Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5540
- 5559)
5540. Sir, I have come to the end of what I
regard as my introduction. I wonder whether it would be of assistance
to you to know that I now propose to turn to the individual submissions,
were you to wish me to do so, or to pause at this moment.
5541. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Looking at
the time, Mr Welfare, I shall suspend the sitting now until after
lunch, and then we will continue.
After a short adjournment
5542. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Welfare,
would you please continue?
5543. Mr Welfare: Thank you, sir. I had
come to the end of my introduction to the issues that the residents
whom I represent have raised. I wanted now, relatively briefly,
to go through the points that they have raised using the bullet
points or summaries that they have provided to the Committee.
The first of those is Petitioner No 238, Mr Derek Hurst, 71 Friars
Avenue. Mr Hurst makes five points in his summary; the first is
that residents of his road, Friars Road, as we were hearing this
morning, will be significantly affected by noise and/or visual
impact and that some residents may be eligible for insulation
or re-housing, though he is not one of them. His house backs on
to the site of the works. He says that he does not enjoy good
health.
5544. He is concerned, in his second point,
about blight to his property. He is concerned, in his third point,
about working hours (that, again, was touched on this morning);
the expectation being that working will begin at 7am until 5pm
on weekdays and 7am until 2pm on Saturdays. I think there may
be some clarification needed as to working hours that are currently
expected or indeed the powers of the borough councils in relation
to them. There is also a concern of residents, and Mr Hurst points
to it, of work outside those hours, and reference was made this
morning to the laying of track and other means of access or the
clearance of materials that may be necessary in the course of
construction. Residents are simply not aware of the full basis
on which Crossrail proposals should be working. Mr Hurst says,
as do many others, that it should be restricted to shorter hours,
certainly starting no earlier than 8am on weekdays and 9am on
Saturday.
5545. He relies on rail travel. He believes
there will be disruption to the service and is particularly concerned
about use of the lifts at the station—whether they will
at times be out of commission—and raises the question of
compensation in relation to that. He raises the point that a number
of residents will point to, whether Crossrail really needs another
platform—there are five already. He, of course, points to
the view that it should not run from Shenfield at all, as we discussed
this morning, for the reasons of the existing 10-minute service.
5546. The next Petitioner, number 239, is Mrs
Young, of 53 Spurgate, Shenfield. She makes some points in the
middle part of her summary, the main point being point five of
her Petition, which is to do with disability. She has a disability
parking card and she is a disabled person. Her concern is that
when the Friars Avenue car park is closed she may not be able
to park close to the shops and she will need to go to a more distant
shopping centre by car. That will involve her in extra cost, which
she can ill-afford. She anticipates continued parking problems
in Shenfield after the works are completed, and the pressure that
will put on parking spaces and may need to move house for that
reason. She therefore adds that argument to her view that the
Crossrail terminus should be relocated at Stratford. Aside from
that question, there are some issues there to do with disabled
access and the availability of facilities for disabled people
at Shenfield Station.
5547. Petitioner number 240 is Mr and Mrs Wise
of 51 Friars Avenue. You will see, sir, that a large number of
these Petitioners are, as I said this morning, quite close to
the station. They are concerned, in their first point, about noise
disturbance and escalation of road traffic and the parking problems
that have been referred to. Noise is a recurrent feature of many
of the submissions which have been made. They are concerned, also,
at not only the increase in the number of trains through Shenfield
Station but the hours at which they will run. That is a point
on which I have not heard a clear statement from Crossrail; whether
there will be trains in the early hours and whether there will
be an increase in train noise for local residents.
5548. They anticipate listening to work going
on on the line and workmen and test-trains, and so on, through
the night, a lot of which happens at the moment. The ground shakes
now when heavy goods vehicles go by and they would like to know
whether they will be recompensed for the noise and inconvenience,
and the possibility of structural damage to their property as
a result of the increased use of the line through Shenfield. There
has been subsidence at a neighbour's property and at another location
in Woodway Bridge. So there is an issue there in engineering terms
that may need examination.
5549. In the third point in the bullet points
they also point to devaluation of the property. The third point
is that Friars Avenue will be a route for construction vehicles,
and they are afraid that there will be noise day and night not
simply during the working hours described for the work to be carried
out. The loss of car parking at Friars Avenue simply means normal
car parking facilities for people who use Shenfield town centre
will be severely restricted for those who live there and there
will be a knock-on effect. They make a suggestion, in the final
paragraph, that Ilford rather than Shenfield and the connecting
routes might be a better alternative location as a site for Crossrail.
5550. Moving on to the next Petitioner, Mr and
Mrs Austin, Petition number 241, their house, 47 Friars Avenue,
also backs on to the site of the proposed new sidings and platform
to the west. Mr and Mrs Austin are retired and not in good health.
They have lived in their house in the Shenfield community since
1955—51 years. Therefore, they have seen it and they know
the area well. The Shenfield neighbourhood, they are concerned
about the possible effects there may be—detrimental effects—but
common-sense does indicate that traffic congestion and the strain
on parking facilities will not improve if there are increased
rail services from the station. As you can see from the estimate,
as I pointed out this morning, there are only 100 extra passengers
and if that proves wrong that would mean more visitors to the
station and more congestion.
