Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11523
- 11539)
In the absence of the Chairman, Mr Liddell-Grainger
was called to the Chair
Ordered: that Counsel and parties be called in.
11523. Mr Liddell-Grainger: As usual,
I inform the Committee that my intention is to suspend at a convenient
point sometime on or about 11.45 so that everybody has an opportunity
to have coffee, which is in the lobby as you came up the main
staircase. Today we are hearing from Westminster City Council
and I believe the scene is going to be set by Ms Lieven.
11524. Ms Lieven: Thank you, sir. Today
we are dealing with the Paddington and Paddington New Yard part
of Westminster and the scheme. I am conscious that all the members
of the Committee who are here today went on the site visit yesterday,
so what I was going to propose so far as explaining the factual
position on what we propose in Paddington is concerned is to ask
the Committee to go out briefly with Mr Berryman to look at the
model which is much the easiest way to explain it, if that is
acceptable. As you all went yesterday we will keep that fairly
short.
11525. Before you do that, can I just emphasise
one point, which is that Paddington Station in particular has
probably been the most difficult part of the entire route and
we have had a very large number of meetings with a number of stakeholders,
the Council, landowners, residents, Network Rail, London Underground,
and have sought to do our utmost to balance a lot of competing
interests there. The consequence of that is that the scheme has
changed over the course of the Bill and indeed before the Bill,
and I am afraid that one of the inevitable consequences of that
is that information has come out late. I think it is better to
own up to that now than have people complain about it. In particular,
the lowering of Eastbourne Terrace, which all members here today
saw discussed yesterday, was only agreed by the Minister on Monday
night and the consequence of that is that, I am afraid, I have
to accept that material has gone late to people and that there
is material that is going to be presented today which relies on
further additional provision in AP3. The judgment we made—and
I hope the Committee will feel that it was the right one—is
the most sensible thing was to present to the Committee today,
and indeed on the site visit, what our current proposals at Paddington
are, rather than try to say to you this is what is in the hybrid
Bill but actually we are going to change it in AP3. So there are
things, like the lowering of Eastbourne Terrace, as I think was
explained yesterday on the site visit, which do depend to a fairly
small but crucial degree on Additional Provisions 3. Of course,
both Westminster and local residents will be able to petition
on AP3 and will be able to come back if they have any outstanding
concerns on it. I want Committee to be aware of that problem now.
11526. We believe that nobody has been materially
disadvantaged but if they have, the last thing on earth we want
to do is materially disadvantage people and, of course, as far
as we are concerned, they are free to come back later with further
information and further consideration if they feel that is necessary.
I am sorry that that is what has happened. It is a consequence
of us talking as much as we can to everybody and trying to reach
an acceptable agreement with everybody. So at that point it might
be appropriate to stop and suggest to the Committee it might be
helpful to go outside with Mr Berryman.
11527. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven,
what I suggest is to bring the Committee to order and to suspend
for five minutes. The Committee will then withdraw with Mr Berryman
to look at that model, and I think we will do that now.
After a short break
11528. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I bring the
Committee back to order. That was extremely useful, thank you
very much, Ms Lieven. Would you like to carry on please?
11529. Ms Lieven: This morning we are
turning specifically to Westminster City Council's petition. I
am happy to say that we understand that there are only four understanding
issues in respect of this part of the route with Westminster.
I will just touch on them briefly. The first is whether or not
there should be a dedicated subway link to the Hammersmith and
City Line. It is our case that there are major engineering problems
with that and Mr Berryman will give evidence on that after you
have heard Westminster's case.
11530. The second is service to Heathrow and
whether we should be giving an undertaking to Parliament as to
that service. It is our position that going to Heathrow is an
essential part of the project and Mr Anderson will explain how
it fits into the project but, equally, why we are not prepared
to give a Parliamentary undertaking in respect of it.
11531. The third is provision in respect of
Great Western Studios. The Committee may remember that Great Western
Studios is the large red brick building next to the batching plant
which is at the moment home to a number of artists' studios operating
small businesses from there. The issue there is as to whether
or not we should go outside the terms of the compensation code
and effectively subsidise their rents elsewhere. I will deal with
that once we have heard Westminster's evidence. We may call Mr
Smith on that. You may remember that Mr Smith is our compensation
expert but, if it is alright with the Committee, I will be guided
by the Committee at that stage as to whether they want to hear
evidence or not.
