Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6160
- 6179)
6160. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much.
In the hope of speeding things up—the Committee will be
aware that we have a very full day today—I have typed a
note. It is not wildly comprehensive, but it covers the main points,
and at the end it covers, in brief, some of the individual petitioners
who raised specific points not raised in the note. I intend to
spend five minutes now summarising what we think are the key points.
6161. Chairman: That document is A69.[1]
6162. Ms Lieven: Sir, the first topic
I cover is the terminus at Shenfield, which is set out in IPA7.[2]
I am not going to repeat that. For those present at the Committee
on Tuesday and in the transcript I summarised the case for terminating
at Shenfield. I would wish to stress that there are benefits to
people using Shenfield, as I set out in the very brief note I
put in yesterday, P71.[3]
I would also stress to the Committee that it is wrong in principle
to divide benefits up by saying "There are no benefits to
Shenfield and therefore the train should not go to Shenfield."
There are enormous benefits to London, as the Committee already
knows from the project as a whole, and those do depend, in part,
on the north-east limb; for instance, we would not achieve the
relief in overcrowding on the Central Line without the north-east
limb, and it has to terminate somewhere.
6163. There was extensive cross-examination
yesterday on: Why can we not stop at Stratford? And: Why do we
not have a feasibility study on it? On matters which, in the view
of Mr Berryman, simply do not pass the commonsense test, there
is really very little point in spending public money on carrying
out feasibility studies. Crossrail has already spent vast amounts
on consultants carrying out studies on various things. This one
just was not worth thinking about any more, because it was going
to be hugely disruptive and hugely expensive. Mr Berryman is of
course, as you will recall, an enormously experienced engineer.
6164. Turning to what we are doing at Shenfield,
Mr Berryman explained yesterday why we need the extra platform
and why the additional track works are needed to segregate Crossrail
and I do not think I need to say any more about that.
6165. I am conscious that Mrs Ennals is now
here. Mr Berryman, as I explained yesterday, is not available
today. I do have Mr Walters, Mr Berryman's assistant, here.
6166. Chairman: I would prefer to proceed.
Mrs Ennals can bring up questions in her summing up.
6167. Ms Lieven: Mr Berryman has set
out why we are doing what we are doing at Shenfield. There was
an issue raised on Tuesday about alternative sidings. As I made
clear on Tuesday, those alternative sidings are at the wrong level
and involve crossing other lines and are therefore operationally
unacceptable.
6168. Turning to the impact of noise, which
is a matter of great concern to a number of the individual Petitioners,
Mr Thornely-Taylor has explained the assessment process which
has been gone through in relation to construction noise—and
it is important to stress that that assessment process is wholly
objective. It relies entirely on technical analysis of noise levels
and the various barriers, topography, etc, that lie in the way.
There is no need for an independent element at that stage because
there is no discretion: it is an objective, scientific process.
6169. So far as the mitigation is concerned,
mitigation at receptors is explained in IPD9 and is, in effect,
the noise and vibration mitigation scheme.[4]
It is important to say publicly that the Promoter does not shy
away from the fact that there will be an impact on residents in
Shenfield as a result of these works, but I would like to stress
the point Mr Thornely-Taylor made yesterday: there is a difference
between audible noise and noise which falls within that which
requires to be mitigated through the policy set out in D9.
6170. I would also like to emphasise, as has
been said throughout in other petitions, that experience shows
that the assessment carried out in the ES is likely to have been
pessimistic and noise impacts will almost certainly be significantly
less than those predicted. We cannot give a guarantee of that,
but that is the experience from both the Channel Tunnel scheme
and the Jubilee Line Extension.
6171. As far as operational noise is concerned,
the assessment shows there will be no material increase, and that
entirely accords with what one would expect from understanding
the scheme.
