Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5580
- 5599)
5580. Petitioner 263 is Mr and Mrs Best of 73
Friars Avenue. They back on to the works. They are concerned with
noise, dust and the congestion caused due to lack of parking,
deterring people from shopping again, the viability of shops,
therefore, being a concern as well as the loss of the village
character of Shenfield of which we have heard, I think, a fair
amount this morning. They are concerned at the effect on their
own ill-health from the noise and loud train warning horns necessary
during the work which are liable, they fear, to be continuous
or at least regularly repeated in the course of the works, and
they are concerned that that will affect the use of their garden
as well.
5581. The Promoters say that they will use the
best possible means to mitigate the effects of these various disadvantages.
The Petitioners say that they would expect that, but that does
not change or remove the basic problem that this particular set
of circumstances is being visited on them, and Mr and Mrs Best
are 81 and 78 years of age respectively and have lived there for
36 years. One can well understand the strength of their feeling.
5582. Petitioner 264 is Mrs Gibbons from 1A
Friars Avenue. She too faces on to the site. She summarises her
concerns as noise, pollution, lighting, congestion, vibration
and the possible devaluation of her property. She is concerned
at the potential for 24-hour working given that she is close to,
or fronts in fact, the short stay car park and access, therefore,
to the Friars Avenue site. Again I think residents are looking
for some reassurance as to what controls can be applied in the
face of those concerns.
5583. Petitioner 268 is Mrs Tattersall of `Sunlawn',
30 Herington Grove. Mrs Tattersall is 82 and she has a housekeeper
aged 81, Sarah Atkinson. They will both be seriously affected
by noise, dust and disturbance. Mrs Tattersall had been contemplating
selling her property, but now fears she will be unable to do so
due to planning blight. She considers that her property will need
adequate sound-proofing to minimise the disturbance, and compensation
for that disturbance and diminution in the value of her property
is one of her concerns. Her housekeeper has mobility problems
and will be affected by the reduction in parking in Shenfield
because she needs to be transported by car.
5584. Petitioner 271 is Mr and Mrs Ashton of
63 Friars Avenue. They too face on to the site. They are concerned
about noise and disruption during the construction phase, particularly
not being able to enjoy their back garden, for which they have
received no provision. The noise of the new frequent trains once
the project is finished is a concern to them, as well as the dust
and pollution over the two-year period or so of the works as they
have two young children aged under two years, and the possible
adverse effects the Crossrail project will have on the value of
their property. Those points are well detailed in their Petition
and they particularly set out, if I may say, at paragraph 7 of
their Petition, and I shall not go into it other than draw attention
to it, a very clear summary of the `no benefit' argument in terms
of rail services.
5585. Petitioner 272 is Mr and Mrs Pointer of
1 Pinecroft, Hutton Mount. Some reference was made this morning,
sir, to Hutton Mount. Just very briefly, it is the area south
or south-west of the station and it is, as the name implies, an
area of high ground, and that leads some Petitioners from that
area to feel that they are not shielded from the noise and other
impacts, as the Promoters may believe. It is also, I think, the
case that Hutton Mount, and we will look at one or two comments
in relation to it in a second, is an area which is very pleasant
and one where some of the comments that Crossrail have made about
the nature of Shenfield and its immediate surroundings leave people
in Hutton Mount to wonder the degree to which Hutton Mount has
been investigated or is known to Crossrail.
5586. Mr and Mrs Pointer make five points. They
say that their house, according to the Crossrail Environmental
Statement, is "not likely to experience a significant noise
and vibration impact". They are 200 yards away, but, as I
have just said, it is a steep hill and they fear that Pinecroft,
their road, Greenway, half-way up the hill, and Roundwood Avenue,
on the brow of the hill, will suffer severe noise nuisance. In
the evenings they can hear the existing tannoy, they would hear
all the works at the station, and that would constitute severe
noise pollution, from their point of view.
5587. They made a different point at paragraph
2, that the Gatwick Express is used as a dedicated track at present
and the Gatwick Express is due to be withdrawn, and I assume that
is correct, and they say that the normal use of track for existing
services is a more efficient way of providing services. As to
the degree to which there is proposed to be a dedicated platform
and a segregated service for Crossrail, there will be some questions
there to be examined by comparison with other schemes.
5588. They make the point that the semi-fast
as well as the slow services are both to be replaced by Crossrail
for local use and that this actually reduces the quality of service
for existing users and could indeed increase the time it takes
to get to Stratford on the slower trains. Even Crossrail, they
say, admit that "a robust train service management plan"
will be needed to minimise delays, and they are concerned that
the existing long-distance services and goods services will be
disrupted from time to time as the tracks are already near capacity.
They also point to what will happen with the planned housing development
in the future to exacerbate this.
5589. They deal in their final paragraph, and
I feel I should just draw attention to this, that they wish to
lodge a formal protest at the position of the Secretary of State,
as it was expressed first at second reading and subsequently at
the instruction in January 2006, and they believe that it is not
democratic for the Committee not to be able to consider varying
the terminus at Shenfield.
