Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5700
- 5719)
5700. They gave me some sort of response to
the effect that they only started in 2001 but this Crossrail project
in some form or another has been in gestation for quite a lot
longer than that and it surprises me that it has changed so quickly.
I would contend that, if one assumes that there has not been any
serious planning in Shenfield or there had not at that stage,
I would seriously doubt any thought at all of any consequence
has been given to Stratford. I do not see how it is possible to
compare the costs of the project with a termination at one or
the other. I would respectfully urge the Committee, if they can,
to seek from Crossrail robust, comparative costs for termination
at these two locations, Stratford and Shenfield, even if the Shenfield
one is more expensive. I do not know whether it is or not. Any
increase in cost should be set against the frustration of the
primary purpose of the project and disruption caused to our town.
5701. In my view, the project could become an
expensive failure because of frustration of the primary objective
of running it across London. Thank you very much.
5702. Mrs Clark: My Petition number is
265. I live at 40 Friars Avenue with my sister and our elderly
mother and our house faces onto the site of the proposed work
at Shenfield Station.
5703. We will be severely affected by the noise,
dirt, disruption and vibration while the work is being carried
out should the Crossrail plan go ahead in its current form. In
response to my Petition, the Promoters say that it is predicted
that 40 Friars Avenue is not likely to experience a significant
noise impact from the Crossrail construction works. 40 Friars
Avenue is made of brick but its occupants are not and I can assure
you that we hear only too well when repairs and maintenance work
are carried out on the railway line. I do not think that construction
works are going to be significantly quieter.
5704. The plans for the work at Shenfield were
changed dramatically over a relatively short period and I do not
believe there was sufficient consultation with Brentwood Council
or the public to highlight these changes and discuss the implications
of these changes.
5705. I strongly believe our small and pleasant
town will be adversely affected by the proposed work. It is a
small town. Even road repairs, the laying of gas and water pipes
et cetera., has a big impact. Only recently a bridge repair in
Alexander Lane caused a huge amount of disruption, not to say
havoc.
5706. There will be considerable heavy road
traffic in the area, including Friars Avenue, which is already
a busy road, and no doubt a good deal of this will be in the early
morning. There will also be loss of parking space, which I find
particularly difficulty as my mother is not in good health and
uses a wheelchair. Blue Badge bays would therefore become at a
premium, albeit temporarily. I would emphasise that the loss of
car park space is a very real concern as this is already a great
problem in Shenfield. Any further loss will undoubtedly affect
the businesses in Hutton Road where we frequently shop. These
are mainly independently owned shops and the closure of these
shops would be a great inconvenience to my family, a severe loss
to the local community and would greatly affect the character
of the town.
5707. In my opinion, there is no local necessity
for Crossrail to be extended to Shenfield and the operation of
Crossrail would cause loss of amenity and could ultimately make
Shenfield a much less desirable place to live. All of this is
likely to have a detrimental effect on the value of our house.
This house blight could well continue for many years as there
is no clear indication where the funding for Crossrail is to come
from.
5708. The purpose of Crossrail is to provide
a new rail link across London—i.e., from Stratford to Paddington.
Most Crossrail passengers will be carried from Whitechapel to
Paddington and it seems likely that trains from Shenfield to Stratford
will be virtually empty.
5709. There will be no benefit whatsoever to
residents of Shenfield; yet we are expected to suffer all the
inconvenience and disadvantages. There is no saving in time as
we have a vast line to Stratford/Liverpool Street and Crossrail
will be operating on the slow line. Nor is there any real benefit
to passengers travelling from the intermediate stations between
Shenfield and Stratford as there is already a metro service running
six trains per hour and Crossrail will not be any faster.
5710. I understand that Crossrail have stated
that they need to cut down a large number of trees along the railway
line. This will not only detrimentally affect our visual outlook
but will also increase the amount of noise we hear from the construction
works and trains. In addition to this, I am most concerned at
the effect the cutting down of all those trees will have on the
water table, something that does not seem to have been considered.
