Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11840
- 11859)
11840. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Indeed. We
are not taking away the gravity of the situation and we know perfectly
well that Westminster and others have concerns about this. This
will be explored in great detail over the next couple of weeks.
11841. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am conscious
that there is a danger, in short petitions, of hearing the same
thing said four times. I am quite happy that I say it. If the
Committee feels it needs further evidence, we can call Mr Anderson
at some point.
11842. First of all, as far as information is
concerned, yes, we accept the scheme has changed, but it is important
to emphasise that it has changed in order to meet stakeholders'
concerns and aspirations, and, in particular, Westminster's aspirations
about the taxis, and to try to shorten the distance for the Hammersmith
and City Line.
11843. It is possible to see those changes in
a positive rather than a negative light. Yes, there has been some
late information, but I would suggest, with respect, that perhaps
Westminster's position has been slightly overstated. They did
get the current proposals on 26 April; they did comment on them
after that—it was given to them at a meeting and they commented
later; they did not seem to have any significant residual concerns
about them (except the Hammersmith and City Line); and, so far
as things like listed buildings and detailed design issues are
concerned, they will be subject to Westminster's agreement in
Schedule 7 anyway. I acknowledge late information but I do ask
the Committee not to see it entirely as Crossrail's fault or entirely
as Westminster being disadvantaged.
11844. On the Hammersmith and City Line, you
have just heard Mr Berryman's evidence, and he has always put
it far better than I could. First of all, major engineering problems;
secondly, highly disruptive to Network Rail Services; thirdly,
you cannot make an appropriate link on to the Hammersmith and
City Platforms; and, fourthly, it does not make very much passenger
benefit in any event—although it is slightly shorter, it
involves a seven-metre vertical rise which most people would not
be very happy about. There just are not the benefits that justify
this level of disruption. In the 1994 scheme there was a partial
underground link, but that does not mean it was a good idea. Of
course that scheme never got approval. It was not PRM accessible
because you could not get off the bridge. It had to be served
by lifts—query: How many people would wait for the lifts
anyway? There is a real problem with ticketing now, because you
would get people getting on to the Network Rail platforms from
the unpaid side. Mr Berryman's expert view is that he would not
think that scheme, now or then, was in any way satisfactory. The
fact that it was in the 1994 Bill is neither here nor there.
11845. Heathrow, Mr Anderson was going to deal
with. The key point is that going to Heathrow is an integral part
of Crossrail. There is no issue about that. But it would be—in
my words—crazy not to be able to open parts of the project
which have already been built in order to wait for Heathrow link
to have been built. Secondly, it would be wrong in principle to
tie down the Secretary of State in relation to the service at
a future date in potentially very different circumstances. It
is very important the Committee understands this is subject to
very sensitive and difficult negotiations with BAA and the last
thing the Promoter wants at this stage is to be tied down in a
particular way.
11846. I do not want the Committee to have any
misunderstanding. Going to Heathrow is fundamental to the project
and the Committee will be well aware that the hope is that a significant
part of the Crossrail cost will be met by the business community,
for whom going to Heathrow is fundamental. The chances of it being
dropped, in my submission, are really not ones which the Committee
needs to worry about.
1847. Great Western Studios. I have to admit,
I am not quite sure what Westminster actually want. We have agreed
to set up an agency to assist displaced business and help them
find alternative accommodation. But we are not prepared to provide
accommodation at below market rent or subsidise the rent. These
occupiers—and we will hear from them tomorrow—have
effectively had a windfall for years. Because the property has
been safeguarded for Crossrail and therefore, in non-technical
terms, blighted, they have been able to rent it below market rent.
I would suggest to the Committee that to require us to continue
to subsidise the rent, if that is what Westminster are after,
first of all, would be contrary to the National Compensation Code,
but also would be blatantly unfair. Why should these people have
their good fortune continued by the public purse, particularly
when they have always known that this property will ultimately
be required for Crossrail? One has every sympathy for them. Of
course, if you have had the marvellous situation of having subsidised
rent for ages, you are happy, but that is no reason for Crossrail
to continue it for the indefinite future.
11848. As far as the batching plant is concerned,
there is very little between us, as I understand Mr King's evidence.
