Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5860
- 5879)
5860. That will not be significantly made worse
by Crossrail.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is quite true.
5861. Is it not possible also that the Crossrail
trains, where they are parked in the sidings and in the platforms,
and they will be there for quite a lot of the time, could act
as something of a barrier to noise from the trains passing to
the south of the platforms and the sidings, so that the houses
closest to the sidings and platforms might derive some slight
benefit?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is perfectly true,
sir, although the formal procedure for prediction does not make
allowance for that.
5862. It is possible that where residents are
affected by existing trains, they could perhaps ask for noise
insulation barriers to be erected to help them by Network Rail
or even the train operators.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The entitlement to mitigation
of any form from the operation of a railway is very precisely
set out in the railway noise insulation regulations and the entitlement
is not likely to arise at Shenfield.
5863. If I could turn to the construction phase,
which is more difficult—the train operation phase is not
the major phase—one can see residents will be badly affected
by that. Is it not possible to go slightly beyond the minimum
statutory requirements in helping local residents by, for example,
putting some noise barriers close to the operation in selected
locations to mitigate the noise and dust problem for residents?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) There are to be noise
barriers both around the work sites and alongside the railway.
In more detail, as part of the section 61 process, the contractor
may well be required by the local authority to put up local screening
of specific noise sources in addition to the main hoardings which
are described in the Environmental Statement.
5864. Will the contractors and the Promoters
indeed be as helpful as possible in trying to deal with problems
as they arise with noise and possibly even erecting additional
noise barriers if necessary?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Indeed. They will be required
to do everything that they reasonably would be expected to do,
provided there is a cost-effective benefit from doing it.
Re-examined by Mr Mould
5865. Mr Mould: Mr Thornely-Taylor, just
one point of information really. Questions were asked about how
local people might find out about the details of the assessment
process that was carried out at the formal environmental assessment
stage.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
5866. Just remind us: as well as the main Environmental
Statement itself, and of course the supporting technical reports,
is there a non-technical summary of the main contents of the Environmental
Statement?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, indeed there is.
5867. Did that summarise the assessment process,
mitigation measures that were to be deployed and the works and
the effects of the works at particular parts of the route, including
Shenfield?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it did.
The witness withdrew
5868. Chairman: Thank you very much,
Mr Thornely-Taylor. We now move on to the case of Brentwood Council.
I call on Mr Graham Stoker.
5869. Mr Stoker: I am Graham Stoker and
I appear for Brentwood Borough Council, instructed by Messrs Sharpe
Pritchard, solicitors and parliamentary agents. Can I just summarise,
if I may, the extent of the issues before you and then just deal
with two of the matters in slightly more detail.
5870. I propose to call in due course two witnesses
in this order: firstly, Mr Boyton, who is the Principal Planner
at the borough council, and secondly, Mr Brimley, who is the Head
of Transportation. Mr Boyton will speak to the justification for
the Crossrail north-east branch terminating at Shenfield, and
I will deal with that in a moment, if I can, because I know that
is a matter that was discussed yesterday. Mr Brimley will deal
with the question of impact on the car parks at Shenfield as a
consequence of the two work sites being proposed.
5871. If I can call for plan 102 to go up, it
would assist me if that were to be displayed during the course
of this short opening.[11]
There are a number of other matters raised in the petition. We
apprehend at the moment that they have either been satisfactorily
dealt with, they are being pursued in the alternative by other
authorities who are taking the lead on those matters, or they
are matters that we simply want to keep a watching brief on in
terms of preserving our position. In due course we will lodge
a comprehensive list so the Committee is informed of our position
on those other matters.
5872. Turning to the live issues before you
today, the first point to make, if one looks at that plan, is
Shenfield Station is embedded within Shenfield shopping centre,
immediately adjacent to it, and what flows from that is certain
unusual characteristics about the impact of the work sites. I
will turn to that in a moment, because the first issue I want
to deal with is the justification for Shenfield, and I raise that
in this sense, because the borough council are concerned to have
the opportunity to understand a credible case for the location
of the terminus of that north-eastern branch at Shenfield. Historically,
there appear to be—and it is a matter we pursued in correspondence
with the Promoters—no feasibility studies carried out, as
we understand it, in respect of Shenfield as the terminus. There
seems to be merely a longstanding assumption that it would terminate
at Shenfield, which is a matter of concern to us because we want
to understand the reasons for it and the justification. Nor have
we been able to find any historical study or comparative costing
exercise so one can understand why it would terminate there.
