Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5400
- 5419)
5400. The next point I would like to raise is
the impact on the Shenfield community. One of the best features
of Shenfield is that it has a small village feel, but is very
close to London and it is on the fast train line which I think
is quite unique for south-east London. We feel that Crossrail
will change all this.
5401. Other Petitioners have talked about parking
in the area. Parking is already a problem in the Shenfield area
and this will make it more acute. I also ask whether Crossrail
has considered what impact this will have on the local shops and
businesses during this period. As an example, Shenfield came to
a standstill recently when Alexander Lane was closed for bridge
supporting work. I only can guess what will happen when Crossrail
is under construction. Congestion is already quite high in the
area near the train station and this will be much worse during
the construction phase and possibly worse afterwards. How can
Crossrail put Shenfield into so much upheaval and not expect the
atmosphere of the community to change and yet provide no benefits
for Shenfield at all?
5402. Finally, I would just like to close by
saying that whilst we understand that the Committee has no authority
to recommend a change to the terminus of the cross-London link,
we would like to note for the record that we believe that: (a)
there is no benefit to Shenfield from the proposed Crossrail scheme;
(b) that Shenfield has only been chosen because it is the cheapest
option to implement; and (c) the fact that the public consultation
exercise does not include the ability to petition against the
terminus being at Shenfield, I would like to ask where the democracy
is in this process. Thank you for your time and patience.
5403. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you,
Mr Owens. Could I call Mr Sabin?
The Petition of Mr Michael Sabin was read.
The Petitioner appeared in person.
5404. Mr Sabin: Thank you, Chairman,
for hearing my Petition. My name is Michael Sabin and I am a former
Executive Director of Bass Charrington's, now retired, but I continue
as a part-time consultant. My wife and I have lived in Hutton
Mount for 26 years. It is only a short distance from Shenfield
Station and in close earshot to all the railway sounds that come
from there, and even the strange and unintelligible station announcements
can be heard.
5405. In order to save time and repetition,
I confirm that following Crossrail's detailed response to my Petition,
I sent them a letter as a counter-response highlighting my continuing
concerns and that letter dated 2 March was copied to your Clerk
and Winckworth Sherwood. That summarises my points and, with your
agreement, I would like to use this as my reference.
5406. May I also say at the outset that I am
wholly supportive of the need for much better public transport.
We desperately need to have a long-term visionary scheme to avoid
the snarling up of our roads, to conserve energy and to reduce
pollution. I am not against that sort of development. Unfortunately,
Crossrail does not seem to have that vision and offers little
or no benefit to those of us who live in the east, merely replacing
the excellent service we currently enjoy and causing enormous
upheaval and disturbance in the process.
5407. I turn to my concern about the noise.
The assessment made by Crossrail is not conclusive. They use the
words, "7 Pinecroft", my address, "is unlikely
to experience significant noise and vibration during construction".
It shows that they are not really sure about this problem and
they have not taken into account the continuous noise that we
will suffer going on all day long and into the evening. In my
view, it will be very debilitating and detrimental to my wife's
health, which is pretty poor, and she has a need to sleep during
the day. We are higher up on the Mount, level with the rail lines,
and the noise rises up to us. I do not want to wait for decibel
tests and consequent delays in sorting out this problem. I shall
be forced obviously to install sound-proofing myself, but I do
expect Crossrail to reimburse me and to give greater consideration
to elderly and infirm people, residents, who will undoubtedly
suffer from 18 months of continuous noise. I seek your support
in this matter.
5408. I turn to the problem of the loss of car
parking. In one breath, Crossrail state that this will not inhibit
business in Shenfield, yet in their Environmental Statement they
say that the loss of the car parks for most of the construction
period will have a significant impact. They must really believe
their first statement as they take four pages and 27 points, no
less, to explain matters in their response to me. The loss of
the Friars Avenue shoppers' car park and the increased pressure
from loss of commuter parking will cause very serious problems
for shoppers and shopkeepers. Finding a space even now in Shenfield
is a real problem in the very popular and busy shopping area with
many banks, service providers, specialist shops and food stores
as well as a busy post office. The recent bridge works in Alexander
Lane, which was closed for months at the southern end, caused
vastly increased traffic through Shenfield and this demonstrates
to me how much extra pressure can be caused by even a partial
road closure.
5409. Crossrail have criticised the Council
for having car parking season tickets, but they should be aware
that shop and office workers have to park somewhere and you cannot
run shops without workers and employees. I made the suggestion
to Crossrail that they should consider a park-and-ride scheme,
using vacant land in Shenfield. This would be ideal for commuters
and if it was a low-priced parking situation or even free, commuters
would easily get to and from the station using taxis which are
plentiful. I am told they have abandoned this idea, but I believe
it should be reviewed again. Commuters do not want to drive further,
as suggested, to Brentwood, particularly during the rush-hour,
even if there are some spaces apparently available there. In the
past week, Crossrail have stated that they are prepared to limit
their space requirement in the Hunter Avenue car park for commuters.