Westminster accept the principle of reinstatement of the batching
plant. That is clearly required by the planning policy, otherwise
it is inevitable that more aggregates and cement would have to
be carried by road. The reinstatement of a rail-served facility
is an integral part of the scheme and planning permission should
be granted through the Bill with conditions set through the Bill
process. There is really no issue of substance here. Mr King says
that the planning conditions were generally acceptable; details
will have to be discussed further. Under the proposals that will
be brought forward in AP3, Westminster will enforce the conditions—so
it stands in their hands—and there will be reserved matters
under the condition that will be set by Westminster in any event.
11849. So far as the temporary facility is concerned,
Mr Berryman just gave evidence that the precise details of its
location are yet to be set. Nobody suggests that it can be rail-served.
It cannot. But it is clearly desirable to have a temporary facility
on the site because otherwise the simple truth is that the concrete
will have to travel further by road to get to the construction
sites in Central London. There may be winners and losers. Possibly
the people on the Brunel Estate would have two years without a
concrete batching plant, but somebody else will have more lorries
going past them somewhere else. There is an overwhelming case
to have a temporary batching plant, even though it is road-served.
Clearly the lorry movements which come out of it, which are fundamentally,
I assume, Westminster's concern, can be subject to appropriate
limitations. An important point to realise for next week is that
the trains have to come in sometimes at night, but the lorries
do not, so that can be subject to appropriate limitations to minimise
environmental concerns.
11850. Sir, as always, I have skimmed through
it, but I hope those are the key points and I have given the Committee
the information they need.
11851. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I am sure
you have. Thank you very much.
11852. Kelvin Hopkins: While I accept
the argument that has been made about the artists' studios, have
they been told on an annual basis that this is a short-life situation:
they are low rents because they are, effectively, blighted and
one day they will be required but they do not have to move and
they can go on using them? Secondly, if Westminster is very keen
to promote such local business, and indeed it might be that the
Mayor of London, the GLA, is keen to do that as well, it should
be their responsibility to provide alternatives for these business
premises or these artists. If I were a member of the GLA, I would
certainly propose that as an alternative. That is not the responsibility
of Crossrail because Crossrail has no moral or legal responsibility.
11853. Ms Lieven: Sir, may I come back
to that tomorrow when we have the studios here? So far as your
second point is concerned, I obviously agree, but, in so far as
what they have been told, they are coming tomorrow and will be
in a much better position to answer that. I am also going to call
Mr Smith tomorrow to deal with compensation, the agency scheme
and all that information. Could we come back to that tomorrow
when they are here?
11854. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Yes.
11855. Mr Clarkson: Sir, in the sense
that there are minuses and pluses of the scheme, Westminster seeks
an overt consultative process by which their support is adequately
justified.
11856. In respect of the interchange, they want
to know what the issues are; they want the details of what they
see as the quick underground link. We are not comfortable that
this has been thought through sufficiently. If we do not receive
detailed material soon, we will invite the Committee to assume
this has not been thought through properly.
11857. If London Underground do upgrade the
Hammersmith and City platforms, we ask that there should be an
undertaking required of Crossrail to link in, whether by a new
AP or whatever, by way of a subterranean link. Perhaps I could
pick up Mr Hopkins' point, that at the end of the day you can
link in with the platform at London Underground end of it by compromises.
It does not have to be three escalators wide, and the very worst
case that Mr Berryman would argue against would be partial closure
for two months. We say something must beat this wholly inadequate
process currently of arriving onto platform and then over the
bridge. It was thought appropriate in 1994 in some way and it
was thought appropriate in the document you got yesterday.
11858. Turning to Heathrow, this major project
must, if it is to come to Paddington, link to Heathrow. That is
obvious and necessary. The scheme fails if it does not. We ask
the Committee to require that. Any ducking and weaving in the
future—and I am not saying it is being suggested now—will
be avoided if the Committee requires it.
11859. Next, Great Western Studios. Of course
Mr Hopkins and others are right that there is a historical circumstance
where people have set themselves in a building that since 1944
was moribund or redundant and was going to disappear. But so be
it. They are there. In this area of deprivation they are thriving.
That is a social issue. It is a social issue exacerbated by this
project and must be addressed.
|
