains concerned about
the specific plans for Crossrail and the effect that construction
work will have on her quality of life. If I may, I will comment
upon some of the points raised in Petition 43 and, where appropriate,
the Promoters' Response.
5370. Looking first at paragraphs 5 and 12,
these relate to noise and visual impact. The Promoters are offering
sound insulation in the form of secondary glazing, additional
ventilation, blinds for south-facing windows and insulation treatment
of external doors. I am surprised that additional loft insulation
or even cavity wall insulation are not included. Whilst these
forms of insulation may be primarily to retain warmth, they must
also help to deaden noise, especially in the case of a well-ventilated
roof where the only remaining barrier to noise is a thin, plasterboard
ceiling, plus any insulation that might already be there.
5371. Moving to the visual impact, the Promoters'
plans are to form a temporary access road from the Hunter Avenue
car park, and counsel has demonstrated where that is, and that
is going to lead up to the embankment to rail level. It seems
inevitable that a large number of mature trees together with other
vegetation will be removed in connection with that access road
and works generally. The Promoters have responded to the effect
that the vegetation will be reinstated. They also state that the
mature trees at the foot of the embankment will be retained. Whilst
all of this is welcome, I am afraid it is not enough. The current
vegetation forms a natural and welcome barrier between the housing
and railway and obviously in the form of that barrier it takes
away some of the noise of the general railway operation. In future
it seems there will be a view of a retaining wall and, because
of the reason for the retaining wall, there will be less room
for vegetation and any replanting will take years to mature.
5372. I move on to paragraph 6 of Petition 43.
This relates to the acquisition of land. Your Petitioner refers
to the temporary occupation of the Friars Avenue pay and display
car park. This would mean a loss of 50 parking spaces and result
in the displacement of vehicles on to the highway where on-street
parking would be sought by drivers. This would result in many
more traffic movements during the day while people search for
spaces to park, causing congestion, particularly in the main shopping
area on Hutton Road. Additional inconvenience would also be caused
to residents by on-street parking in side roads during unrestricted
hours.
5373. The Promoters, in their Response Document,
refer to the possibility of phasing out spaces reserved for season
ticket holders, as in each of the Council and other car parks
there are spaces currently reserved for season ticket holders.
If this happens, I agree that the other pay and display car park
in Hunter Avenue will provide some relief for shoppers, but the
fact is that workers currently using the season ticket spaces
still have to go somewhere. If the idea is to force people on
to buses, then someone has got to provide a decent bus service.
5374. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Petition relate
to the need for Crossrail in its currently proposed form and,
whilst I recognise the comment made by counsel in her opening
address, I will bow on, if I may. Anyone wanting to cross London,
particularly to, or near to, the western extremities of the proposed
route would wish to do so far more quickly than is likely to be
possible under the existing proposal, which I understand is likely
to save six minutes typically on a journey to Heathrow.
5375. In the Response Document, the Promoters
include information paper A7 which relates to the selection of
the north-eastern terminus.[9]
One of the points made is that the existing national rail services
into Liverpool Street already operate above capacity in the peak
periods. Well, if Crossrail propose a five-minute-interval service,
why cannot one Great Eastern, the existing operator, upgrade their
existing ten-minute-interval service to a five-minute service?
5376. The Promoters make the point that if the
Crossrail service terminated at Stratford, the only possible option
would be a deep underground station which would be expensive.
I feel that there are areas adjacent to the existing station that
could well be redeveloped. I accept, however, that either a deep-level
station or a surface-level station requiring land acquisition
and alteration of the existing rail tracks would be expensive,
but it would be a drop in the ocean when compared to the overall
cost.
5377. I would just like to revert to paragraph
12 of the Petition where it is suggested there that, if Crossrail
must progress broadly in its current proposed format, then another
site should be found for the eastern sidings at Shenfield. Within
the Petition, we have suggested the small industrial area located
in the `V' formed by the divergence of the Southend and Chelmsford
railway routes, known as `Whitegates'. This was slightly incorrectly
described in the Petition and it should have been more correctly
described as the area between the Southend loop line, which is
shown after it leaves Shenfield Station and dives under the main
Chelmsford line. At this point I did supply a map of the area.[10]
On the map there is a position marked `A' and that is the area
known as Whitegates. The map reference is J7. As you can see,
`A' is between two tracks. It is an industrial area. I do not
know who owns it, though it might still be owned by Railtrack
or Network Rail. An alternative would be the embankment to the
west of the Southend route which is marked `B' on the map. That
is well away from all the housing. There is housing in Alexander
Lane which is just below that mark, the point marked `B', but
there is room for sidings parallel to the loop line railway well
away from any existing housing and, in this case, a temporary
access road could be laid across the field from the A1023 which
is to the left of the point and I have marked it `temporary activity
track'. That could come off the Chelmsford Road, thus not only
removing the worksite from the residential area, but also keeping
the supply lorries on the main road until reaching that access
road, and immediately freeing up the commuter car parks for continued
use in that capacity, not to mention removing the work from the
area of Shenfield altogether, the central area.
5378. In their Response Document, the Promoters
discount the possibility of using the Whitegates estate because
the railway is elevated on an embankment and, with respect, I
have to pose the question as to what the difference is between
that embankment and the embankments adjacent to Hunter Avenue.
In addition, the Promoters refer to a blind access on to Alexander
Lane where the loop line joins the main line and it is just at
that point that the Whitegates estate comes out on to Alexander
Lane. They make the point that there is a blind access, and I
agree, but this can easily be resolved with temporary control
traffic lights.
5379. The Promoters also state that a new bridge
would be required over Alexander Lane, and maybe that would be
ideal, but I do believe that the point needed to access the new
sidings could be immediately to the north of the existing bridge
with a two-way or bi-directional working over that part of the
Southend loop line. In fact although the work adjacent to Friars
Avenue in connection with the provision of a new platform at the
station is not my primary concern, I believe that by providing
sidings at either of points `A' or `B' on the map, there would
then be no need for any of the work currently proposed near to
Shenfield Station. Instead, if there were not sufficient platform
capacity for a train to remain in the station, then trains would
move to the sidings and simply roll into the platforms at, or
just before, the scheduled departure time. I believe that any
problems previously raised by the Promoters about this option
would be capable of being surmounted. There may be additional
costs, but I believe that these would be negligible in comparison
with the overall cost.
7 Crossrail Ref: P70, Figure 1: Shenfield Station-Approximate
Impacts on Trees (BRWDBO-14904-023). Back
8
Crossrail Ref: P70, Location of Petitioners based in Hunter
Avenue, Alexander Lane, Herrington Grove, Mount Avenue and Pine
Croft (BRWDBO-14903-008). Back
9
Crossrail Ref: P3, Information Paper A7-Implications of Terminating
Crossrail at Stratford (LINEWD-IPA7-001). Back
10
Local area map of Shenfield (BRWDBO-4305-002). Back
|
