Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8920
- 8930)
8920. We do not adopt the view that this will
all be solved by the station of Woolwich because, as you know,
we do not support the station of Woolwich, and we have made our
position clear on that. That would itself involve a significant
impact on AMP. For the reasons I have suggested, based fundamentally
on safety requirements and on making a different decision between
the impacts on two businesses, we respectfully suggest that the
Ferrotec Petition should not be supported by the Committee.
8921. Mr Lewis: Ferrotec believe that
Crossrail should reconsider their options for the Arsenal shaft.
They do not believe that Crossrail have taken anywhere near enough
care to consider viable alternatives to protect the continuity
of their business, the requirements of which have been spelled
out by Mr Aukett and which I do not need to describe again.
8922. I need not say much about the Woolwich
Station option as I am sure you have heard enough already last
week. However, the Arsenal shaft issue was understandably not
dwelt on much by Greenwich when they presented their case. All
I would say is if the Committee needs another reason to say "yes"
to Woolwich then this case provides one.
8923. I deal next with the western option, and
I would stress once more that Ferrotec recognise that safety must
be paramount. Sir, the Promoter's response to the Petition on
this issue, which I will not read again, is, to put it at its
highest, inadequate. Sir, every bit of this new railway will require
the approval of HMRI, as Mr Berryman said, before it comes into
operation. The response simply did not make sense, and Mr Berryman
confirmed the drafting was rather unfortunate. Sir, my guess is
that what the Promoters meant to say in their response was that
the approval of HMRI will be required and their guidance says
that the access points should be at one-kilometre intervals and
no more. I would suggest that such a response is not good enough
either for two reasons. First, we have the example of Fisher Street
where Crossrail are planning a shaft which is actually further
from the magic one-kilometre mark than the western Arsenal shaft
would be. That must suggest that HMRI's guidance is not always
followed rigidly. Indeed, when you read the guidance on page 32
of our documents, it does not say that all access points must
be exactly one kilometre apart, there is flexibility.
8924. Secondly, the response seems to suggest
that the Promoter simply could not be bothered even to ask HMRI
whether the western shaft is acceptable. Sir, you have seen nothing
to suggest that the question has been put specifically, and there
is nothing to suggest that HMRI would definitely say "no".
I am referring you to the example of Maryland Station again where
an entirely different approach has been taken and Crossrail have
agreed to take reasonable steps to obtain HMRI's agreement to
selective door opening.
8925. Sir, for all those reasons, if the Committee
does not accept Greenwich's case for Woolwich Station, Ferrotec
would ask that the Promoter be required to include the necessary
powers for the western alternative in the Bill and implement it
subject to HMRI and LFEPA approval, which the Promoter should
make all reasonable efforts to obtain. If it does not, then there
is always the current fallback in the Bill.
8926. Turning briefly to the situation as between
Crossrail's choice of whether to use a Ferrotec-friendly or an
AMP-friendly option, I would urge you to consider Ferrotec's real
concerns about the disruption that a move would have on their
business. You have heard how it took a year to find the current
premises. There has been no hard evidence put to you about the
relevant inconvenience to be suffered by the neighbours, and Ferrotec's
suspicion is that in the end the decision boils down to cost.
8927. Ferrotec would urge that at least the
Promoters be required to rethink their preliminary decision and,
in that respect, Ferrotec would be quite prepared to discuss with
the Promoters what their concerns are in greater detail so that
perhaps a more reasonable decision could be made in the event
that Crossrail do actually have to choose between the two Petitioners.
That is all I wanted to say.
8928. Chairman: That concludes the case
for the Petition for Ferrotec UK Limited. Can I now ask again
if the LA21 Traffic and Transport Group is present? Can it be
noted that we have called for them twice and they have not appeared.
Therefore it can be viewed as heard by the Committee. We have
one other Petition, Alternative Mail and Parcels Limited. Are
they present and do they wish to make a presentation?
8929. Mr Elvin: Sir, there is a gentleman
here from AMP, but the situation with AMP has been resolved by
agreement.
8930. Chairman: Can I say, that concludes
all of today's hearing. There is just one announcement. Next Tuesday
we will be making a visit to the site between Whitechapel and
Hanbury Street. With all cases in the past, if there are any Petitioners
connected to those Petitioners, they may join us on route. If
they wish to find out the details they should contact the clerks
about that. Finally, for all those people who have long journeys
home or whatever there are refreshments at the end of the corridor
if you would like to partake. Thank you.
| 
