Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8040
- 8059)
8040. Presumably through the normal planning
process you would retain control over the design and appearance
of the station, would you not?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
8041. And do, under the provisions of Schedule
7?
(Mr Chard) Not to the same degree. The problem
is that good design may take time and one of the things the replacement
planning regime does is it takes away time and puts the local
planning authority under pressure because, if they do not do something
within the very tight timetables then it is a deemed approval,
and that has disadvantages to professional town planners and architects
who are trying to move towards a good design where the design
is in the public interest and where there is a lot of local interest.
There is no reason why more time cannot be given in this circumstance.
8042. If the normal planning process applied,
one of the things that Greenwich would be able to require would
be highway improvements connected with the station, would they
not? Indeed, they would be able to insist on it through either
a Section 106 planning application or an agreement under Highways
Act Section 278, if those works were necessary?
(Mr Chard) Yes, that is a possibility. With
any full planning application you can have conditions under Section
106 agreements.
8043. And, if there was a disagreement about
the particular highway improvements that might be required associated
with Crossrail, then the only avenue would be to appeal to the
Secretary of State and for a planning inquiry to be held into
the station and the issues relating to how the highway improvements
and highway infrastructure?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
8044. What is the sort of timescale for getting
an inquiry at the moment, Mr Chard? Are you aware?
(Mr Chard) It could be six months or a year,
but what I would like to say is that does not mean to say that
the station would not operate during that period. We had a similar
issue with the Cutty Sark DLR station where the station operated
because the platforms and ticket machines were there but the over
station building took a long time to sort out a good design which
was required because it was in the World Heritage site, so I do
not think the requirement for a full planning application for
a station building would prevent a station from operating in the
interim.
8045. So what you are saying is that we can
construct the station without planning permission?
(Mr Chard) Well, the platforms, because they
are not building, and there are existing use rights for a station
so presumably it continues while the construction work is on-going,
but if we are talking about the particular new station building,
then that is a new public building which the local authority for
various reasons has significant interest in.
8046. Well, I am going to leave the Committee
to form their own view as to whether or not that is a sensible
way forward but can I just suggest to you that perhaps the reason
that the Council is wishing to retain control over the planning
permission in relation to the station is not so much concerned
with the design of the station itself but more concerned to ensure
that it has a strong position in terms of negotiation for highway
improvements, Mr Chard?
(Mr Chard) We are not unaware of that. Hopefully
the highway issues will be resolved long before we get to the
design of the station building, and Greenwich Council does have
a track record of being involved with station building design
and planning applications related to station buildings. For example,
I was very much involved in DLR Woolwich, and what the planning
authority did was prepare a planning brief, we had a legal agreement
with the Promoters of DLR Woolwich station which was very useful
because it fixed some parameters of the design and integrated
the station building which was to be owned by the railway company
with the over station development which was to be built on top,
so I think the Council has experience and has a good track record
of working with railway promoters to integrate stations in their
surrounding area and to develop comprehensive designs and get
them done on time and efficiently and not hold up the railway
project.
8047. Chairman: Was that a yes?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
8048. Mr Taylor: Thank you, Mr Chard.
It is a shame we did not have a chance to go into the figures
on forecasting; I would have enjoyed that! Those are all the questions
I have, thank you.
Re-examination by Mr Jones
8049. Mr Jones: You were asked about
reductions in road traffic at the very start of cross-examination
today and you said: "Correct, with certain caveats".
Can you just tell us what Transport for London's attitude to policies
favouring reduction in road traffic was when it came to Transport
for London's promotion for the Thames Gateway Bridge?
(Mr Chard) Yes. Thames Gateway Bridge is a
new highway and the Council and TfL had to consider whether constructing
a new major highway in London was compatible with their policies
for road traffic reduction. They concluded that, bearing in mind
the caveat to the policy on road traffic reduction in new highways,
building a new highway over Thames Gateway Bridge and the connecting
highways was not in conflict with the policies of generally not
building new highways in London, and we as a borough came to the
same conclusion in relation to our own policies, that there was
not a conflict between our policies and the construction of the
new highways for Thames Gateway Bridge.
8050. I think perhaps again, dealing with reduction
in road traffic, and I know it pre-dates the Act but not Greenwich's
policies with regard to road traffic, as far as the Greenwich
peninsular is concerned were roads built to give access to North
Greenwich station?
(Mr Chard) Yes. Roads exclusively for buses
and roads for general traffic as well.
8051. You mentioned in answer to a question
in respect of a programme for the North Kent Line your concern
about what happened in respect of the Docklands Light Railway
station at Woolwich. Can you just tell the Committee what is going
to happen in respect of that, or what did happen?
(Mr Chard) There was a provision in the Transport
and Works Act Order for a temporary platform to be built just
east of Woolwich Arsenal station and we were told that the purpose
of that was to use that temporary platform while the existing
platform was out of use in order to construct the Docklands Light
Railway. We took it on trust, I suppose, that that was what was
likely to happen. It was only halfway through the construction
period, or well into the construction period, that we realised
that was not going to happen and that the railway companies had
got together and agreed amongst themselves with the contractor
that they would not build that temporary platform so people who
were coming down from London would not be able to get off the
trains anywhere in Woolwich for a period of, I think, a month
or six weeks that the station, that the platform was going to
be closed.
8052. This is Woolwich Arsenal station?
(Mr Chard) Yes.
8053. And how important a station to Woolwich
is Woolwich Arsenal?
(Mr Chard) It is very important. It is the
main station.
8054. Can we move to design? It is suggested
that the Council was not motivated by design concerns but by highway
concerns. You mentioned about the Council's policy to design stations.
Are you able to comment on Greenwich Council's general approach
to design and its importance or unimportance in planning in general
terms?
(Mr Chard) Yes. Quality design is an important
matter for our Council. We employ a design specialist in our planning
team. The Council has won a number of awards for good designs
where we work very closely in partnership with developers to get
top quality designs, so we have a track record, we commit to professional
resources, and we have had involvement, particularly with the
over station development at Cutty Sark in the World Heritage site
and now also on-going in Woolwich with the DLR Woolwich station.
8055. Mr Jones: Thank you, Mr Chard.
I have no further questions.
8056. Chairman: Then I think this is
an appropriate moment, five minutes earlier than expected, to
rise until 2.30 this afternoon. I will just remind people about
problems we may experience later on in the day outside, if you
can try and get back a little bit earlier.
8057. Mr Elvin: Could I just say that
this afternoon I am going to call two witnesses, and in light
of Mr Chard's agreement about discussions on Abbey Wood they are
going to be shorter than I thought so I hope, depending of course
on Mr Jones' cross-examination, we can conclude the Greenwich
Petition this afternoon.
8058. Chairman: Excellent!
After a short adjournment
8059. Chairman: We will begin with Mr
Evlin.
Mr David Anderson, Recalled
Examined by Mr Elvin
| 