This would release, they say, possibly up to two-thirds of the
car park back to commuters. Now, it seems to me that if Crossrail
use the centre section of that car park for access or equipment,
it would ease the pressure on those houses adjoining the northern
end, and then if Crossrail could negotiate with Network Rail and
Brentwood Council, surely space could be released to be made available
to shoppers who are really suffering the most, with perhaps the
northern section used for commuters as it immediately adjoins
the existing commuter car park by the Council. This will be a
much more balanced solution. For some reason Crossrail have continuously
undervalued the quality of Shenfield and Hutton Mount, which is
probably the most desirable residential area in South Essex. It
is a unique place with a semi-rural atmosphere served by very
high quality specialist shops.
5410. Significantly, Shenfield's developments
and attractions over the years, since as far back as 1910, have
been mainly due to the excellent existing train services to the
City and to London. This very fact brings me to my final points
as shown by Petition number item 6, (a) to (g) and item 7, 8 and
9. It is unfortunate that there has been confusion over what was
said by the Secretary of State because a number of people have
been led to make petitions which they now believe may not result
in the recommendation to change the route or terminus. However,
the reason that so many residents object to the terminus at Shenfield
is because they cannot see any benefit in wasting money on a line
that already offers a first-class service.
5411. They cannot see why they should end up
with longer journey times than at present from the poor station
service. There are many residents who are highly intelligent business
executives working in London. Why would they object to Crossrail
if it was so beneficial. There is no demand in Shenfield for Crossrail
and it appears that it cannot be justified financially or in revenue
terms.
5412. Crossrail themselves originally forecasted
in an environmental statement that only a small increase in passengers
would result using Shenfield. Although I have no connection with
the alternative Superlink scheme, which some of you may have seen
and for which I have provided a complete drawing, this is a more
radical and visionary scheme producing much better returns. I
have studied their plans thoroughly. As you will see from the
copy, I would like to point out that this scheme, even though
more ambitious than Crossrail, does not even touch the Shenfield
to Liverpool Street Corridor, it does not use it all. It rightly
accepts, in my view, that the Shenfield Corridor is a mature and
efficient line.
5413. Superlink does have a junction at Ilford
because it comes from Stratford via Canary Wharf and then to Ilford
at a junction. It then goes north and, secondly, it sensibly has
regional lines up to Harlow and Stanstead Airport. picking up
the new housing expansion which is proposed by John Prescott's
Department, we are due to have 6,000 new houses on the North Weald
aerodrome site. I am sure this is an area that could be considered
for the future, even though not at this present time.
5414. There are many other regional lines in
the Superlink scheme, and the core of the cross London route is
retained right through to Maidenhead, so why if Superlink can
see no need for the Shenfield Corridor, does Crossrail wish to
pursue it. It is unsuitable and uneconomical. What I would not
give to be able to go North without travelling to Central London
every time in order to get to places like Stanstead and maybe
even Cambridge.
5415. Chairman, that, I hope, covers all the
points I wish to make. I do hope your Committee will be able to
visit Shenfield and see the situation for themselves. Thank you.
5416. Chairman: Thank you Mr Sabin. As
you yourself acknowledged, the final part of your submission of
evidence was beyond the terms of reference of the Committee, but,
nonetheless, it is useful and it gives you an opportunity to put
them on the record. Next we have Maxine Fanning.
The Petitioner of Mrs Maxine Fanning
The Petitioner appeared in person.
5417. Mrs Fanning: Mr Chairman, ladies
and gentlemen, my husband and I have asked to appear before the
Select Committee today to put forward our case against the Crossrail
initiative. We will, if we may, initially comment on the personal
aspects of the initiative which have had, and will continue to
have, a further impact on our lives.
5418. We believe that you will already have
been provided with and have read our petition. In addition, we
hope you have also been provided with a copy of our Hardship Application,
Crossrail's rejection and the ensuing correspondence between Mr
Tim Neate and ourselves. We had hoped that a response to our last
letter would have been received from at least one of the addressees
prior to our appearing before you, but regrettably this has not
been the case.
5419. We believe that by providing you with
a copy of this personal correspondence it shows quite clearly
that Crossrail do not appear to have got their act together even
at this early stage of the proceedings. One of our main concerns
is if they are not following their stated procedures at the outset,
what problems are we, the public, going to be faced with in the
coming years.
| 
