Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5920
- 5939)
5920. Then let us look at another point, which
is that if this is a service that has perceived advantages one
would expect it to attract additional passengers to it, or perhaps
take up unmet demand. If you go to appendix 6, in the context
of the paragraph "mitigation and permanent impacts",
paragraph 18.44: "Passenger numbers with Crossrail"
(and this is within the context of Shenfield) "are expected
to change by about 100 additional passengers entering and no change
in passengers leaving the station in the morning peak period (a
3 per cent increase in 2-way passenger flows)."[19]
Can you indicate your views on that as some evidence of demand?
(Mr Boyton) Again, it is quite
surprising—also in relation to the expected increase in
passenger numbers in total—that there is such an, almost,
insignificant increase estimated by Crossrail at 2016; 100 passengers,
3 per cent increase in the two-way flow, is, as I say, almost
insignificant. It does show significantly that there is no unmet
need not being met or, indeed, that it is having a significant
change in modal shift from car or other forms of transport to
train services into London.
5921. Then just on a slightly more specific
point, I wonder if you could indicate how you see Shenfield centre
working, both in terms of its shopping role and, also, whether
it is perceived to be a transport node or not, where there are
interchanges going on. Could you give us an overview of the centre?
(Mr Boyton) Shenfield shopping centre, in which
Shenfield Station is located, is a relatively small constrained
local district centre outside of the main town centre of Brentwood,
which is the most significant shopping service centre in Brentwood.
As I say, it is a constrained site, it is very tightly surrounded
by residential development. That said, it is a very vital and
vibrant centre, catering for generally the day-to-day requirements
of the surrounding residential areas, established residential
areas, of core shopping service provision. It is an important
secondary centre for those residents within the areas of Shenfield
and Hutton.
5922. I wonder if we could go to page 21 of
our exhibits, right at the end of the exhibit.[20]
Just talk us through this, if you can. Does this show, with the
triangular notation, the key shopping area?
(Mr Boyton) That is right. This
is an extract from the Brentwood Local Plan. The area to the right
of the plan, which is hatched with these small arrows, is the
actual railway station itself, and the pink diagonal lines are
the associated car parking areas. The pink, or red, triangle areas
are, basically, the shopping areas; either accommodation of shops
with offices above or shops with residences above. That is the
confines of the commercial area that would incorporate other business,
other services—banks, building societies. The library is
shown on the left-hand bottom with small black crosses. That is
the library. There are dentists and doctors surgeries within that
parade as well.
5923. The red stripe notation to the left of
our plan (to the north of the railway line), we are looking up
Friars Avenue, are we, and Hunter Avenue?
(Mr Boyton) Yes, the arrow now is over Friars
Avenue car park. If you move northwards on the same side of the
railway line, that is the pay-and-display, council-owned car park.
Immediately to the north of that is the commuter car park on Hunter
Avenue.
5924. The Committee may wish to see this in
due course, but what distance are we talking about? How close
are these? How much a part of the town centre are these car parks?
(Mr Boyton) On that map, if you are standing
at the entrance to Brentwood Railway Station you are, more or
less, within 100 yards of everything on that map—100 to
150 yards.
5925. Mr Stoker: Thank you very much.
If I can just take you to some of the Promoter's documents—this
will not take long; it may just take us up to the adjournment.
5926. Chairman: How long are you talking
about?
5927. Mr Stoker: I have seen the time.
Would this be a convenient moment? Then we can get these items
up on the screen when we resume.
5928. Chairman: Yes. We will reconvene
at 2.30.
After a short adjournment
5929. Mr Stoker: I think we were in the
process of identifying a document and I was going to take the
witness to it. What I would like to just examine is the response
on the Shenfield point in the blue file. It is in A7, the selection
of the north-eastern terminus.[21]
I can pick it up at page 3. This sets out an assessment of Stratford
as a possible option at section 5, talking about the constraints
of the site at 5.2, the need therefore for a solution that would
be underground, and in 5.3 pointing out that that would be extremely
expensive. So that is the Stratford option. It appears, perusing
it, to have been unsatisfactory on the cost basis. Then if one
can turn to page 4, we have farther out options, farther out into
Essex and Suffolk at section 5.6 and 5.7. That will have operational
difficulties, they say, because of the long distance involved
and the risk of delay, and also questions of incompatibility in
terms of formulating the timetable. Then we have the Shenfield
option at 5.10. On page 5 Shenfield runs through to 5.14, and
then we have the consideration of Romford and Gidea Park. If I
can take you to 5.14, which encapsulates in many respects the
overall argument, "Although the work to provide the platform
is of a reasonable scale, it is considerably less than the work
that would be required at locations such as Romford and Gidea
Park to provide comparable reversing facilities." So in many
respects that is an overall point. Then one has the section on
Romford and Gidea Park at page 5, and then over the page at page
6 one finds Romford dealt with at 5.17 through to 5.21 and Gidea
Park dealt with at 5.22. So that is the response in A7. I would
just ask you to grapple with that overall point at 5.14. This
is the question of it being considerably less than the alternatives.
