Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6220
- 6239)
6220. The residents whom I represent, and those
who have come in person, have said from the outset that, if Crossrail
ends in Shenfield, they will continue to use the fast line to
Liverpool Street or Stratford, changing at one of those two stations
on to Crossrail if they wish to use Crossrail, for the simple
reason that it is much quicker. Ms Lieven in her submissions and
Mr Berryman in his evidence yesterday have now accepted that the
estimates for extra passenger use for Crossrail—an extra
3 per cent at Shenfield—bear that out. The residents say
there is little or no benefit to them. While the factor that Crossrail
avoids changing to each of the destinations on the route was brought
in, the key factor from their point of view was the speed of service,
and they say that they will continue to use the fast service and
change accordingly.
6221. Sir, the case has not been made in a way
that has been documented or tested in the public domain. Proceedings
in the last two days have established, as Mr Stoker has said,
that there is no feasibility study of possible termination anywhere
west of Shenfield, and Crossrail have confirmed that to you as
well as in correspondence. There are no firm estimates of the
cost of the alternatives, be that Stratford or the other major
stations along the route; therefore, there is no ability to compare
the respective costs of those different options or to assess the
package as a whole. Nor is there any assessment of the needs of
Shenfield as a whole and the impact on it as a community, beyond
the isolated references to which the Promoters have drawn attention
in the Environmental Statement which reflect one or two factors
but not the community as a whole.
6222. From that, no convincing conclusion is
possible in the absence of such an analysis. The assertion that
Stratford cannot provide a service alternative is not supported
with any evidence beyond the bold assertion in document A7 which
has been repeated again today.[12]
Indeed, the official estimate of the cost of the works if they
were to be underground at Stratford—assisted, one understands,
by Mr Berryman's personal estimate—grew in the course of
your proceedings from three to four hundred million to five hundred
million. That gives an idea of the sort of basis upon which these
decisions are being taken. Mr Berryman told you yesterday—and
seemed pleased with the fact—that they were, as he put it,
"high level" decisions: there has been a longstanding
assumption that the terminus would be there. That assumption did
not appear to be one which needed, in his view, justification
to the public or justification to your Committee beyond the simple
assertion. We say that it is simply not sufficient, as has happened
again today, to state that view without supporting evidence which
can be assessed by residents, and, more particularly, by yourselves
and your committee and Parliament as a whole.
6223. Sir, we say the case for the terminus
at Shenfield has properly yet to be made in a way which can be
tested in Parliament. Attempts by my learned friend Ms Lieven
to produce a positive case for it, with all due respect, show
how thin it is.
6224. In relation to issues of mitigation, to
which residents drew attention in areas of concern, Ms Lieven
has responded to a number of those in her paper which is now with
you. Perhaps I may just pick up a couple of points from that.
In paragraph 16 of her note, she states that the assessment of
it is that the operation of Crossrail at Shenfield will not give
rise to any significant increase in noise levels; in other words,
in the future, once the thing has been built. Residents doubt
that. They doubt that because of the frequency and the scale of
the trains. It is simply an unproven assertion at the moment and
it is something that is causing them concern. However, if there
is an assurance there, that is something of which residents can
take note.
6225. In relation to construction noise, Ms
Lieven draws attention to the role of Brentwood Borough Council
in controlling working hours, monitoring and noise mitigation.
Those are undoubtedly desirable developments from the point of
view of residents and they will look to those with interest.
6226. In relation to visual impact, privacy
and loss of amenity, Crossrail accept that some properties of
Petitioners will experience an adverse effect. They envisage a
particular problem over the removal in the long-term of vegetation.
Those are the people who may suffer visually in the long run from
the development of Shenfield Station. Nothing that I have heard—unless
I have missed it—has met the residents' demand that, if
trees and other vegetation are taken away, mature replacements
should be put in—those which can give them some benefit
in the immediate or ensuing two or three years, rather than waiting
the many years that they may take to grow.
6227. In relation to the impact on business
and shops, the statement is—Ms Lieven said with force this
morning—that the impacts in terms of business and particularly
parking in Shenfield would be temporary and there would be no
long-term negative impact. We do not know that. Residents are
unconvinced that parking problems will not continue simply because
of the presence of a terminus in their area, particularly if the
predictions for passenger ridership prove wrong. In fact, the
long-term effect in terms of the town centre could well be a loss
of business in the short term, during the construction phase,
from which the town does not recover to the same level.
