Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10240
- 10259)
10240. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Who is taking
this on? Mr Elvin?
10241. Mr Elvin: Sir, on the consultation
issues, we do not accept all the criticisms that have been made
and I am going to explain why at 2.30. Can I deal with a couple
of limited points at this point just so the Committee knows where
we are coming from. So far as consultations are concerned, there
was not only one consultation round, there were a number. Could
I ask Mr Fry to put up Information Paper F2 page 2, please, just
to remind the Committee it is a long time since I referred to
the information which I gave in opening on 17 January.[11]
You can see there that in terms of consultation there was a public
awareness campaign in September 2003, which is item 3a. There
was a major consultation round, the first consultation round,
for 12 weeks, in the latter part of 2003. There was a supplementary
public awareness exercise later. There was then a second major
consultation round for another 12 weeks in 2004. Finally, there
was an information round which accompanied the Bill Deposit to
give information about the scheme as it finally emerged at the
time of the Bill Deposit and Environmental Statement.
10242. Can I say this? The issue with regard
to the old Truman's Brewery, I make no bones about it, it was
insensitive given the nature of the community. But I am going
to explain why—and it is not a good excuse because it was
insensitive, as I accept. The problem was that in terms of obtaining
proper accessibility it was the only available site at the time,
and it was moved when an alternative site became available—it
was moved to the Brady Centre for subsequent consultation. It
was force of circumstances but I nonetheless acknowledge the lack
of sensitivity involved in that. Can I also make it clear that
information was given at both consultation rounds one and two
that Hanbury Street would be used for tunnelling as well as ventilation
and intervention? By way of illustration now—and I will
deal with this more fully later—can I have put on the scanner
the information panels that were displayed and which were also
available in A4 format, and they were also available in Bengali.[12]
This is the 2003 version and you will see in the text at the right
hand side the last two paragraphs make it perfectly clear that
this is to be a launch and retrieval point for tunnel boring machines
used during tunnel construction. So we do not accept that information
was somehow concealed about the true nature of the then Hanbury
Street shaft and the purpose for it. Of course, the position changed
in April of this year when the tunnelling strategy was changed
and letters went out to Petitioners on 22 May, but a public statement
was made in Parliament, a statement was made, I think—I
cannot remember whether it by was me or somebody else—to
the Committee and a new version of the Information Paper on Hanbury
Street and on the tunnelling strategy was published in the last
week of April and made available from that date. So in terms of
the role of Hanbury Street and then in terms of the change we
do not accept that there was not transparency or notice.
10243. I am not going to deal with other matters
at this stage on consultation; I will make our position clear
this afternoon.
10244. So far as the CRE is concerned and the
Equality Impact Assessment, as I indicated to the Committee yesterday
there has been a correspondence with Mr Trevor Phillips. This
is only the first letter and there are others. Mr Trevor Phillips
now knows that an initial assessment has been carried out, that
another assessment is underway and if the Committee wishes to
see the full range of correspondence I am quite happy to provide
it. But there are later letters than this, this is the first letter
from Mr Phillips that we had in correspondence.
10245. In terms of the other issues, those are
matters that have already been covered in evidence, both on Day
38 with Tower Hamlets; and why an intervention shaft is needed
has already been covered by Mr Berryman. On questions such as
the alignment and the need therefore for an intervention shaft
at all and the Woodseer Street option, evidence has already been
presented on Days 38 and 39. I do not propose to add anything
else unless the Committee would like me to clarify any further
matters?
10246. Mr Lidddell-Grainger: Just one
matter of clarification, Mr Elvin. Who appointed the Crossrail
referee?
10247. Mr Elvin: Appointed by the Secretary
of State for Transport.
10248. Mr Lidddell-Grainger: And paid
by the Department?
10249. Mr Elvin: It comes out of project
funds.
10250. Mr Lidddell-Grainger: So it is
actually paid by Crossrail but it is honoured by the Department.
10251. Mr Elvin: It is paid by public
funds and made available to Crossrail.
10252. Mr Lidddell-Grainger: Mr Akker,
do you have anything else that you would like to add?
10253. Mr Akker: No, sir, I think it
has been fully dealt with.
10254. Mr Lidddell-Grainger: I am very
grateful. Thank you for your evidence, it was extremely well put.
10255. Since we have no other evidence I therefore
call the Committee to order and we will now re-sit at 2.30.
After a short adjournment
10256. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I call the
Committee to order. Mr Elvin.
10257. Mr Elvin: I have various pieces
of housekeeping and I then propose to call a witness and, in part,
myself, just to present some material on the consultation to assist
the Committee in its considerations.
10258. Can I first, for the purpose of the record,
record that a statement has been made by the Minister, Mr Twigg,
this morning to announce that changes have been made in the scheme
with regard to the main Crossrail depot, and what Mr Twigg said
to Parliament this morning was that the government is aware of
the concerns that have been expressed by the London Borough of
Havering and others in that borough about the impacts of the proposed
Crossrail train depot at Romford. Cross London Rail Links have
been working for many months to reduce those impacts and at the
same time to identify whether there is a viable alternative depot
strategy that would remove the facilities at Romford altogether.
Following a fundamental review of the depot strategy and in the
light of changes in the occupation and expected future use of
existing depots, CLRL has concluded that it is possible for Crossrail
to operate entirely from the existing rail depots at Old Oak Common
in West London and Ilford in East London. As a result Crossrail
would not need to continue with any of the proposed facilities
at Romford or to make use of the sidings at West Drayton in the
London Borough of Hillingdon. The revised depot strategy will
reduce the overall environmental impacts of the Crossrail project
by removing the need for the construction of new facilities in
Romford. CLRL estimate that the cost of the revised strategy will
be up to £80m lower than that of the Romford scheme. The
revised strategy will require the acquisition of a small amount
of open land at Old Oak Common to allow for improved rail access.
The land lost will be replaced by an equivalent amount from an
adjacent brownfield site. In order to implement the revised strategy
the Bill will need to be amended; the government will promote
an additional provision in due course, including a detailed Environmental
Statement, which will be subject to the agreement of the Select
Committee. Those affected by the additional provision will be
able to petition Parliament. As part of the revised strategy it
is proposed to move EWS Limited from Old Oak Common to North Pole—that
is North Pole and not the North Pole! -which is to become
vacant in 2007. It is also proposed to move Bombardier Transportation
Limited from or within Ilford Depot. CLRL will continue to work
closely with these organisations to try to minimise the impacts
upon them. CLRL will in due course write to existing Petitioners
affected by this announcement and undertake information rounds
in the relevant areas to explain the details of the revised depot
strategy and the implications for the local area.
10259. Therefore, whether or not of course Romford
now wish to appear in two weeks' time is a matter which will need
to be considered.
11 Crossrail Information Paper F2 Pre-Bill Consultation
Process, Consultation Activities http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-IPF2-002). Back
12
Crossrail Information Panel: Hanbury Street Shaft Crossrail Proposals
(SCN-20060614-011). Back
| 
