Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5620 - 5639)

  5620. Mr Hollobone: Given the escalated cost of an underground terminal at Stratford and the cost of a terminus at Shenfield, would you agree with me that there is the potential for a substantial increase in the compensation due to the house holders and the community in general in Shenfield and due to a difference in those two costs?

  5621. Mr Welfare: In as much, Sir, as there is a difference between those two costings, as you say, we do not know, that could lead to a conclusion that there was scope for compensation. In that event, in default of a better outcome, if residents want to do that, I have no doubt that would be very welcome. If I may, on your point, I think it is true to say that we have not heard the cost of Shenfield, which we have acknowledged, we have not heard the cost of Stratford and we have not, as far as I am aware, got a cost for each of the stations on the way to Shenfield.

  5622. If it is Stratford that has been talked about in regards to the £500 million, which my learned friend suggested this morning, what is the figure for all of them added together in terms of a comparison. He makes a different point as well which is that there is then a difference between those two figures and should that be available for compensation for people in the worst affected areas. This is certainly one of those areas and one where there is extremely strong feeling.

  5623. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Welfare, thank you very much. What I intend to do is call the last three Petitioners this afternoon. Can I call Mr Alistair Ennals.

  The Petition of Alistair and Susan Ennals.

  The Petitioners appeared in person.

  5624. Mrs Ennals: I am speaking on behalf of my husband because he has a severe sight impairment. I have brought today some photographs. I do not know whether you are familiar with the area of Hunter Avenue, but it shows our house in relation to the electricity—

  5625. Mr Ennals: May I explain, Sir, that in the statement my wife is going to read reference is made to a person and work experience and that is mine rather than my wife's.

  5626. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you for the clarification.

  5627. Mrs Ennals: You will see from the photographers that the road Hunter Avenue is extremely narrow.[20] In fact, I noted it this morning and it is approximately 20 feet, ten inches wide. It also shows the end of the Hunter Avenue Season Ticket Car Park, which abuts onto the electricity substation and our house. You can see from these photographs the screening provided by the trees at present along the railway bank, the height of the railway bank and also you will see how close the trains are, on the second sheet, to our back garden where the top of the fence is shown at the bottom and the level of the railway is, in fact, level with our bedroom windows.


  5628. I will now read what my husband has prepared: your Petitioners are Alastair Mac Ennals and Susan Jane Ennals. Our Petition number is 68, and we would urge you to read our Petition and apply your critical analysis to the promoter's responses.

  5629. Your Petitioners have an interest in the Crossrail Bill because (a) their house, 69 Hunter Avenue, Shenfield, adjoins the Hunter Avenue Season Ticket Car Park, which is to be used as a work site by the nominated undertaker and (b) their property at the rear also faces the embankment which is the site of the proposed eastern Sidings at Shenfield Station. Those sidings will be situated at the first floor level of your Petitioners house. In addition, your Petitioners will be affected adversely by any congestion caused by lorry traffic in Hunter Avenue.

  5630. Finally, your Petitioners are interested as taxpayers and rail travellers since despite the promoter's response on page 15, how else will the substantial costs of the Crossrail project be directly or indirectly financed.

  5631. It might assist the Committee if I highlight some of the points which we would wish the Committee to specifically consider before I amplify on those points arising from our Petition and the promoter's responses.

  5632. Firstly, we consider that there has been a lack of relevant consultation with the residents in Shenfield. We consider that at £1 billion plus the need for any extension of Crossrail to Shenfield is not established in terms of the likely passenger numbers arising and value for money. In addition, the downside factors of Crossrail have not been canvassed.

  5633. We strongly consider that any restriction on the Select Committee's ability to amend the Bill in respect of another terminus is both a breach of our human rights and abuse of the parliamentary procedure.

  5634. If Crossrail proceed as far as Shenfield, we would question whether the need for a new platform and sidings at Shenfield have been established if merely to service more frequent but under-used trains from Shenfield. In addition, if those sidings are required, could they be located somewhere else with less impact on Shenfield? Can further mitigation be provided at Shenfield?

  5635. Your Petitioners still claim all rights and remedies sought in their Petition.

  5636. When addressing the Committee, I wish to make some general points, some comments on the Shenfield versus Stratford issues and some detailed points about the proposals for Hunter Avenue, Shenfield. I would like to suggest some areas where further mitigation should be made by the Promoter and relevant undertakings provided. However, generally, we would share the concerns expressed on behalf of other Petitioners in Brentwood and Shenfield as regards a terminus at Shenfield.

  5637. As part of my general comments, firstly, I would wish to apologise for any lack of preparation due to the date for attendance before this Committee being brought forward from the end of April to the end of March. Because information was requested from the Secretary of State for Transport on 15 February 2006, but a response was only received last Friday, 24 March, there has been little or no time to consider that response.

  5638. Secondly, only last Thursday evening we learned that Petitioners in Brentwood might be represented by counsel to marshal relevant arguments. Our appointment today had already been organised, so this was too late for us and we regret any duplication of points being made more eloquently by that counsel. However, we would wish to maintain the points which we have made in our petition, despite the Promoter's more general responses in some cases, particularly at pages 18 to 22 of that response.

  5639. My third general comment relates to future working practices and locations. The country's population may well increase by 2016 and there will always be core workers in London, but, from my own work experience, I wish to sound a note of caution as regards future rail commuter traffic into London.


20   Committee Ref: A65, Mr and Mrs Ennals Exhibits (SCN-20060328-006-008). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007