Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5460
- 5479)
5460. I hope what we have been doing throughout
the morning, as Mr Cork indicated, is more than listening politely,
but listening with some interest and noting the points that are
being made. We do not have the powers to raise this issue in our
report. There is, with the Committee minded, a facility for us
to make a special report to the House requesting the House to
consider the issue. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Cork.
5461. I would like, as I indicated, to turn
to you, Ms Lieven, perhaps comparatively briefly, for the benefit
of the Petitioners who have appeared in front of us already. I
think it would be helpful for the Committee and the petitioners
briefly to hear from you outlining the promoter's response to
the issues raised by the Petitioners who we have heard so far.
5462. Ms Lieven: I will do my best, Sir,
in brief time. The points that were raised were the very big picture
and the very small picture. I will try and pick up a series of
them.
5463. The first witness who I would intend to
call would be Mr Berryman, who is the engineering witness. The
topics which he would cover, and our brief response to them, are
logically first why are we going to Shenfield. There are considerable
benefits to Shenfield in terms of providing through-services west
of Liverpool Street. In answer to Mr Cork, there is no question
of people having to change if they want to go to Tottenham Court
Road. We appreciate that the fast services provide a faster route
into Liverpool Street. We are not changing the fast services.
That is an important point to emphasise because it is one a number
of petitioners have raised, both orally and in writing, and perhaps
have been a bit confused about. The fast services will continue
to operate from Shenfield. People will have a choice, but the
other important benefit to Shenfield is that there will be a very
significant reduction in congestion on the lines going to Liverpool
Street which will mean that literally the trains will be less
crowded but also the Committee will remember from the discussions
in the City's petition at Liverpool Street a major benefit from
Crossrail is that we free up capacity going into Liverpool Street
itself, both in terms of platforms and train paths. Trains going
into Liverpool Street will have the opportunity to be more punctual
but also, importantly, there will be scope for new different,
additional services to use Liverpool Street overground station.
That is why the proposal that Mr Jardine put forward, which is
if they are going to spend all this money on Crossrail why do
they not just put in double the services on the one line, is not
possible because it would not be possible to get that number of
trains into Liverpool Street overground station.
5464. The argument as to why Shenfield and not
Stratford or one of the intermediate stations is set out in one
of our information papers, A7, in detail.[14]
Mr Berryman will speak to it more if necessary but in very brief
terms it can be summed up in two ways.
5465. We have looked at Stratford closely. It
would be impossible to terminate the trains at Stratford at an
extension to the overground station. If it terminates at Stratford,
it can only be done underground and that would be enormously expensive.
The very rough cost estimate is something in the region of 300-400
million.
5466. If the trains are terminated anywhere
east of Stratford—Gidea Park and Romford have been proposed—first
of all, extensive works, more extensive than at Shenfield, would
be required at both stations but equally importantly there would
be the residual services between, say, Romford and Shenfield which
would have to be incorporated onto the same lines. In operational
terms, it simply would not work. The transport arguments for terminating
at Shenfield are overwhelming.
5467. The other thing which Mr Berryman will
cover which I touched on in opening and I do not need to go through
in much detail now is why these particular works are needed at
Shenfield, why the platform needs to be extended, why the sidings
have to be built and why different train tracks have to be moved.
Fundamentally, it is all in order to ensure the best possible
operation of Crossrail and the continuing efficient operation
of other services. The last thing we want is for Crossrail to
come along and mess up the other services on the Great Eastern
Line.
5468. The additional works that have been worked
up over the last year or two at Shenfield are all about segregating
Crossrail in order to maximise its and other services' operational
efficiency.
5469. Mr Jardine suggested alternative locations
for the sidings as he showed on his plan. Mr Berryman can deal
with that in detail. We did respond to it in the petition response
document. It is a different level so there would be very significant
earth movements that would be required and it would also require
additional engineering to get the trains back into the right place.
Both operationally and in construction terms it would not be a
desirable option.
5470. Before I leave the subjects that Mr Berryman
will deal with, can I just touch on something Mr Cork raised which
is Romford? I am not intending to deal with the depot at Romford
today. Mr Cork raised it while the Chairman was out of the room.