6172. The Committee has already been through
environmental impact and pollution. There is the Construction
Code which is set out in IPD1.[5]
6173. On visual impact and privacy, the ES accepts
that there will be some properties in Shenfield where Petitioners
are likely to experience an adverse impact on visual amenity.
Most of these are temporary. There is a small number, where the
Embankment will come closer to them, where there will be some
impact on visual amenity but these are houses with relatively
long gardens and trees at the end.
6174. Impact on businesses and shopping is closely
related to parking and I will go through that in slightly more
detail. On short stay, pay-and-display parking for shoppers it
is our submission that the Council's position is highly inconsistent.
On the one hand they say they are deeply concerned about Shenfield
town centre and the viability of the shopping. The Promoter has
carried out two parking surveys to establish the use of those
two car parks by shoppers, and the evidence quite clearly shows
that, for the time the Friars Avenue car park is used for Crossrail,
there is sufficient space in the Hunter Avenue pay-and-display
car park for the shoppers who currently go to Shenfield, so long
as the Council restrict the grant of parking permits for one year
to office workers; in particular the workers of one business.
Therefore, there is no need for there to be any adverse effect
on the retail sector of Shenfield at all.
6175. The inconsistency is that, on the other
hand, the Council refused to say that they will not grant those
55 permits, thus going contrary to their own perfectly clear parking
policies in the local plan which give priority to short-term users
through management of car parks, and which seek to control and
even reduce long-stay parking and contrary to the Council's own
stated concern. I would suggest, sir, that the essence of the
Council's argument is that Crossrail should provide a car park
in the Green Belt for a local business. That is contrary to local
and national policy on parking and land use and a plainly inappropriate
use of the Green Belt and it is difficult to see that such a development
would justify the grant of planning permission. If the Council
truly believes it is essential to replicate current parking provision
for local business, they can do that by relaxing on-street parking
controls for just one year. I would suggest, with respect to the
good people of Shenfield, that that is hardly a major sacrifice
for local residents.
6176. As to commuter parking, the Petitioners
have expressed concern that commuters will be unable to park in
the Network Rail car park and will park outside residential properties
instead. In reality, that is simply not a significant problem.
The Promoter is committed to taking an absolute maximum of 50
per cent of the Hunter Avenue commuter car park and believes it
will be able to reduce that to 35 per cent or even less. That
means there will a relatively small number of displaced commuters,
and surveys show there is capacity in the Mount Avenue car park
and, if necessary, capacity in the Brentwood car park. Yes, sir,
that may involve some inconvenience to the people who have to
drive to Brentwood and take the slower train for something in
the region of a year, perhaps a bit more, but it is impossible—it
is an important point to stress to the Committee—to build
Crossrail without there being some inconvenience to some people
for a relatively short time.
6177. Finally on parking, we have offered to
enter into discussions with the relevant train operating company,
Network Rail, and the council to facilitate the efficient use
of the remaining car park space.
6178. On traffic and congestion, I have two
points to make: the relevant amount of construction traffic in
Shenfield is relatively low. There was a lot of reference to disturbance
which had already taken place when the council closed the Alexander
Road bridge for structural works for a period. We are not closing
any roads in Shenfield and it is likely that the level of traffic
impediment will be much lower than a road closure such as that.
6179. Impact on the character of Shenfield is
really closely related to the car parking issue, but can I stress
that there will be no impact outside the temporary construction
period. There is no long-term impact on Shenfield from this scheme,
save the beneficial effect of the increased train service.
1 Committee Ref: A69, Notes for Promoter's Closing
in relation to Shenfield petitioners and Brentwood Borough Council. Back
2
Crossrail Information Paper A7, Selection of the North Eastern
Terminus http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/ Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P71, Crossrail Benefits Shenfield Brentwood List
(SCN20060329-005). Back
4
Crossrail Information Paper D9, Noise and Vibration Mitigation
Scheme billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/ Back
5
Crossrail Information Paper D1, Crossrail Construction Code billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/ Back
| 