5711. There is nothing to be achieved by extending
Crossrail to Shenfield that would not be achieved if it were to
stop at Stratford. Stratford is already planned as a major rail
interchange and I believe that Crossrail should terminate there.
If this is not feasible, I believe an alternative should be sought.
It should not stop at Shenfield simply as somewhere to end it.
5712. As far as I am aware, no proposals for
compensation have been put forward by Crossrail but I think it
unlikely that any moneys paid would truly compensate local residents.
The Committee might find it useful to visit Shenfield to understand
better the impact the proposed route would have on our town. The
disruption, noise, inconvenience, loss of value to our homes and
the ruination of our town is a very high price to pay when there
are no compensating benefits to myself or other local residents.
5713. Mr Wood: My name is Michael Wood
and I speak on behalf of my wife and I. We have a young family,
a point I will return to later, and live at 71 Hunter Avenue which
is the second house along from the proposed Hunter Avenue worksite
location. We also find ourselves affected by noise pollution.
I am encouraged that the development will adopt the legislative
requirements and best practice measures to mitigate this. I would
just add that we have two young children and my wife is a music
teacher who works from home. That will affect us during the day
in terms of my wife's employment and presumably in the evening
when I imagine work will be undertaken, both in terms of noise
and floodlighting for that. We are therefore seeking further reassurance
from the Promoters to address those aspects.
5714. Turning to the Hunter Avenue worksite,
again, it is pleasing to know of the proposed reduction in requirement
there. That said, there are a number of young families on Hunter
Avenue with children at St Mary's Primary School, which will require
them to use the western end of Hunter Avenue which is still covered
under the worksite.
5715. There are also a large number of children
of both primary and secondary school ages who use Hunter Avenue
to reach, amongst others, Herrington House and Shenfield High
School. Alternatives such as the White Gates proposal that was
mentioned earlier should be re-examined to remove the risk of
accident to primarily children but others as well on Hunter Avenue
and also to reduce the visual and noise implications.
5716. Based upon those general concerns, our
comments in the Petition at paragraph nine refer to the potential
for rehousing. I feel the response we had was more around the
visual and noise pollution than the housing aspect and we are
seeking clarification on this particular point. It seems incongruous
to me that two doors down from the worksite, backing on to the
railway sidings, only yesterday did I find out we would probably
get insulation but not rehousing; whereas others who meet only
one of those two particular criteria will receive the offer of
rehousing. I reiterate that we, and I am sure others, are seeking
is just a clear, definitive understanding on that particular subject.
5717. We also wish to raise the subject of Shenfield
as a terminus. Various matters have been discussed such as relative
journey times. I will not dwell on those. It was said earlier
that the Crossrail proposal would improve the number of links
to Stratford, the Jubilee and other underground/overground lines.
As somebody who uses that particular line twice a day to travel
to Canary Wharf, that is there today. Stratford is already on
the fast line as well as on the E line. I would be very surprised
indeed if individuals were prepared to move from the fast line
to Crossrail. Most rail users are fairly rational beings and will
look for the shortest journey time. Clearly, that will be the
first line.
5718. Our second point is back to parking. If
we assume for a moment that Crossrail goes ahead at Shenfield,
there will be a reduction in car parking whilst that happens.
Once the project is live, even if it is only 100 extra commuters,
where will they park? The season ticket car park is full at the
moment. I understand there is a waiting list for that season ticket
car park so again I am particularly concerned as to where this
additional traffic is going to park.
5719. Our final point is on our ability to sell
our property without disadvantage. Properties are already being
offered for sale at a discount on Hunter Avenue and failing to
sell. As part of my employment, I may be required to move around
the country with work. In that case, I will be forced to sell
the property at a forced sale price, not necessarily an open market
price. The number of house sales in Hunter Avenue has plummeted
from 2004 to 2005 and there is no sign of that trend changing.
| 
