Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8520
- 8539)
8520. Understood. There is quite a lot of common
ground between us, which is why I am keeping this short. It is
also right, is it not, that with the massive amount of regeneration
you are planning for Bexley in any event, and you have shown the
Committee what is in the pipeline, you are going to be adding
to the congestion on the roads and providing a further disincentive
to the use of the car as opposed to the rail by virtue of your
regeneration schemes.
(Mr Donovan) Partly I would say yes but I would
also add the rider that future regeneration requires the public
transport support for it to be successful and to be of quality.
The problem is if you do not have the public transport you may
get development but it may not be of the same quality you would
get if you could have the accessibility that something like Crossrail
would give you.
8521. There is no issue between us that an extension
to Ebbsfleet would improve the quality of the service, however
the intermediate position—
(Mr Donovan) I meant the quality of the regeneration
itself.
8522. The intermediate position, however, brings
about a significant improvement in circumstances and Ebbsfleet
would be the icing on the cake.
(Mr Donovan) For Bexley I would have to say
it is a little more than just the icing but I take the point.
We are very happy that we have got a small cake but we would like
a bigger one with icing.
8523. Understood. We seem to be stuck with food
metaphors. I think it is because it is twenty to one. Just a very
minor point finally. You relied upon the indicative plan in the
London Plan as indicating the Mayor's approval, which shows Ebbsfleet.
Of course, that was before the Bill scheme was finalised and deposited.
(Mr Donovan) Yes.
8524. It shows no extension to Maidenhead, does
it?
(Mr Donovan) No.
8525. It also shows the abandoned link to Kingston.
(Mr Donovan) Yes. There is nothing in what
the Mayor has said and the Mayor's commitment to Thames Gateway
that would suggest when he revises his plan he will not reflect
in some way or other the aspiration of a link to Ebbsfleet.
8526. Mr Elvin: Very well. Mr Donovan,
I do not think I need trouble you or the Committee any further.
Thank you very much.
8527. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you. Mr
Cameron?
Re-examined by Mr Cameron
8528. Mr Cameron: One short point, please,
Mr Donovan. You were asked about regeneration initiatives in north
Bexley and you said that future regeneration in north Bexley requires
public transport in particular to support the quality of the development.
Can you just explain to the Committee what difference it will
make to those regeneration areas if they are served by Crossrail?
(Mr Donovan) Crossrail will give a very significant
underpinning to what we are trying to achieve. For example, it
will mean that much of London is accessible on a single train,
the accessibility to key places like Heathrow will be improved
and you will be able to attract a different type of development
to complement a lot of what has gone there. On the employment
side, we are looking to complement a lot of manufacturing industry
with a business and office market to some degree and a Crossrail
type link will help with that. In the north part of the area we
have got quite a lot of small scale housing. We have got, which
in a way is good, the cheapest house prices in London almost,
bar everywhere except Barking and Dagenham. Although that is good
news in one sense, it is also an indication in Bexley that it
is not quite as successful as we may think. We have only got something
like 49 houses in Bexley that are in the top council tax band.
That needs to change, we need to be more balanced. In a way, a
Crossrail type public transport infrastructure will help us with
both employment and housing in terms of the quality of development
that we will be able to attract.
8529. Mr Cameron: Thank you very much.
Those are all my questions, sir.
The witness withdrew
8530. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Cameron,
you indicated that you have a further witness to call.
8531. Mr Cameron: I have a further witness
to call—Mr Hawkins—but in the light of the undertaking
that Mr Elvin has indicated he may be able to give it may not
be necessary to call Mr Hawkins. Can I invite Mr Elvin to give
that undertaking, to read it into the transcript, and my instructions
could then confirm it may not be necessary to call Mr Hawkins.
I would like to put his bundle of documents in and point to one
document which I referred to when Mr Hardie was giving evidence.
8532. Mr Elvin: I have got the relevant
bits of paper here. The undertaking we propose is this: the Promoter
agrees to continue discussions with the London Borough of Bexley,
in consultation with the London Borough of Greenwich, with a view
to agreeing the highway improvements that may be necessary to
mitigate the impact of the Crossrail scheme associated with passengers
arriving and departing from Abbey Wood station. The Promoter will
fund reasonable transport measures that are agreed by the London
Borough of Greenwich, the London Borough of Bexley and the Promoter
to be reasonably necessary in order to mitigate the impact of
the Crossrail project as a result of passengers arriving at and
departing from Abbey Wood station. That is what we propose. Can
I make it clear that in offering that undertaking it is anticipated
that those discussions will be against the background of the transport
system as it is and with regard to other future developments in
the transport system, such as the Thames Gateway which only finished
at inquiry on 6 May. So it will be against the background of both
planned and existing highway measures.
8533. Mr Cameron: I am grateful for that.
It will not be necessary to call Mr Hawkins to deal with traffic
matters and capacity constraints in the vicinity of Abbey Wood,
which probably is a cause for happiness; as I am sure Mr Donovan's
evidence was. What I am asking is that the exhibits that Mr Hawkins
would have presented are put into the Committee and the page that
I referred to when Mr Hardie was giving evidence is page 25.[92]
8534. Sir Peter Soulsby: This will be
A92.
8535. Mr Cameron: What page 25 shows
in the non-bold figures which appear in the boxes are the CLRL
estimates of passenger numbers on Crossrail, as estimated by Crossrail
in their 2003 business case, so you have an indication of their
predicted usage and in bold the estimate in the Kent Thames-side
model. That is the only slide I wish to draw attention to, sir.
That would complete the evidence for Bexley.
8536. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much indeed. Mr Elvin, are you planning to call witnesses?
8537. Mr Elvin: I was going to call Mr
Berryman relatively briefly just to explain to you the reason
for the removal of Ebbsfleet from the scheme and one or two other
matters that have arisen with Mr Hardie. I am quite happy to do
that after lunch if that is convenient to you.
8538. Sir Peter Soulsby: If it is going
to take more than 20 minutes I think it would be sensible to do
it after lunch.
8539. Mr Elvin: I think it will probably
take a little more than 20 minutes.
92 Committee Ref: A92, Effect on Crossrail on the
station, changes in passenger flows (BEXYLB-32005B-026). Back
| 