It is not a matter for today's petitions and we will deal with
that separately.
5471. The second area in no particular order
that we will call evidence on is for Mr Thornley-Taylor on noise.
The Committee has already heard some evidence on noise impacts
and how they are assessed but this will be the first time in this
type of residential location. There will be evidence on the assessment
of noise which is really a matter I leave for Mr Thornley-Taylor.
I am not going to explain it now.
5472. Also importantly, the Committee already
knows about our approach to the control and mitigation of airborne
noise through the environmental minimum requirements and the code
of construction practice. There is a very significant suite of
controls to ensure that construction noise is kept to a reasonable
minimum. There is no point pretending that there will not be a
noise impact on some of the people you have heard from this morning.
What we have to show the Committee is that in engineering terms
what we are proposing is appropriate and that we are doing everything
reasonable to mitigate that noise. Mr Thornley-Taylor can give
evidence on that.
5473. He will also give evidence on the other
part of mitigation which, assuming we have done everything reasonable
to mitigate the noise at source, there are ways to mitigate it
at receptor—i.e., by noise insulation and temporary rehousing
where appropriate. As far as noise insulation is concerned, it
is covered in an annex to the code of construction practice as
to precisely what it means and the terms of it. If the assessment
shows that noise insulation will not produce an acceptable environment
for the person living in the house, then we move to temporary
rehousing.
5474. The other thing to touch on here which
the Committee already knows about, largely from the Smithfield
Traders' Association Petition, is the very significant role of
the local planning authority, as Mr Jardine quite rightly pointed
out, Brentwood Borough Council.
5475. The Committee will remember that through
the mechanism of section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act the
local planning authority has considerable power over the hours
of operation, the lorry routes and the best practical means of
construction, all of which gives them a great deal of control
on how noise and dust are mitigated. That is probably all it is
appropriate for me to say on that. There is a method for mitigation
both at source and at receptor. Nobody can deny that there will
be people who will suffer noise and for whom it will be sometimes
a significant inconvenience, but there is a well worked out structure
for dealing with that to a degree which has been found to be acceptable.
5476. The next area is compensation. Mr Smith
will go through again with you briefly what compensation may be
available but probably the most important issue for the petitioners
we have heard this morning and indeed many of the others is to
explain that the service of blight notices which occurs if land
is to be acquired and the hardship policy which Crossrail has
which is set out in information paper C8, the criteria that apply
and the timing.[15]
5477. The point I would like to stress now is
that the hardship policy is already in operation. If there are
people now who meet the criteria, they can apply now. In the case
of Mr and Mrs Fanning, they did apply. They were tested against
the criteria and it was found that the criteria were not met,
but the policy is already in effect. For people who fall into
that category and meet the criteria—Mr Smith can explain
the criteria in detail—that possibility does arise now.
5478. Finally, on car parking, Mr Anderson can
give evidence. Car parking is an issue that the council will undoubtedly
come back to again tomorrow so Mr Anderson will have to give evidence
on this tomorrow as well. In terms of a very brief response on
car parking now, there has been from the council a particular
concern about pay and display parking and the impact on the shops
in Shenfield. That is a point that has been raised by some of
the petitioners this morning.
5479. Mr Anderson's evidence, based on surveys
which have been shown to the council, shows that a large amount
of the current pay and display parking is being let by the council
on annual permits to local businesses so it is not available for
use by shoppers. Mr Anderson can show you in the figures that
if the permits were not given out and the pay and display car
parking was used for pay and display there would be no overall
reduction in the amount of available pay and display parking.
That specific problem, the lack of pay and display parking for
shopping in Shenfield, can be dealt with. It is in the council's
own gift to reorganise the use of its two car parks.
14 Crossrail Ref: P3, Information Paper A7-Implications
of Terminating Crossrail at Stratford (LINEWD-IPA7-001). Back
15
Crossrail Information Paper C8-Purchase of Property in cases
of hardship (LINEWD-IPC8-001). Back
| 
