Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11880
- 11899)
11880. Mr Walton: That is correct.
11881. Chairman: You can deal with it
now if you so wish.
11882. Mr Walton: I think our intention
is to deal with it now to save your time, Sir, it is not necessarily
the case with the most recent changes such as the proposals at
the lower level of Eastbourne Terrace. Again, we will seek to
assist you by referring to the current proposals insofar as we
know what these are but since the information about the proposal
to lower the level of Eastbourne Terrace was only conveyed to
us yesterday, it may be that we will need to come back to you
on this.
11883. Chairman: We are well aware of
that and that would be quite correct.
11884. Mr Walton: The only other thing
I would like to say is that I was listening this morning and we
certainly support the position of Westminster City Council on
all four subjects which were raised this morning but I would like
in particular to refer to the problems which residents face from
the concrete batching plant, both its temporary replacement and
its permanent reinstatement. I am not introducing evidence on
this and you will be hearing from a number of residents groups
on this matter later but I wish to make the point that we support
the position of Westminster City Council on this matter. Thank
you, Sir. Unless there are any questions arising from my initial
statement I propose to call my only witness, Mr John Zamit.
Mr John Zamit, sworn
Examined by Mr Walton
11885. Mr Walton: Mr Zamit, would you
please tell the Committee who you are and where you live.
(Mr Zamit) I am John Zamit and I live at 2
Claremont Court, Queensway, W2 5HX, which is in the northern section
of Queensway in Bayswater and I have lived there for a considerable
number of years. I am the Chairman of the South East Bayswater
Residents' Association, SEBRA for short.
11886. SEBRA is one of the four founder members
of PRACT?
(Mr Zamit) Yes, SEBRA's area runs westwards
from Paddington station into Bayswater. SEBRA was founded in 1970
and is recognised by Westminster City Council as the amenity society
for the area. The alignment of Crossrail from Sussex Gardens,
point number four on the first map, up to the footbridge over
the mainline railway runs underneath or at the edge of SEBRA's
area.
11887. What is the general attitude of SEBRA
to Crossrail?
(Mr Zamit) Along with the other founding members
of PRACT, we support Crossrail for the benefits it will bring
to the local community and to London's economy.
11888. But do you know of concerns about the
impact of construction and operation around Paddington?
(Mr Zamit) Yes, we support the concerns set
out in PRACT's Petition. On the 8th of this month I attended a
useful meeting with Crossrail as a result of which our concerns,
apart from the questions of groundborne noise from the trains
and tunnels and the footbridge, we are left with five main topics
which I would like to draw to the Committee's attention.
11889. Would you like to give headings of these
five areas of concern before coming on to them in detail?
(Mr Zamit) Yes, the first one is "surface
noise and disruption during demolition and construction".
By "disruption" I mean in particular dust, traffic diversion
and problems with heavy lorries as they pass through residential
streets. The second heading is "disruption, traffic diversions
and other impacts during excavation of Eastbourne Terrace to construct
the underground station at Paddington and during the necessary
diversion of a sewer and other utilities in preparation of the
excavation". Eastbourne Terrace is point 6 on the first map,
PRACT 1. Third, "the adverse effect of construction on pedestrian
access to Paddington Station lasting three years or more".
The fourth matter is "the impact of Crossrail when completed
upon permanent arrangements for vehicular access to Paddington
Station", and, fifth, "the rebuilding of the footbridge
across the surface railway".
11890. Let us turn to the first topic which
is surface noise and disruption during demolition and construction.
(Mr Zamit) Our principal concern is the impact
of work especially that which has to be done at night including
lorry movements. Turning to the parts of the site which cause
us most concern, one is the western portal and the ramp which
leads down to the deep tunnels, point 16 and 17 on PRACT 2.[34]
We are told that this work must be done at night because of proximity
to the tracks of London Underground's Hammersmith and City Line.
