Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6200
- 6219)
6200. The benefits flow essentially for London.
It is clear in my submission from volume 1 of the Environmental
Statement that the benefits in fact can be specifically related
to Stratford and the Central London tube and rail stations where
there is increased capacity. There is nothing about Shenfield
at all. Also, in table 7.3 of the Environmental Statement, it
shows that Stratford, Ilford and Romford gain on the question
of accessibility to people who do not have a car—the benefits
seem to be focused there. It is all about London.
6201. My second point is that the benefits to
Shenfield, in my submission, are fairly minimal. It is telling
that with the comprehensive consultation exercise that has been
carried out over a number of years now, it has still been a matter
of concern to my clients as to understand those benefits, and
we found them listed for the first time yesterday in Ms Lieven's
note which was handed in during the course of cross-examination.
6202. The third point is: Why then has Shenfield
been selected? It appears that the plans that have been drawn
up over time have simply been predicated on the basis that it
will terminate at Shenfield. Trying to grapple with what that
means: in my submission, it is an untested assumption that has
been there for many years, perhaps a decade.
6203. The fourth point is that it is claimed
that the Shenfield option is the least expensive one but we do
not have a proper cost-comparison exercise in the public domain
which would enable us to test that proposition.
6204. The fifth point is that Mr Berryman, as
the expert—and no doubt he has assisted in the production
of the information paper A7—has come to a decision which
involves the quite astonishing contention yesterday, when he was
pressed, that it was a matter of common sense.[9]
It is not common sense at all. It is a technical, complex issue
involving multimillion pound/billion pound project and the information
should be in the public domain in our submission.
6205. Finally, my sixth point. When one looks
therefore, at the question of whether a credible case for Shenfield
has been advanced, the highest it is put before this Committee
is that it is a matter of commonsense. I submit that is woefully
inadequate for demonstrating this particular point. There should
be proper feasibility studies that we can analyse to demonstrate
the point, providing credible evidence, and it is conspicuous
by its absence.
6206. I then turn to the mitigation of Crossrail
works within the context of what I have asked to be put up: table
18.2.[10]
I opened our case on this basis and I close our case on this basis:
there will be a loss of two car parks. It is described by Crossrail
as a significant impact and they have committed no mitigation
to it. In my submission, that is an astonishing situation in which
to find oneself.
6207. I would make nine points. First of all,
it is common ground between us, without any reservation, that
the consequence of taking these car parks is significant.
6208. The second point is that, with those car
parks adjacent to the town centre, that is clearly correct, but
taking those car parks for some 21 months will, in my submission,
jeopardise and undermine the viability of that centre's trade.
6209. The third point is that the Crossrail
development takes those car parks, it gets the benefits, and they
have said that they have committed no mitigation in the Environmental
Statement. In my submission, this is an abdication of a point
of principle, that: if you develop a project like this, if you
take the benefit, you should mitigate the consequences. They are
significant and they should be mitigated.
6210. Fourthly, if one asks oneself as to the
consequences of what is being proposed, one has a situation where
these car parks will be out of order for up to 21 months, with
a common period of both impacted for 12 months. In my submission
that is justifiably significant.
6211. My fifth point is: What do they suggest?
They do nothing. It is for the borough council to contact one
thriving local company that has been singled out to take back
their 55 season tickets and deal with it in this way. In my submission,
this is not a responsible approach to mitigation.
6212. The sixth point is that Crossrail have
not approached this company. This is the point they have worked
up. It is the key to it. They have not contacted Burrows and assessed
the impact. As I understand it, all they have done, with the greatest
respect to them, is flown over the area in a helicopter, taken
an aerial photograph and done parking surveys on the three days.
That is a summation of it.
6213. In my submission, what you have in terms
of evidence is Mr Brimley having talked to the company, assessing
the impact that would take and explaining how the strategy has
been set in terms of the balance of the provision of car park
between short-stay and season ticket, and you now have the letter
which underpins that point.
6214. The eighth point is to withdraw those
season tickets, which would lead to a situation where there will
be impact on a local firm and parking on the roads. This is nothing
more, in my respectful submission, than indifference by Crossrail
as the Promoter. In my submission it is not a responsible approach.
6215. The ninth point is this: a temporary car
park has been discussed in the past. At one stage it was on the
table and we would ask for the strong recommendation from this
Committee that this matter be looked at and addressed properly.
It is not satisfactory to have a significant impact but with no
committed mitigation is wrong in principle.
6216. Unless I can assist further, sir, those
are my closing submissions.
6217. Chairman: We have received a letter
from the Managing Director. We will list that as A72.[11]
6218. Mr Stoker: Thank you, sir.
6219. Mr Welfare: Sir, your Committee
has heard extensively from residents and myself over the last
two days on the issue of the terminus at Shenfield and the issue
of the consequence for the area and for individual residents of
the works and operation of Crossrail. Residents in Shenfield,
whom I represent—and I am sure that is true of others who
were here in person—are grateful to have had the opportunity
to put those views before you. The basic issue for residents is
that the case for Shenfield has not been made, nor even attempted
to be made at any serious level in Parliament and before the public.
I think I can say that the Promoters have been trying in the last
few days to plug that gap. There is no transparency about the
decisions leading to the proposals which have come before your
Committee in relation to Shenfield. The case, even now, essentially
amounts to a negative one: it cannot be done elsewhere on the
line without greater cost. Yet even that argument, as my learned
friend Mr Stoker has said, is not costed, nor, indeed, is the
justification for a line east of Liverpool Street or Stratford
seriously set out.
9 Crossrail Information Paper A7, Selection of the
North Eastern Terminus http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/ Back
10
Committee Ref: A69, Environmental Statement, Appendix 4, Table
18.2 Route Window NE17- Temporary impacts (BRWDBO-14905-048). Back
11
Committee Ref: A72, tbc. Back
| 
