Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7320
- 7339)
7320. If we can just turn to page 127, please,
and those reasons are there set out on that page.[32]
I am not going to trouble the Committee with reading that out
but it is fair to say, is it not, that you do not take issue with
what is said in that letter so far as its accuracy is concerned?
(Mr Thomas) I would say that is
a representation of the position between us at the moment, yes.
7321. And you do not bring any evidence before
the Committee to suggest that any of those reasons is unjustified
or incorrect?
(Mr Thomas) No, I have dealt with my evidence
so far.
7322. And the same point arises, does it not,
at the bottom of the page and over the page which deals with the
retention of the existing secondary access.[33]
We have explained the reasons why we do not believe it is practicable
to retain that. You do not suggest the reasons we give there are
unjustified?
(Mr Thomas) We have discussed
that already, yes, and I have made my position clear about those
points.
7323. So if we turn then finally to your proposed
undertaking which is at your document, page 26 under A, which
is the undertaking which is concerned with the provision of a
new access to the south.[34]
The way in which you suggest it should be put is that "unless
the nominated undertaker is of the reasonable opinion that there
are reasonable engineering reasons why it cannot be constructed".
Then you say we should carry out the works that you there set
out. So you accept that it should be a matter for "reasonable
opinion" and it should be based upon "reasonable engineering
reasons" as to whether construction is a practicable proposition?
(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes,
and we have asked for information and clarification on those points.
7324. And certainly the letter I have just shown
briefly to the Committee is the present judgment of the Promoter
of Crossrail, is it not?
(Mr Thomas) I would have to agree that that
is Crossrail's current position, yes.
7325. And you suggested if there were any differences
to those points that they should be subject to an arbitration
clause at C?
(Mr Thomas) That is correct, yes.
7326. But there is, in fact, on the evidence
before the Committee nothing to arbitrate, is there, because you
do not bring any contrary evidence before the Committee to suggest
that the Promoter's position on the engineering operation and
the disruption that would result from what you propose is in any
way unjustified or unreasonable?
(Mr Thomas) We do not bring any contrary opinion
or contrary evidence because we have not got any evidence to bring
in that sense. We have asked Crossrail to provide evidence to
explain why the position is as it is for Crossrail.
7327. The final point relates to the undertaking
on next page, page 27, in relation to cumulative impacts.[35]
You have mentioned the need to take account of impacts which had
not been identified in the Environmental Statement. Can you please
tell me what impacts you had in mind which would result from the
operation of Crossrail which have not been identified in the Environmental
Statement?
(Mr Thomas) We are talking here
about impacts which arise cumulatively in Romford from the implications
of other developments taking place, which I mentioned earlier
on, and the Crossrail works, and those are the cumulative impacts
that we are concerned about.
7328. We have confirmed to you, have we not,
that we would take reasonable, practicable steps as appropriate
to programme the timing and extent of works so as to reduce environmental
impacts that the Crossrail construction would cause on residents
and businesses in Romford town centre. Yes?
(Mr Thomas) You have.
7329. Essentially that is what you seek, is
it not?
(Mr Thomas) Yes.
7330. Mr Mould: Thank you very much indeed,
Mr Thomas.
Examined by the Committee
7331. Chairman: Mr Thomas, just enlighten
me. Could you go back on the undertakings on the southern side.
Could you just briefly explain to me the difference between what
is in the undertakings which have been given and that which you
still are holding out for? What is not contained in that? What
more do you want from that?
(Mr Thomas) I do not think we want any more
than this. This is what we are looking for.
7332. That is what you are looking for at the
end of the day?
(Mr Thomas) But for Crossrail to demonstrate
the issues for us.
7333. On the other side of it, you said earlier
on in your evidence that by 2016, I think it was, five million
passengers may be going through this particular station. How many
of those would be affected by the need for this southern access?
(Mr Thomas) Maybe I did not present the figures
as clearly as I should have done. The five million figure is a
figure that Transport for London have given us already for the
level of passenger use in the last year or so. In the existing
Romford station, in a typical year up to 2005, their evidence
is that five million passengers a year would use the station.
7334. Out of the five million, how many would
be affected by this lack of access, the longer journey time?
(Mr Thomas) I am not sure that I can make that
direct connection but the other figure that I alluded to in my
evidence is almost half the passengers arriving at Romford station
currently arrive from the south, from the bus station outside
the station.
7335. That would be two and a half million people
you expect to be affected in the course of a year?
(Mr Thomas) If that connection could be made,
yes, that would appear to be the case.
7336. I did remember you said between one and
two million and now it is one to one and a half million but even
at one to one and a half million that could mean close to four
million minute in the course of a year?
(Mr Thomas) It could be, yes, or for an individual
it is not unusual these days, in terms of looking at people's
lifestyles, to gross up how a small inconvenience can all of a
sudden become a very significant inconvenience over a working
lifetime.
7337. So it is not inconsiderable, it is quite
considerable; that is what you are saying?
(Mr Thomas) That is the Council's position
that individually for separate passengers it would be an issue
and if you apply it to the gross figure of people using the station
then it becomes an even more significant issue.
7338. Chairman: Thank you very much.
Re-examined by Mr Straker
7339. Mr Straker: Can I just ask one
or two matters by way of re-examination. May I first touch upon
the undertaking at HAV26, the one just spoken to, which is the
undertaking that the Petitioners are seeking. Mr Thomas, could
you have that open and could you also be shown, please, page 127
of P75, which is the letter of 18 April 2006 from Crossrail.[36]
If you look at page 127 you will see that the third paragraph
refers to "to extend the ticket hall" and then goes
on to suggest certain things would be required in order for it
to be done. First of all, please, are the petitioners, the London
Borough of Havering, seeking an extended ticket hall?
(Mr Thomas) No, the Council's
position is that the ticket hall does not need to be extended.
All we are seeking in this instance is for an access arrangement
from the south side of the station. There may be, we acknowledge,
a need for there to be a ticket barrier system so that people
can use their season tickets or Oyster cards to get into the station,
but we are clearly not asking for a ticket hall to be a duplicated
facility on either side of the station.
32 Crossrail Ref: P75, CLRL letter to London Borough
of Havering, 18 April 2006, p2 (HAVGLB-14704-127). Back
33
Crossrail Ref: P75, CLRL letter to London Borough of Havering,
18 April 2006, p3 (HAVGLB-14704-128). Back
34
Committee Ref: A82, Draft Undertakings sought by London Borough
of Havering (HAVGLB-14705-078). Back
35
Committee Ref: A82, Draft Undertakings sought by London Borough
of Havering (HAVGLB-14705-079). Back
36
Crossrail Ref: P75, CLRL letter to London Borough of Havering,
18 April 2006, p2 (HAVGLB-14704-127). Back
| 