The ramp leading down to the deep tunnels will be constructed,
we are told, by cut and cover. My understanding is that the acoustic
screening is not at present proposed. We think it is essential
to pull in full acoustic screening to protect the sleep of residents
who live in the western most parts of Gloucester Terrace on either
side of point 18 on the second map and also along Westbourne Park
Villas, number 19 on the second map. All these residents live
opposite the site, many in family-size flats or houses. Trains
do not run at night which allows people some peace for sleep.
In consequence, I understand these flats and houses are not double-glazed.
Other works which cause concern for potential noise and disruption
are the demolition of 14 Bishop's Bridge Road, point 13 on the
first map, and 147-149 Praed Street, point 5 on the first map.
In particular, the first of these sites is also close to the railway
so works may be done at night, but it is also immediately adjacent
to a large block of family flats known as Brewers Court at the
junction between Westbourne Terrace and Bishop's Bridge Road,
point number 14 on the map. All of these flats are approached
by open walkways facing the railway at the rear of the block.
11891. What about your concerns on lorry movements?
(Mr Zamit) Obviously, there will be numerous
heavy lorries moving along a long period and contractors may wish
to move some at night. For instance, on the site visit yesterday
I understand the Committee saw the proposed lorry route through
the residential Chippenham Road and Elgin Avenue, which is apparently
needed to keep a banned left turn at the junction between Harrow
Road and Great Western Road which supports a pedestrian crossing.
We understand that the ultimate authority for the routing and
house operation is to be delegated to Westminster City Council.
However, we hope the Committee would support the principle that
controls should be based primarily on limited disruption and maintaining
the amenity of residents so far as possible.
11892. Could we turn now to your second topic,
traffic diversions and other impacts on work in Eastbourne Terrace
both in connection to the diversion of underground utilities and
later during the main works.
(Mr Zamit) Eastbourne Terrace is a major bus
route carrying seven bus routes, soon to be eight, and three night
buses. Of two of the daytime routes, the buses terminate their
routes at Paddington Station so the bus stand is unneeded. The
stands are now situated in Eastbourne Terrace. We greatly welcome
Crossrail's adherence to the long-standing proposal to keep Eastbourne
Terrace open for one lane of traffic in each direction at virtually
all times during the main excavation and construction phase which
will last at least five years. The only question that remains,
therefore, is how to prioritise traffic in this period. In PRACT's
submission, there should be the following order of priority: emergency
vehicles, such as ambulance and fire engines, should come first,
then buses in both directions, then taxis and, lastly, other traffic.
If capacity is insufficient for all traffic, it is better, in
our submission, that all buses should remain on Eastbourne Terrace
and taxis should also have priority there. The Promoters' title
traffic diversions during main works—
11893. If I may interrupt for a moment, this
is one of the packages of exhibits which was delivered to us yesterday.
I do not know if it can be found. It is called "traffic diversions
during main works".[35]
(Mr Zamit) This exhibit indicated
that from next year Eastbourne Terrace will become a boundary,
extending the Congestion Charge Zone, but we consider it is unlikely
that Transport for London will wish to maintain the boundary there
during the time it becomes a building site. Their stated principle
is to aim for three running routes along the boundaries. Our view
about bus routes is in contrast to the proposal in Crossrail's
Environmental Statement which is shown in the exhibit. The proposal
for Crossrail is that buses on all eight routes going in one direction,
those going south or east, should be transferred throughout these
many years to the residential Westbourne Terrace which is point
8 on our first map, parallel to Eastbourne Terrace, the next street
over. This is disruptive to residents in terms of noise and pollution.
It will disturb their sleep at night because there are six buses
an hour at half hourly intervals on the three night routes. Putting
the buses heading south and east on to the residential Westbourne
Terrace will cause severe practical problems and delays, we submit,
particularly at the sharp left turn into the narrow Craven Road
at point number 9 on our first map. I know this area very well.