I wonder if you could respond to that within the context of justifying
this major project.
(Mr Boyton) Yes, it appears, from
reading through the Promoter's response, one gets the feeling
that Shenfield has been identified as the terminus because it
is the easiest option, and therefore the less costly option. The
other alternatives that are looked at are said to be involving
more works and therefore more costly. The whole of the response
appears to be about the financial aspect of it, and one would
have thought that in a major rail scheme of this nature, cost
would clearly be one of the important fundamental criteria, but
again, one would be looking for some sort of analysis that has
also taken into account the social implications of it, the economic
implications of it, the environmental implications of it, and
here we have no real feel for that sort of analysis having been
done to lead to or inform the conclusion that Shenfield is the
most appropriate terminus on the eastern side of the rail.
5930. If we can pause there, because we are
now going to move to just two other topics, I am going to ask
for the Promoter's documents, 06 and following.[22]
I will take them in the order that they appear in their documents,
and 06 deals with the question of access to all stations. One
sees here, pursuant to an access to stations initiative, that
Network Rail has identified a list of stations where there is
going to be, as I understand it, allocated funds spent on upgrading
and to provide access to the disabled. You see the list there,
which includes Brentwood. One then passes through 07. Could I
ask that we go to 010 to see how it is put.[23]
There is reference to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary making
an announcement about the Railways For All strategy, reference
to the key objectives, the funding provision of £370 million
and the list including Brentwood. So that is the response made
by the objectors, which in effect is for someone else; it is for
Network Rail. I think you have had an opportunity just to peruse
this initiative and to understand what is involved. Does it have
a role for other stakeholders, for want of a better word, such
as train operators? How does it operate? Is it just Network Rail?
How does the strategy operate?
(Mr Boyton) I have had an opportunity
of reading through that document and it appears that there are
a number of elements of these proposals. One is this list of stations
that are the first three-year programme of Network Rail's improvement
to provide access for all, but it then goes on, and of course,
in relation to that there is no detail about what is being provided,
so we do not exactly know the full nature of what is being proposed
under that funding initiative, but it does go on thereafter to
say that there are other stakeholder involvements, including the
train operators, who should have a responsibility also for provision
at rail stations where there is this customer interface. The point
that we would make is what we are clearly looking for is a totally
accessible station at Brentwood. Before this announcement, we
were looking at Crossrail being a major rail scheme for the 21st
century and should be looking to provide that accessibility. Network
Rail's programme may indeed provide that accessibility but there
are unknowns about it. We still believe there is a role and responsibility
for Crossrail as a train operator, as they will be, to take responsibility
for that as well, to ensure that that accessibility is provided
at stations that the Crossrail service runs to.
5931. Two additional points: whether they are
a train operator. How do you understand this is going to come
to fruition? As I understand at the moment, the Metro service
is operated by One Railway and they offer a service, and is it
proposed that Crossrail take over that service and replace it
by the Crossrail provision?
(Mr Boyton) Again, that is our understanding
of the Crossrail proposal, that they will take over the Metro
service that One currently operate between Shenfield and Liverpool
Street station and they will become the train operator for that
part of the commuter service into London.
5932. Sir, the Department have issued an accessibility
strategy, which we had access to late last night, so we are endeavouring
to get copies and put them in in due course. Just assist me in
a more practical way, because you know the operation of Brentwood:
what exactly is the problem if one is a disabled person trying
to access Brentwood with the Crossrail provision in place. What
can you not do?
