Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6320
- 6339)
6320. Another point, sir, is that the rejection
of this present Crossrail route in 1994, some 11 years ago, it
appears from my limited experience, and I am not a rail expert,
that the Promoter has never seriously looked at alternative routes,
and I really feel that, sir, that they really have not, from all
the information I have had and so on. They have obstinately kept
to the present route which, as stated previously, is dated as
long ago as the 1980s. There is, as I understand it, a much better
strategic alternative, the Crossrail northern interchange route,
the CNIR, with Channel Tunnel rail links to St Pancras and King's
Cross, on which others will give evidence in detail, I suspect.
This becomes even more attractive with the current massive redevelopment
proposals in the King's Cross area, only approved, I believe,
by Camden Council last week. Part of the CNIR includes what is
known as the `Wigmore alignment' on which others will give evidence
today, sir.
6321. As members of the Committee will know,
the development of employment lies not in the West End because
it is already done in the West End and you cannot build high-rise
buildings in the West End and the Mayfair Conservation Area, it
has already been done there, but north of Euston and the Marylebone
Road you can build high-rise buildings and that is where we suggest
the link is. High-rise buildings are not feasible for the majority
of, as I have already said, the West End and the Mayfair Conservation
Area.
6322. Sir, there are real concerns, and I have
left this to last, within the Mayfair Conservation Area of the
dangers of settlement to hundreds and hundreds of Listed and un-Listed
buildings, together with the major disruption that will be caused
right in the heart of London for anything up to 10 years. Can
you imagine any situation right at the heart of the West End of
London with all this going on, with lorries going backwards and
forwards, and all the things already described to you.
6323. Finally, sir, it is interesting to note
that the Grosvenor Estate Petitioners, although they support,
as we all do, the east-west rail link, they do not support necessarily
this particular route. Thank you, sir.
6324. Chairman: Can I just say briefly
that your points 1 to 6 are really not within the jurisdiction
of this Committee. What you are intimating in all of those sections
is the possibility of us actually looking at this to see if there
is a case against Crossrail, but that is not within our remit
at all. This House has decided that there shall be a Crossrail
and it is just a matter for this Committee to report the best
way forward for that, so I let you go on to make your point, but
it is only from point 7 onwards really where you make your case
for your objection on a reasonable basis.[20]
6325. Mr Walters: I am obliged, sir.
6326. Chairman: Mr Mould?
6327. Mr Mould: Of course the difference
between the early 1990s and now is that then it was a Private
Bill which was promoted to this House and now we are concerned
with a hybrid Bill and, as you have just indicated, that means
that the principle of the Bill has the support of the House of
Commons.
6328. Chairman: And indeed we are obligated
to go in that particular direction.
6329. Mr Mould: Precisely, sir. Lest
there be any doubt, we have explained in opening statement from
Mr Elvin the very substantial transport, planning and economic
benefits that will flow from Crossrail and, as this Committee
has already heard from the City of London and indeed from the
Confederation of British Industry, in relation to those matters
this Bill enjoys the very clear support of the local and wider
business community.
6330. Sir, you are going to hear later from
the Residents' Association of Mayfair in relation to the proposed
northern line along Marylebone Road, which I think was touched
on by the Petitioner. I am not going to anticipate the hearing
of that petition, it seems appropriate if I were to leave that,
that is a matter to be dealt with later in the day. Suffice to
say, as you will hear, the case against that alternative is a
very powerful one.
6331. Sir, turning to the one matter that was
raised which relates to local issues, firstly the question of
security. Sir, you will not be surprised to hear that the Promoter
is very alive to the need to ensure that security issues—the
question of terrorism was raised—are taken into account
properly and appropriately during the construction phase and that
measures are taken to ensure that the prospect of those with the
fairest motive seeking to take advantage of Crossrail are controlled
and guarded against as appropriate.
6332. Sir, I refer you simply to the proposed
Crossrail Construction Code. You will recall that that is before
the Committee attached to information paper D1 and one of the
provisions of that document relating to public access and highways
is a general requirement that, amongst other things, the Promoter
and the nominated undertaker prepare traffic management plans
which are produced and implemented, prepared in consultation with
highway and traffic authorities and with—this is the important
point—the emergency services and obviously that will enable
concerns about risks associated with lorry routes. I think the
particular concern raised by this Petitioner is lorry routing
through the northern section of Mayfair in the vicinity of the
American Embassy in Grosvenor Square. That is something that will
plainly be taken into account within the embrace of that group
requirement of the code and appropriate consultation and appropriate
measures taken to ensure that the routes are not such as to give
rise to risk to the security of the Embassy and indeed wider security
issues wherever they may arise within the construction area of
the route. I hope that gives the Committee sufficient comfort
to know that that point is taken into account.
6333. Finally, as to the question of the impact
of the construction phase on the Mayfair conservation area and
the area of Mayfair generally. We make the point repeatedly, of
course we accept that the construction of a major railway project
such as Crossrail is going to have impact on the environment and
impact on local people whilst the work is being carried out. It
is precisely for that reason that the Promoter is taking all reasonable
practical measures to ensure that that impact is limited and to
provide appropriate package of mitigation. You have heard a great
deal about that already and you will, I fear, hear more about
it as the weeks of this Committee sitting go on, it is right that
you should do.
6334. In relation to settlement, you will have
heard from Professor Mair, who has provided you with a presentation
on day 8 of the Committee, he explains how the settlement process
works and unless there is any more you would like to hear from
me now on that, I simply remind you of that and refer you to that
and raise that point on the record. Suffice to say that settlement
has been taken into account in great detail and will continue
to be so through the document process as the design moves towards
its detailed stage and to implementation.
6335. Finally, in relation to disruption, again
we have given a range of commitments about dealing with noise,
disturbance, air quality, dust, all those things that were touched
on by the Petitioner, the Construction Code deals with those in
detail, we have explained how the mitigation packages work, unless
there is anything else I can help you with on that at this stage
I would not propose to do more than simply remind you that those
matters are in place.
6336. Chairman: The matters raised in
Mr Alder's address in relation to Mayfair we will deal with as
one of the petitions later in the day.
6337. Mr Mould: As I understand it, it
is possible that those matters may be raised. If they are raised
more specifically and in greater detail then we will deal with
those more specifically in greater detail as appropriate at that
time, but given that they were raised, I hope I do not do any
disservice to the Petitioner saying they were raised at a relatively
high level in his address, I hope that a relatively high level
of response I have given is sufficient for your purposes.
6338. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
I am now going to adjourn the Committee until 11.50.
After a short adjournment
6339. Chairman: I am going to change
the order of business, I am going to deal with firstly Mr George
Iacobescu and others and we are going to deal with that first
and then go on to Mintel afterwards. I understand speaking on
behalf of Mr Iacobescu is Ramon Greene.
Mr Timothy Mould appeared on behalf of the Promoter.
The Petition of George Iacobescu, CBE and others.
Mr Ramon Greene appeared in person.
20 Committee Ref: A73, Correspondence from Leo Walters
Paras 1 to 9 (SCN20060330-002 to -005). Back
|