Craven Road is a heavily used, two-way road. The narrow pavements
at the junction between the two roads are heavily used by residents
and visitors finding their way from Heathrow Express at Paddington
Station to many local hotels. Many of the tourists I have watched
looking to find their hotel and where they are going on this busy
junction and already at that junction taxis and other vehicles
clip the pavement turning into Westbourne Terrace. The turning
buses would include one route of bendi buses. As shown in the
Promoters' exhibit called "The bendi bus swept path",
the buses would have to occupy the outside of two lanes at the
approach in Westbourne Terrace and traffic lights and will be
turning left across the path of traffic on the inside lane.[36]
Also the stop line for the traffic on Craven Road coming towards
this junction would have to be set back considerably to allow
for the buses turning. This will reduce capacity at this junction
considerably and we wonder—I do not wonder, I am not sure—whether
will be safe. Also to keep Eastbourne-bound buses on Eastbourne
Terrace would also enable the stop on Bishop's Bridge Road, point
number 15 on the first map, to be retained. PRACT has also suggested
in its letter of comments on the second supplementary Environmental
Statement, which is often referred to as SES2, that the present
bus stands for routes which terminate at Paddington should be
transferred from Eastbourne Terrace to the adjacent new bridge
rather to Westbourne Terrace, as Crossrail propose. Two large
bus stands on Westbourne Terrace are shown on the Promoters' exhibit
entitled "traffic diversions during main works" including
a stand or stands for the bendi bus route which terminates at
Paddington. These matters would delay other traffic and so cause
noise, pollution and disruption. A space will be available on
the bridge which is now being used as a taxi rank and will be
vacated when vehicular access to the station is transferred to
the station's eastern side. We were told at the meeting of 8 June
with Crossrail, which I have mentioned, that the routing of buses
is also a matter to be delegated to Westminster Council. We welcome
this but hope that the Committee would support our proposal that
the diversion of eight bus routes to the residential road for
a five-year period should be avoided. I may, lastly, on this topic
briefly mention the question of utility diversions upon traffic
and other respects. Proposals for these were set out in SES2.
We do not object to the diversion of buses and other traffic for
short periods of no more than a month or so, as proposed in the
phasing diagram to be found in SES2, so we have no comments on
that aspect. However, we are deeply concerned about the impact
of possibly diverting a sewer from Eastbourne Terrace and putting
its effluent into the ancient sewer in Westbourne Terrace. We
received confirmation that this is environmentally unacceptable
as a long-term solution. We also ask that the work on the residential
Westbourne Terrace would not take place at night or on Sundays.
11894. Let us return to your third topic, the
impact of construction on pedestrian access to Paddington Station.
(Mr Zamit) Yes, we are greatly concerned about
the proposal to close all pedestrian entrances to the station
on its side bounded by Eastbourne Terrace, that is from the pavement
of the station's departure route, point 7 on the first map, for
as long as three years. At present, these entrances are much used
by residents, office workers, tourists and by the many people
who transfer on foot between Paddington mainline station and Lancaster
Gate Station on the Central Line which is nearby on Bayswater
Road. They do this on their way to and from work. The only pedestrian
entrance to the station, it seems, would be on the eastern side
using the ramp leading from the station to Praed Street, which
many years ago was the taxi exit route. This is point 10 on the
first map.
11895. The Committee walked down this ramp yesterday
after leaving the minibus.
(Mr Zamit) All those who presently enter or
leave the station by way of the pavement on Departures Road will
have to transfer to this sole means of access and this, we believe,
will add greatly to the congestion of people which already exists
on the narrow pavements on both sides of the section of Praed
Street. The southern pavement is where the entrance to the Circle
and District Line station and the main bus stop are located; it
is a very busy stretch of pavement. On the northern pavement there
is congestion again near to the entrance to the Bakerloo Line,
which is adjacent to the ramp at the junction and it gets very
busy in the rush-hour times. We would like the entrance from the
pavement of Departures Road which is nearest to Praed Street,
the one which is close to the Sainsbury's store inside the station,
point number 11, to be kept open at all times if possible. If
closure is absolutely essential, it should be for as short a period
as possible and should not overlap with the period when the pedestrian
subway under Praed Street which will connect the Crossrail and
the Circle/District Line stations is being constructed. That is
because the method used will be "cut and cover" and
will require one half of Praed Street to close and so one of the
two pavements will also be closed.
