Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8200
- 8220)
8200. So unless it is right to allow only 243
non Royal Arsenal homes in Woolwich, and unless it is right to
give no weight to regeneration housing estates, that left-most
bar on the chart must be wrong, must it not, and significantly
wrong?
(Mr Colley) That is a population figure rather
than housing units.
8201. But it is derived from housing, is it
not?
(Mr Colley) Yes.
8202. So it must not only be wrong but significantly
wrong?
(Mr Colley) It appears so but I would need
to go back and check.
8203. If that is significantly wrong we know
that the 2:1 benefit cost ratio is a significant underestimate,
do we not?
(Mr Colley) That has already been discussed,
yes.
8204. Do you have a copy of the document that
is referred to yesterday, which is a Crossrail Technical Report
Assessment of socio-economic impacts to hand?[23]
As we can see that is a document and Drivers Jonas was one of
the two bodies, along with Colin Buchanan, which produced it,
and there were questions asked yesterday on this, and can we look
at the first substantive page of the document which has 81 on
the bottom, paragraph 6.3.7? We see here the methodology that
was used by Crossrail and we see: "Outside Central London,
property information is patchy with no single source of information.
Information has been pieced together on the property market and
future development data from a number of sources including: ...
schedules of development", and at the top of the next page,
page 82 at the bottom, the continuation of the sources of information,
we can see that in effect the London Plan was only one of nine
items. I am not suggesting that Heathrow is necessarily one to
be counted, but it was only one of nine points taken into account?
(Mr Colley) Correct.
8205. So that was your approach. Perhaps I could
move to the next page which deals with the next point of examination,
page 86 at the bottom, and if you look to begin with at the top
of that page, please, you mentioned that land ownership would
cause significant problems, and we have already heard undisputed
ownership at Woolwich town centre is principally owned by Powis
Estates and the London Borough of Greenwich. Can we see what was
stated in this Crossrail Report about land ownership for the Royal
Docks?[24]
If we turn to Royal Docks, we see the third sentence: "The
LDA have significant land holdings, so site assembly and availability
is not a constraint on development". One could equally say
for Woolwich, Powis Estates and the London Borough of Greenwich
have significant land holdings? Very significant land holdings,
could one not?
(Mr Colley) I would disagree to the extent
to which the relative proportions of land ownership in Royal Docks
and Woolwich town centre are comparable. In fact, I am currently
engaged by the GLA to look at the Royal Docks in more detail and
it is very apparent that large tracts of land comprising many,
many hectares, hundreds of hectares, are, indeed, in local authority
or LDA ownership or control, so I would be of the firm view that
deliverability on those sites is more likely to happen sooner,
given market demand, than it would in the Woolwich town centre.
8206. Do you know what proportion of Woolwich
town centre is owned by Powis Estates and the Borough put together?
(Mr Colley) I have not got a figure in my head,
no.
8207. Then we look at Abbey Wood, and perhaps
you could just read that paragraph to yourself, paragraph 6.4.19.[25]
Ignoring the two figures of 1500 and 50 per cent, what, stated
in that paragraph, would not apply to Woolwich?
(Mr Colley) Well, the first sentence
would. The last sentence—you have obviously not referred
to the figures in the middle sentence—the accessibility
improvements and image would deliver benefits in Woolwich town
centre, as I have already said, but I would not say that 50 per
cent would be attributable to the line. I would say a lower proportion
of development in Woolwich would be attributable to the construction
of a Crossrail station in Woolwich.
8208. And then you mentioned the developments
in Woolwich. How many major sites are you aware of being developed
other than the Royal Arsenal site?
(Mr Colley) If I can just go back to my opening
comments in that I referred to ten sites, and it also applies
to your taking me through the socio-economic report and those
bullet points which were the source of information, for information
outside the centre of London where property agents provide a lot
of information it is more difficult. In the Greenwich situation
we relied on information principally provided by the London Borough
of Greenwich itself, so our ten sites that we included there were
provided by Greenwich, as were the housing sites as well. So that
was the principal source of information that I adopted.
8209. My question may not be very clear. How
many sites apart from the Royal Arsenal, major sites, are you
aware of which are at present being developed in Woolwich town
centre?
(Mr Colley) I am not aware of any with tower
cranes on top of them or units being built. I am aware of the
plans for Peggy Middleton House and for the Kidbrooke Estate to
the south.
8210. Peggy Middleton House is, of course, the
local government offices that will be redeveloped. The Kidbrooke
Estate, otherwise known as Ferrier, is in the south west part
of the London Borough of Greenwich and by no means in Woolwich
town centre, is it?
(Mr Colley) No, but it has been cited and I
think is included in the EDAW figures and is on the plan which
showed the pink array of sites around.
8211. Mr Jones: Thank you, Mr Colley.
8212. Mr Elvin: I have no questions,
sir, thank you.
8213. Chairman: Thank you very much,
Mr Colley.
The witness withdrew
8214. Chairman: Mr Elvin, do you want
to sum up?
8215. Mr Elvin: I think in the light
of your request for further information I would rather do that
in the morning, sir, if you do not mind. I will see if I can get
you some more cost information because it may affect what I say
tomorrow, so we are going to try to get you some of the information
before we close tomorrow, if that is acceptable.
8216. Chairman: That is fine.
8217. Mr Jones: I rise because I would
have mentioned this in my closing; I was going to invite the Committee
to seek when it asks for costs in respect of stations not merely
the building of the station but also associated works such as
new highways that go with them so you have a total figure for
the cost of the station when you are making a comparison.
8218. Chairman: Yes. That discussion
may be useful, yes. So, Mr Elvin, tomorrow?
8219. Mr Elvin: If that is acceptable
to the Committee.
8220. Chairman: Then we will resume tomorrow
at 10.00 am.
23 Crossrail Ref: P78, Crossrail Technical Report,
Socio Economic Impacts, pp81-82 (LINEDW-STR121-076 to 077). Back
24
Crossrail Ref: P78, Crossrail Technical Report , Royal Docks,
Paras 6.4.17, 6.4.18 (LINEDW-STR121-081). Back
25
Crossrail Ref: P78, Crossrail Technical Report , Abbey Wood,
Para 6.4.19 (LINEDW-STR121-081). Back
| 