11532. The fourth is the batching plant at Paddington
New Yard. I am going to go into that in a little more detail because
I think it is important that the Committee understands what our
position is before they hear Westminster's case on it. As you
saw yesterday, there is at the moment a concrete batching plant
operated by Tarmac in those sidings at Westbourne Park and it
is, crucially, rail served.
11533. It is necessary to move that plant for
two reasons. One is that we need turnback sidings there for the
trains that stop at Paddington and, secondly, during the construction
phase it is a crucial construction site. As I have said, the batching
plant is presently served by rail so the materials are brought
in by rail and they go out to construction sites in central London
by road. The planning policy in both the London Plan and regional
policy, and indeed national policy, is strongly in favour of retaining
such rail-served facilities for the very obvious reason that if
such a use was lost, first of all, it is likely the concrete would
have been to brought from further away into central London by
road, so the road journeys would be extended, and, secondly, it
would potentially be very difficult to find another rail-served
facility. So there is a danger that you lose a rail-served facility
and have to end up with a wholly road-served facility.
11534. In those circumstances Crossrail has
sought to provide an alternative site for the batching plant and
minimise the period during which there is either no batching plant
or there has to be a temporary plant served by road. So the proposal
is to relocate the batching plant on the site after the permanent
work, but the relocation has to be on a slightly different configuration,
as Mr Berryman will explain to you because of the position of
the sidings. So we cannot simply put it back in exactly the same
place. Unfortunately, there is a significant complication which
is that the current batching plan which has operated for many
years operates with fairly minimal planning restrictions upon
it. Although Tarmac, as we understand it, seek to operate in a
good neighbourly way and agree to, effectively, restrict their
hours of operation and their movement of lorry hours, the Council
is concerned that if any batching plant goes back it must go back
in a way that is constrained for the protection of local residents.
11535. The position we have found ourselves
in is that there is a difficult conflict between the imperatives
of planning policy together with Tarmac and EWS, the freight operator,
to retain a viable rail-based batching plant or some other rail
freight facility, and the aspiration of Westminster and local
residents to reduce/remove the environmental impact, particularly,
as I understand it, in relation to noise and hours of vehicle
movements.
11536. The difficulty is that if those restrictions
are too great, the facility ceases to be viable and the most obvious
example of that is in terms of hours that the trains can come
in because the train paths are often only available during the
night. As the Committee may know and will certainly know by the
end of July, most rail freight travels on the rail lines at night.
So the solution that we are proposing in the Bill is as follows:
that a site will be provided for both temporary and permanent
facility which is suitable for a batching plant. The permanent
facility will be rail-served; the temporary facility will not,
and Mr Berryman can explain more about that. The sidings will
be provided under the Bill which will allow the facility to be
served and planning permission will be given under the Bill for
the reconstruction of the batching plant. The Secretary of State
intends to seek powers through the Bill in AP3 to allow him to
set the conditions for the operation of the batching plant because
the planning conditions are fundamental to the planning permission
itself and the conditions will be set through the Bill process
but many of them will be subject to further reserved matters which
will be left to Westminster.
11537. As we understand it, Westminster's position
is that in principle they accept that the batching plant should
be reinstated and the argument is whether that should be done
by allowing Tarmac, or some other similar operator, to apply for
planning permission in the normal way or whether it should be
done through the Bill. Just so the Committee knows, it is our
view that the Bill is the appropriate mechanism because providing
for the reinstatement of the plant is a necessary part of making
the Crossrail scheme acceptable in planning terms and therefore
it should properly be considered and established through the Bill
process. The conditions are an integral part of that planning
permission and so should also be set by the Secretary of State
through the Bill process. It is important that the conditions
are set at a level that makes operation possible and viable, and
it is for the Secretary of State to balance the needs of Crossrail
and rail freight with the needs of local residents.
11538. Westminster and the residents will be
fully consulted on the conditions. Indeed, Westminster have already
seen them, and as we understood it from the meeting, do not have
any fundamental problems with them, but doubtless Mr King may
wish to say more on that.
11539. Many conditions involve further reserved
matters which will be dealt with by Westminster in any event.
It is important to note that even if Westminster set the conditions
in accordance with normal planning policy procedure, there would
be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in any event so
it comes back to the Secretary of State, so we do wonder why we
need an added layer of complication here rather than doing it
through the Bill. It is also essential that conditions are integrated
with other conditions set through the Bill process.
| 