(Mr Boyton) If Crossrail take over the One
Metro Service from Brentwood station, it runs from two sides of
different platforms, and the eastbound platform, ie out of London,
is accessible from a level surface on to the platform but the
opposite platform which runs into London can only be accessed
by stairs and a bridge over the tracks, and they are extremely
steep. I counted them myself. I used the station to look at the
difficulties that you would have if you were not completely able-bodied.
There are 31steps up and 31 steps down, very steep, and that is
the only way you can access the platform into London to catch
what would be a Crossrail train.
5933. Just so we understand the size of the
problem in terms of the potential number of persons who might
be disabled, I wonder if one has access to our appendices now.
Sir I am going to take as read Appendices 7 and 8, because they
are extracts from central government advice that puts flesh on
the Disability Discrimination Act. Appendix 9 at 19 and 20, if
we could have that put up, at paragraph 7.83, the local plan actually
quantifies the number of disabled people that are likely to exist
in the area.[24]
Is that right?
(Mr Boyton) Yes. This is an extract,
as you say, from the replacement local plan which was adopted
in the August last year. The information that is provided there
is from the Brentwood Access Group, their estimate that some 4,000-5,000
people within the borough are physically disabled. That is in
addition to people with other disabilities such as sensory impairment
and walking difficulty.
5934. That concludes the question of the disabled.
Can I ask you to read another part of the letter, the 008 letter
from the Promoters, but I want 009, where they talk about tree
loss.[25]
I just wanted your confirmation, if you peruse that, that that
undertaking there satisfies you. If that is the case, that could
be entered into the transcript.
(Mr Boyton) Yes, I have read the
Promoters' further response on this particular issue of tree loss,
and specifically at Friars Avenue. They were the two points that
we were concerned with as an authority. One was our own ability
under the planning regime to control reinstatement of lost trees
and the other was the supplementary planting that was being offered
to occupiers of properties that back on to the railway from 1a-25
Friars Avenue and what is now in the response, the fact that the
Promoters have indicated where in the Bill the planning regime
has that control over reinstatement, with the qualifications they
put in there, and also the fact that they are now willing to make
an undertaking to offer the supplementary planting, it in my view
fully meets the points that we were petitioned on as regards works
to trees.
Cross-examined by Ms Lieven
5935. Ms Lieven: First of all, you complained
that the Environmental Statement did not consider the alternatives
to terminating at Shenfield, and you took us through various extracts
from the Environmental Statement. Information paper A7 deals specifically
with the issue of selection of the north-east terminus, does it
not?
(Mr Boyton) Yes.
5936. That was sent to you under cover of your
petition response document. Is that right?
(Mr Boyton) Yes.
5937. So you have seen that and you have seen
our case for terminating at Shenfield at least a month before
you appeared here.
(Mr Boyton) I have, yes.
5938. So far as that document is concerned,
just very briefly, you suggested a few minutes ago that the focus
was entirely on the cost of terminating elsewhere, the increased
cost, but if we look at one example, 5.21, which is considering
the implications of terminating the line at Romford, one of the
points there is that to do that there would be very substantial
demolition.[26]
(Mr Boyton) Yes.
5939. There is no demolition required at Shenfield
whatsoever, is there?
(Mr Boyton) There is not.
19 Committee Ref: A69, Environmental Statement, Appendix
6, paras 18.42-18.46 Mitigation and Permanent & Temporary
Impacts, Impact on rail journey times (BRWDBO-14905-051). Back
20
Committee Ref: A69, Appendix 9, Shenfield Shopping Area Inset
Map 11 (BRWDBO-14905-062). Back
21
Crossrail Information Paper A7 Implications of Terminating Crossrail
at Stratford, Assessment of Options (LINEWD-IPA7-001 to 006; SNC20060329-001
to 004). Back
22
Committee Ref: A69, Access to all Station List, Background (BRWDBO-14904-006). Back
23
Committee Ref: A69, Access to all Station List, Access for People
with Restricted Mobility (BRWDBO-14904-010). Back
24
Committee Ref: A69, Appendix 9 Caravan/Camp Sites (BRWDBO-14904-060). Back
25
Committee Ref: A69, Tree Loss at Friars Avenue (BRWDBO-14904-009). Back
26
Crossrail Information Paper A7 Implications of Terminating Crossrail
at Stratford, Assessment of Options Para 5.21 (SNC20060329- 006). Back
|