5590. Petitioner 274 is the Hutton Mount Association
who, as you would expect, have a number of points in relation
to that area. I understand there are some 500 residents in the
Hutton Mount area, about 350 of whom are members of this Residents'
Association. They make the points not dissimilar from those made
by Mr Marshall who, I believe, is now the Chairman of the Association.
Therefore, they question the need for the terminus and they point
to the need for a comprehensive consultation system, as I was
describing a moment ago over noise. They would like Brentwood
Council to have control of the parking outcome, also the hours
of work and lorry movements. They have concerns over the loss
of trees and their replacement with mature specimens and that
Brentwood Borough Council should be in a position to have wide
control over the planning aspects of the scheme.
5591. Petitioner 276 is Mr and Mrs Ross of 16
Herington Grove. They too back on to the site. They are 71 and
76 years old respectively and are greatly stressed at the thought
of temporary removal and/or adjacent homes also being unoccupied
near them. They may well be rehoused, I hope. It is likely that
noise and dust will continue for a significant time outside and
inside the house and afterwards. They are worried about the value
of their property and, in view of their age, they are concerned
that they may be forced to sell the house at a time which is detrimental
to them.
5592. They say that there is already traffic
congestion around the station and that that will get worse as
a result of this development. There is also a great lack of parking.
Herington Grove and other roads have no pavement and are already
dangerous for pedestrians and they are concerned that if existing
parking restrictions in side roads are released, the situation
could well become more dangerous. That, sir, does relate directly
to one of the points which was being discussed this morning and
may arise if we hear further evidence as to parking. One of the
Crossrail proposals appears to be that the Borough Council, and
once again they want to put the responsibility there, should release
the parking restrictions on the side roads and obviously if they
do that, there would be a knock-on effect as to, in the view of
Mr and Mrs Ross, road safety, but also the access and usability
of those side roads.
5593. Petitioner 277 is the Brentwood Chamber
of Commerce and they make the point that I hope I outlined a moment
ago in relation to the effect on business of the parking changes.
They say that there will be severe disruption to the business
and community life of Shenfield during the construction of the
terminus, particularly because the contractor's vehicles will
take over the parking resource, and customers will stay away due
to a lack of parking facilities. There are two sides to this:
that workers will not be able to get to work in the shops necessarily
or the local businesses; and customers of the shops will be driven
away by lack of parking facilities. They see the possibility that
the parking issue will remain a problem after construction finishes
as there will be large numbers of customers for Crossrail who
will need to park in Shenfield and take up spaces.
5594. Petitioner 279 is Daniel and Gillian Heartshorne
of `The Mill', Greenway, Hutton Mount. They express their regret
that the Committee cannot look at the question of the Shenfield
terminus. They believe that Crossrail have underestimated the
ramifications of the works on Shenfield and those living and working
locally, and they point to the recent minor works, of which reference
was made this morning, of the railway bridge in Alexander Lane
and the disruption that that caused, and other weekend maintenance
work, to show that there may be a greater effect than Crossrail
have accepted.
5595. They are also concerned that Crossrail
appear not to recognise the unique character and nature of Shenfield
and the Hutton Mount estate, as I mentioned a moment ago. You
will see that they invite your Committee, sir, to see the locality
for yourselves before making your recommendations.
5596. They make, I think, three other points
briefly. They believe that Crossrail do not understand the Hutton
Mount estate in this particular respect, that it has a number
of private roads which are actually subject to upkeep by the owners
and if there is an increase of traffic in that area to the south-west
of the station, then there could be both real safety concerns
and also additional responsibility for householders on roads that
are not designed to take any significant amount of traffic.
5597. Their particular house, `The Mills', at
the top of Greenway, they are in what they call a `natural amphitheatre'
relative to the rail station and, therefore, there will be far
more noise, vibration and light pollution than the map might indicate.
They can see the lights from the station from where they are at
the moment and are not screened by the intervening properties.
5598. Finally, they say that the loss of parking
and amenity in Shenfield and the effect on businesses will be
greater than is stated and Crossrail should explain the basis
of their assumptions.
5599. Finally, Petitioner 322 is Mr and Mrs
Whitfield of 21 Herington Grove. They are concerned about noise,
they face on to the site, and they understand that they may qualify
for noise insulation, but they are asking for more information
and reassurance about the basis of the assessment, which is the
point which has come up more than once. They ask about what mechanisms
will be put in place for assessing noise, whether they will be
monitored, whether, if the noise levels exceed what Crossrail
think they are going to be, there will be action taken and additional
rights. They say that the Promoters should agree the level of
noise impact on the property and the level of insulation that
is appropriate and then be adjusted if the levels are higher than
forecast, and they would prefer the appointment of noise experts
at the Promoters' cost.
|
