Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8020
- 8039)
8020. That is part of the negotiations with
Westminster, is it not?
(Mr Chard) Yes, but they did not announce to
the Committee that they were speaking on our behalf, so we are
speaking on our own behalf.
8021. So you do not believe Westminster is the
lead authority representing you on that issue?
(Mr Chard) We are not sharing their costs and
therefore they do not necessarily speak for us on everything.
8022. What is the undertaking you are seeking
from the Petitioner in relation to the working hours, then, Mr
Chard, because I do not see one in your proof anywhere?
(Mr Chard) We have not put it in the form of
an undertaking. We have just made the same point that a number
of other boroughs and Petitioners have made, that it will assist
all the local planning authorities in their view if there is an
amendment to Schedule 7 which restores a clause which is in Schedule
6 to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, which is otherwise identical,
to enable the local planning authority to control working hours
for planning and highways management reasons. Obviously if noise
is the reason why working hours are going to be controlled then
it should be done under the more specific legislation which is
in Section 61 of the 1974 Act, but that only relates to noise.
8023. We are not going to deal with this today;
we are obviously going to report back once the negotiations with
Westminster have been concluded, but you have made your point
to the Committee so I have done my job in that respect. Now, disruption
to the North Kent Line is the next aspect to be raised on page
22, paragraph 10.2, and here you seek an undertaking that is specified
that when the nominated undertaking for the North Kent Line work
is appointed, they shall require that nominated undertaker to—and
then there are four elements to the undertaking sought on page
316, a), b) and c).[17]
The first is to "prepare a detailed construction programme
for the approved works, including programming any working outside
normal working hours ... any railway possessions or blockades,
and any proposed variations or changes to the normal passenger
services and timetables." That is the first element. When
possessions are undertaken or blockades are undertaken at the
moment on the North Kent Line, is the local authority provided
with a detailed construction programme for those works?
(Mr Chard) No.
8024. Secondly, b), implementation of any works,
the programme is to be submitted to the relevant local authorities
and the transport users group to allow comment. c): It requires
careful consideration of the comments received, particularly in
relation to adverse effects to residents, and d), it requires
that the work is not constructed other than in accordance with
the programme of work and a schedule of mitigation measures which
have been submitted to and agreed by the London borough of Greenwich.
When work is done on the North Kent Line at present, does the
London Borough of Greenwich have control over the programme to
the extent it cannot be carried out if the Council disagrees?
(Mr Chard) No.
8025. Why is it that you are seeking, then,
to obtain such control in relation to possessions and blockades
associated with Crossrail?
(Mr Chard) We think that the local authority
and the London Transport Users Committee should be a consultee
to the proposed programme of works. I understand that the generality
of the planning regime will require the Promoters or the nominated
undertaker to submit to the local planning authority a programme
of work and a schedule of the consent applications they are going
to submit under the planning regime. That was the way the system
worked under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act. Our present understanding
is that a similar arrangement will be put in place for qualifying
authorities under this Bill, so what I think we are saying is
that these blockades and possessions should be included in that
programme, which the nominated undertaker is, I understand, going
to submit anyway to the local authority for their comments.
8026. Your undertaking as it is drafted at present
requires the submission of that programme before any work begins,
does it not?
(Mr Chard) That, again, is in line with the
arrangements on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
8027. Have you undertaken any research as to
when knowledge of the dates and times for possessions becomes
available under the process as it exists in relation to NetworkRail?
(Mr Chard) In my experience they are often
agreed and scheduled years in advance of them actually happening.
8028. And have you investigated the process
that is involved in obtaining possession on the railway?
(Mr Chard) Well, I worked on secondment for
British Rail for a time and I listened around the office to the
procedure.
8029. You see, my understanding is that, given
particularly the scale of the work in relation to Crossrail, the
dates for possessions or, indeed, blockades, although I do not
believe a blockade is proposed here, are not such that they are
available years in advance. In particular your undertaking does
not provide for the dates to alter, does it?
(Mr Chard) We do not want to be unreasonable
and we have said that agreement would not be unreasonably withheld.
What we do not want to happen is to be cut out of the decision-making
process without consultation in the way that happened with the
DLR and Woolwich because the Council needs to represent the interests
of local people.
8030. Would you be prepared to accept an undertaking
that offered consultation on the details of the work identified
in paragraph a) and which also offered to take into account the
responses from that consultation as set out in paragraph c)?
(Mr Chard) Well, I think we would want c) as
well—
8031. I am offering that to you, Mr Chard.
(Mr Chard) (a), (b) and (c)?
8032. I am offering (a) and (c). (b) we cannot
do because we do not necessarily know the dates prior to the implementation
of all the work.
(Mr Chard) I think this needs to be tied into
the planning regime for qualifying authorities. I am not disagreeing
with what you are suggesting: I am saying that it needs to be
looked at in that context, to get a final version that fits with
the consent arrangements within the planning regime which is still
being developed.
8033. Chairman: Is that a no?
(Mr Chard) It is a yes.
8034. Mr Taylor: The last matter, then,
is planning permission for station buildings. As I understand
it, you are suggesting that the local planning authority should
consider a full planning application for the station at Abbey
Wood?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
8035. And I am right in saying, am I not, that
the Bill makes provision for a sort of form of outline planning
permission through Schedule 7, does it not?
(Mr Chard) That is correct.
8036. And in essence what it does is it provides
for Greenwich to have approval of plans for works; it provides
for Greenwich to require additional information if it wants it;
it requires the development to be carried out in accordance with
plans approved by Greenwich, and there are grounds for refusing
to approve, are there not?
(Mr Chard) There are.
8037. And included in those grounds are matters
relating to the built form of a station building?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
8038. And the grounds for refusing to approve
plans are that the design or external appearance of the station
ought to be modified a) to preserve the local environment or local
amenity, b) to prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on road safety
or on the free flow of traffic in the local area, or c) to preserve
a site of archaeological or historic interest or nature conservation
value and that the design of the works is reasonably capable of
being modified. Yes?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
8039. Now, what is it about that regime that
does not give London Borough of Greenwich sufficient control over
the design of the station?
(Mr Chard) The normal planning regime has been
disapplied with a new regime put in its place which is beneficial
to the Promoters and less beneficial to the planning authority,
and what we are saying is that we cannot see that there is justification
for not using the normal planning process in this particular instance.
17 Committee Ref: A84, Disruption North Kent Line
Works (Clause 40) Para 10.2 (GRCHLB-3605-315). Back
| 