5873. In terms of the background papers we have
seen put in by the Promoters in response to our case, they point
to advantages elsewhere along the line. They point in particular
to Stratford, they point to Liverpool Street and they point to
other advantages in terms of capacity. What seems to be the bottom
line is that it is suggested that all other options are too expensive,
and therefore Shenfield apparently is the only option available.
5874. I raise it in this way because I am aware,
of course, of the instruction issue and the fact that in terms
of the first set of instructions that sought to deal with this,
as I understand the framing of those instructions, this Committee
has been told that the termini of the railway transport system
and the provision of intermediate stations are to be treated as
matters of principle in the Bill, and as a consequence of that,
that ties your hands.
5875. Can I just say in respect of that that
I note that original instruction but the matter was subject to
subsequent debate, and I am referring to a debate that occurred
on 12 January 2006, where the Secretary of State indicated his
view on the terms of those instructions. If I can just read this
into the transcript, it is at column 456 of the Hansard, where
the Secretary of State was grappling with this issue in the context
of concerns of Brentwood ad Shenfield residents. He said this:
"I said that the House could give instructions to the Select
Committee. As I understand it, if there were petitions relating
to Shenfield, the Committee would be able to hear them. However,
to return to the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members
for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Hackney, South
and Shoreditch, the reason that we have prescribed a terminus
is to try to put a concrete proposition before the Committee.
Otherwise, I fear that we would be all over the place. I think
that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar takes the view that
he wants Crossrail to terminate not at Shenfield but at some point
nearer to the city. Or perhaps he is concerned about individual
issues relating to Shenfield such as the loss of car parking or
the alignment of the tracks. The Select Committee could certainly
consider those latter points, but if he is asking whether it could
decide that Crossrail should terminate at Liverpool Street, I
have to say that it could not." So I read that as the familiar
approach one takes to major transport schemes, which is that you
cannot look at the point of principle; you cannot say the road
is not required, but you are entitled to look at the route and
other issues.
5876. I also note the Secretary of State says,
"It will certainly be up to the Select Committee to decide
whether it hears the petitions, and I am sure that it will try
to be as liberal as it can in that regard." That is the context
within which we raise this issue before you, and we make these
relatively simple points. When one actually tries to understand
the benefits and the credible justification for Shenfield as a
terminus, as I said, the only claimed benefits appear to be elsewhere
in the system: essentially, tube capacity, Liverpool Street Station
and Stratford. There is no improved access to passengers at Shenfield
at all, according to the information we have seen in the Environmental
Statement. There are no materially improved journey times to the
residents of Brentwood and those who use Shenfield Station and
there is no material increase in passenger growth. So we make
the simple point that there are no tangible benefits here that
seem to flow to Shenfield and Brentwood Borough Council's area,
and there seems to be a conspicuous failure to put forward a credible
case for Shenfield.
5877. Pausing there, that is a point which is
an issue before you, and we would welcome your consideration of
that in due course, but it does not stop there, because if it
is perceived to be the case that it should be at Shenfield, in
the context of circumstances where I have said that the benefits
to Brentwood residents are conspicuous by their absence, surely
in those circumstances it would be harsh to impose those works
and the work sites caused as a consequence of constructing the
railway station without any form of reasonable mitigation in terms
of the impact that those works would cause.
5878. If I can turn to that second issue, Shenfield—you
have not done the visit yet, sir, have you? As I understand it,
you are going to do visits in due course. Is that right?
5879. Chairman: We have not formally
decided to do anything yet. We will discuss it in private at some
time in the future, and decide which sites we will visit.
11 Crossrail Environmental Statement, Shenfield Station
Project Works & Impacts, Map NE17(ii) (LINEWD-ES17-102). Back
|
