Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8767
- 8779)
Mr David Elvin QC appeared on behalf of the
Promoter.
The Petition of Ferrotec (UK) Limited.
Mr Alastair Lewis appeared on behalf of the
Petitioner.
Sharpe Pritchard appeared as Agent.
8767. Chairman: Today we are going to
listen to the Petitions for LA 21 Traffic and Transport Group,
Iron Mountain (UK) Limited, Alternative Mail and Parcels Limited
and Ferrotec (UK) Limited. We are going to start with Ferrotec
(UK) Limited. Can I, first of all, as usual, inform the Committee
that I will be suspending the Committee at 11.45 or thereabouts
so that people can get some refreshments in the upper waiting
hall down the corridor and for Members to leave the Committee
so that they might get down for Question Time. We will then, this
afternoon, resume in this Committee room at 2.30.
8768. Can I, first, before I call Ferrotec,
ask whether LA 21 Traffic and Transport Group are here yet? No.
Mr Elvin, could you give us an introduction.
8769. Mr Elvin: Thank you, sir. We have
returned to Woolwich from Ebbsfleet yesterday. Ferrotec occupy
premises close to the proposed intervention shaft for emergency
and ventilation purposes at Arsenal Way, which is just to the
east of the historic Arsenal site, part of the Arsenal regeneration
area. Perhaps Mr Fry could focus in on the shaft in the Environmental
Statement.[1]
That is required for health and safety reasons and will be explained
to you by Mr Berryman in due course.
8770. The issue has been a difficult one because
there are a number of firms that are located in the vicinity of
the shaft and it appears that there is little option but to displace
some business occupiers regardless of where the shaft goes; if
it goes in one location it displaces Petitioner AMP and if it
goes in another it displaces Ferrotec. The decision that has been
made is that there are reasons, which Mr Berryman will explain,
why it was thought preferable to try and accommodate AMP, who
have a lot of HGV traffic and whose car park would be almost completely
rendered inoperable by the shaft, and that Ferrotec, unfortunately,
are displaced.
8771. If I can show you an aerial photograph
of the site, which is at page 426 of volume 3 of the Environmental
Statement, you can see Arsenal Way and the Plumstead Road, and
that is the general location, just north of the Plumstead Road,
where the shaft has to go for safety reasons.[2]
There is a limited scope for locating those shafts; they have
to be at a certain spacing which, again, Mr Berryman will explain
to you. The position with Ferrotec, as I say, is an unfortunate
one. The location which has been selected for the shaft will block
the access to Ferrotec's car park, but there seems little option
but to block one of the occupiers. Ferrotec will therefore be
in a position where it is likely to be able to claim compensation
both for any land take from its site and, certainly, for disturbance
from its premises. That is the position and Ferrotec are, understandably,
unhappy. However, as I say, there seemed to be little option but
to displace one of the occupiers.
8772. I ought to say, because there is an issue
that may be in the Committee's minds, that if a station were to
take place at Woolwich—and that, of course, was debated
last week—there would still be the need for some form of
shaft because this would be the eastern end of the station. So
the issue does not go away completely even if the Committee recommend
that a Woolwich station should be provided. If the Committee needs
to see it I think I have got a plan somewhere and can show you
that. Thank you.
8773. Chairman: Mr Lewis?
8774. Mr Lewis: First of all, could I
just hand round bundles of exhibits. Sir, the Petition before
you raises a number of detailed issues about the effect of the
Crossrail works on Ferrotec's business, but the main issue, as
Mr Elvin has just said, on which everything else hinges and on
which Ferrotec wish to address you, is the location of the Arsenal
Way intervention and access shaft. As mentioned by Mr Elvin, the
Bill allows for the shaft to be constructed in the car park to
the front of Ferrotec's building, and using the photograph which
is there on display I just wondered if a laser pointer could just
show where Ferrotec's building is. It is there.
8775. Chairman: Just for the record,
could I list these documents as A102?[3]
8776. Mr Lewis: Sir, I wonder if you
could turn to page 2 in our bundle of exhibits, which shows a
number of other photographs. I wonder if they could be put on
the screen. Sir, there is another aerial photograph at the top
left-hand corner, and you will see there there is a red spot.[4]
That indicates the intended location of the ventilation shaft
as proposed originally in the Bill. As you will learn as we go
on, sir, that is intended to be moved, to my client's detriment,
in front of their premises and away from their neighbours.
8777. Sir, the original design presented difficulties
for all four businesses fronting the car park area. In recognition
of that Crossrail carried out some studies to try to see if there
were other ways of designing the shaft so as to meet the concerns
of the Petitioners. Various options were considered and, naturally,
options which were good news for one Petitioner were bad news
for the other. However, there were options which worked either
way and the report concluded that they were feasible in engineering
terms and did not add significantly to the expense of the original
option. Once those options were put forward further work was done
by Crossrail to explain which was preferred. It is clear from
very recent correspondence, in the last two weeks, that Crossrail
appear to have taken, at least, an in principle decision, as Mr
Elvin says, that the shaft should be located to the advantage
of Ferrotec's neighbours and to the disadvantage of Ferrotec,
to the extent that Ferrotec would probably have to be displaced
from their premises.
8778. Sir, in short, the reason that Ferrotec
are here today is to try to persuade the Committee that there
is no need for them to be relocated. Sir, if you could turn to
the last page in the bundle of the exhibits, page 52, this explains
the options which the Petitioner puts forward.[5]
Sir, given what Mr Elvin said in his opening, I was under the
misapprehension that construction of the Woolwich station would
actually obviate the need for a shaft here at all. I had been
led to understand that simply by listening to the end of the case
for Woolwich station. I think there was discussion about the costs
and I am sure somebody said that the saving in not building the
shaft had been taken into account in the overall discussion as
to the costs of building Woolwich station. I was clearly wrong
in my interpretation of what was said then, and that is something,
perhaps, we might be able to investigate with Mr Berryman later.
8779. Clearly, Option 1 was certainly our preferred
option, if my understanding had been correct, in that we would
fully support the case for the Woolwich station. It may well be
that the construction of the Woolwich station might result in
the need for the shaft to be located somewhere else apart from
where it is now. We will learn later, sir, that there are requirements
from Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate about the minimum distance
between intervention shafts. It may well be that the construction
of the Woolwich station could result in these shafts being able
to be moved away from our client's car park.
1 Crossrail Ref: P83, Arsenal Way shaft: Project Works
and Impacts, Environmental Statement Map SE5 (ii) (LINEWD-ES17-118). Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P83, Aerial Photograph of Aresnal Way shaft, Environmental
Statement, Volume 3, p 426 (LINEWD- ES14-80). Back
3
Committee Ref: A102 Ferrotec (UK) Limited exhibits. Back
4
Committee Ref: A102, Aerial View of Shaft Location (GRCHLB-33105-002). Back
5
Committee Ref: A102, Ferrotec (UK) Limited-Desired Options (GRCHLB-33105-052). Back
|