5551. There does not, they say, appear to have
been a quantitative assessment of the impact on Shenfield from
the proposal to use that station as the terminus. The only arguments
put forward are it cannot be anywhere else and for Mr and Mrs
Austin, who have had the benefit of hearing what my learned friend
Ms Lieven said this morning, that is a fair summary; that is what
Crossrail is saying—it cannot be anywhere else.
5552. If Stratford is not feasible, they say,
surely there must be options to the east. They say that they note
that the response, I think, it is from the developers, that the
loss of Friars Avenue is not predicted to give rise to any significant
impacts for road users. They are concerned that there is a dangerous
junction in that area and there could be an increase of danger
to road users and pedestrians in that area from the use of the
Friars Avenue car park for construction purposes.
5553. They are also concerned, as was touched
on this morning, at the loss of vegetation in recent times. My
learned friend was saying that is something that Network Rail
have been doing rather than anything to do with Crossrail. One
accepts that statement but you will see the concerns, that people
can see the vegetation beginning to go and they can see what the
likely look of the area could be once it has been taken away from
some areas by Crossrail.
5554. They also point, at the bottom of their
submission, to there being "no suitable mechanisms for compensating
us for the loss in value of our house, the loss of amenity of
our garden" or the required expenditure by them to upgrade
their double glazing. Those are points which the Committee may
wish to examine in relation to any evidence it hears as to compensation
from Crossrail.
5555. The next submission is from Mr and Mrs
Abbott, Petitioners number 242. They have not submitted a summary
as such but their points are summarised in the Promoter's response
to their Petition. I would like to highlight what they are briefly.
They are concerned about noise and vibration and visual impact,
and indeed the Promoter accepts that Herington Grove will be significantly
affected by noise or visual impact. They are concerned at the
impact on small retail outlets to the north of the station along
Hutton Road—essentially, that a small block of local shops
is retained. Perhaps I could make the point at this juncture that
we had an exchange this morning about car parking. My understanding
is that the car parking permits are very much connected to the
employment in the town of Shenfield, people employed at the shops.
Therefore, there is a question—it is not one for residents—on
what Crossrail is suggesting is a solution to parking, namely
moving residents out of the car parking areas and removing their
tickets and allowing others the opportunity to park, would have
a serious impact because of the purpose for which those permits
are there in the first place. I do think that is something to
take into account.
5556. Mr and Mrs Abbott raise questions as to
whether the local infrastructure and roads in the area can support
an expanded station, and concerns of the possibility of shifting
the market for shopping away from local shops in their area. They
are also concerned that there are no specific plans to deal with
increased congestion in Shenfield Broadway as a result of what
is proposed. They have environmental concerns and Crossrail have
accepted that there will be significant noise, dust and floodlighting
environmental impacts from what is proposed. They voice specific
concern at the loss of car parking spaces then proposed, 300 at
that stage, or more, overall in Hunter Avenue and Friars Avenue.
That has now, as we know, been reduced in relation to Hunter Avenue,
and that has led to the loss of something like 160, or 170 car
parking spaces.
5557. Sir, moving on to Petitioner 245, Mr and
Mrs Kingshott of 75 Friars Avenue, their main objections are the
destruction of the shopping parade, as they see it, due to both
noise and inadequate parking, the loss of the value of their own
property, and the disruption over a period of perhaps two years
that will be suffered as to noise of lorries going to and fro
in front of their house, and so on. Shenfield is already quite
congested and question whether it can cope with additional traffic.
And the familiar point, perhaps, now to the Committee of the lack
of saving of time to go to Heathrow.
5558. Petitioner number 248 is Mr Owen Southcott,
of Homebrook, Alexander Lane, Shenfield. He makes, literally,
a series of bullet points in his submission. His house faces the
site of the proposed works and he will be significantly affected
by noise. There will be a visual impact on him, there will be
pollution and dirt from the development—the windows and
paintwork of his house. He will, apparently, be eligible for insulation
or possibly re-housing but traffic and parking will affect the
area and, in his view, a Stratford site makes more sense on environmental,
economic and strategic grounds.
5559. Petitioner number 249 is Mr and Mrs Bangert
of 2 Kingfisher Close, Hutton. They are about half-a-mile from
the station. Mr and Mrs Bangert are aged 76 and 71 and they make
two points. Their points are to do with car parking. They are
concerned that shoppers will be forced elsewhere and that trade
will be depressed in the shopping parade and there have been a
number of indications that shops may become unprofitable as a
result of development during the period of construction. Mr Bangert
himself is disabled, is unable to walk to shops and he would find
it necessary to go elsewhere because of the lack of car parking.
In relation to pollution, roads that are already congested will
become worse and this connected with the activity of lorries serving
the development means there will be more atmospheric pollution.
Mrs Bangert suffers from the condition of asthma and has a weak
chest and is likely to suffer in consequence of that increase
in pollution.
|