6228. An assessment of that, and any serious
analysis of what may happen in response to that, has not been
put before you. Instead, we have the two proposals from Crossrail
in relation to parking. One is that Burrows—the firm to
whom my learned friend Mr Stoker has referred and you have now
seen their letter—should lose their parking permits; the
other is that parking should be released on to the residential
streets. To the Promoters this appears to be a solution, in that
they can simply subtract that problem from the numbers that they
are otherwise facing, but there is no proposal, as my learned
friend Mr Stoker has said, for Crossrail itself to match its take,
if you like, with provision itself in terms of parking.
6229. In relation to the impact on the character
of Shenfield, the Promoter does accept there will be a significant
cumulative impact (paragraph 32 of Ms Lieven's note) on the community
of Shenfield. It takes the view that those impacts, virtually
all of them, are temporary and that the area will not permanently
lose the character of which residents have spoken. There will
be more traffic; there will be the sight lines and visual impacts
I have spoken of; there will be less parking in the short term
and we do not know what will happen in the long term; and there
will be long-term effects of the temporary disruption, as I have
said. The problem to which the residents are trying to point is
that they have an area of great character, the impact on which
is uncertain and the long-term effect on which is uncertain. It
simply is difficult to see how the Promoter can, with such conviction,
make a statement that there will be no long-term impact on the
character of Shenfield when none of us can know.
6230. There is a statement—and I am not
sure if Ms Lieven referred to it—to the effect that there
would be some impact on retail services while the construction
was going on, but that will be scheduled to minimise the impact
(paragraph 34 of her statement) and residents will note that as
well.
6231. On the issue of blight and the value of
houses, Mr Smith explained that blight rules themselves do not
apply and therefore we are talking about the hardship policy that
Crossrail put forward.
6232. Much was made, incidentally, of the panel
system that will administer the hardship policy, and the role
of an independent panel member. So there is no confusion about
this, the decision in such matters is made by the Secretary of
State. There is a process of appeal, but the Secretary of State
has said that he expects that to apply only when material circumstances
have changed since the application. So it is a very narrow ground
of appeal and one which will not apply in most instances.
6233. Mr Smith accepted in cross-examination,
in response to me, that the hardship policy will not apply in
a number of cases that I sought to outline in cross-examination.
Reference has been made (Ms Lieven's note, paragraph 37) to Mr
and Mrs Wood, and the possible inability of Mrs Wood to continue
teaching music. In response to me, Mr Smith accepted that Mrs
Wood might not qualify under the hardship scheme. Depending on
the circumstances, it would be a matter of judgment as to how
many pupils she had lost and the degree of hardship suffered,
and therefore its effect on whether or not they would be obliged
to go elsewhere.
6234. The point about hardship policy is that
those who are worried about the value of their house have some
comfort, provided they have lost more than 15 per cent of the
value of their house, if they are compelled to move. That does
nothing, for example, for the elderly residents who have petitioned
your Committee, sir; for example, Mr and Mrs Watt, Petitioners
257, who are aged 80 and 77 respectively and were looking to sell
their house to realise some of its value to provide for their
old age. They are not compelled to move; they wish to move. Nor
is a young family that wants a better house compelled to move,
but they have now had to face suffering that the loss of value
that this development will bring to them. Nor, indeed, have the
elderly—and there are quite a number of elderly petitioners
who petitioned you, reflecting the nature of the area of Brentwood,
where a quarter of the people are elderly—in terms of what
their successors may inherit, been put in a position where they
can at least be sure about what they will be passing on.
6235. As I say, the possibility of the involvement
of Brentwood Borough Council is something residents will welcome
in things like flexible working hours and the other elements of
the hours of operation and we will see how they work out in practice.
6236. I need not trouble you further, other
than to underline that the residents who appear before you are
looking to this Committee with a sense of great importance to
them of what they have brought before you and I trust, from the
way you have responded to what they have had to say, that you
appreciate the importance of the submissions I have put before
you.
6237. Chairman: Mr Jardine, would you
like to sum up?
6238. Mr Jardine: If I may, sir.
6239. Crossrail have sought to say that the
hardship scheme is in place now. In my questioning of Mr Smith,
with indeed some help from him yesterday morning, I demonstrated
the fact that in the case of existing ill-health that is not always
the case and the hardship scheme does not come into play until
nine months before work commences in the facility concerned. I
do not think that is just. In that particular case I hope that
Crossrail will change their position, or that your Committee may
be empowered to have words with them in that respect.
12 Crossrail Information Paper A7, Selection of the
North Eastern Terminus http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/ Back
|