11896. Thank you. May we now turn to the fourth
topic, which is the impact of Crossrail once completed upon permanent
arrangements for vehicular access to Paddington station.
(Mr Zamit) This is a very complex matter which
has both temporary and permanent aspects, which interact with
each other. On the temporary aspects the proposal in the Bill,
and in its Environmental Statement, is to put in temporary vehicular
access on the site of the Red Star parcels depot which lies between
the station's easternmost Span, number 4 and the canal basin.
This is fine by us so far as vehicular access is concerned but
it has an environmental cost. It would delay, by ten years or
more, a highly desirable and approved development of the station
on its eastern side, which would open up the station to Paddington
canal basin, Saint Mary's hospital and the new major developments
all around the canal basin. This project, known as Network Rail's
phase two project, requires demolition of the station's Span 4
and would also use the space now occupied by the Red Star parcel
depot. Span 4 is only a copy of Brunel's station of three spans
and was erected in 1915. The project would use the space at one
level for a large transport deck above repositioned railway tracks,
where taxis and other vehicles would set down and pick up passengers.
Later, other buildings would be constructed over the transport
deck. This major project was recently given planning permission
and listed building consent, subject to the completion of legal
agreements. If the transport deck were put up soon, it would remove
the present need for temporary vehicular access to the station
on the site of the Red Star parcel depot. We understand that construction
of Crossrail cannot now start before 2009 at the earliest. We
urge therefore that every effort should be made to take the Network
Rail project as far as completion of the transport deck before
of Crossrail starts. We may be told that achieving this is outside
Crossrail's hands but we would note nevertheless that it would
save Crossrail a very large sum of money which is now necessarily
allocated both to the construction of the temporary vehicular
access on the eastern side of Span 4 and later to reinstate that
the vehicular access in the station's Departures Road on its western
side. It has been said that construction of Crossrail may have
to be delayed until after the Olympics in 2012. For instance,
Mark Field, the member for the Cities of London and Westminster
was recently reported in a `freebie' newspaper as having this
opinion. I am referring to the press clipping which we have distributed
and have called document PRACT four.[37]
We would deplore such a postponement but it is clear that if it
were to happen the Network Rail project could easily go ahead
first. Our submission is that it seems practical to do it by 2009.
11897. Can we now turn to what you have described
as the permanent aspects of the present proposals for vehicular
access to Paddington station?
(Mr Zamit) In the Bill and its Environmental
Statement, the proposal is to reinstate the vehicular access in
the station's Departures Road on its western side once construction
for Crossrail has been completed. I am sorry to have to take up
the Committee's time by explaining why there is a problem with
this. Reinstatement of vehicular access in the station's Departures
Road in 2015 would be essential if Network Rail's postponed phase
two project, or indeed any other development on the site, of the
station's Span 4 were to go ahead after completion of Crossrail.
In order to explain this problem I fear I must now give a very
brief description of the arrangements for vehicular access in
the station's Departure Road. They will take advantage of the
opening of the splendid new Bishops Bridge just to the north of
the station, point 12 on the map. This traffic scheme known as
the long-term vehicular access, LTVA for short, was designed to
implement undertakings made in Parliament in 1991, I believe at
the time of the passage of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill.
The undertakings were to design a traffic scheme which would "focus
station traffic onto the strategic road network to the north east
of the station and away from the residential areas to the south
and west of the station". As originally designed, LTVA was
truly long-term because it was found to be able to cope with the
predicted traffic levels as late as 2016.
11898. I am sorry to interrupt Mr Zamit, but
this is a point that was raised in Mr Murchie's evidence this
morning.
(Mr Zamit) This year happened to be the terminal
dates of the projections made much later, at the time of the public
inquiry into the effect of opening the fifth terminal at Heathrow
airport. These predictions were made because the fifth terminal
would increase substantially the usage of the Heathrow Express
which terminates at Paddington. Originally the plan was to create
a tunnel below Eastbourne Terrace to serve as an exit for taxis
from the Departures Road into Eastbourne Terrace, all heading
north in the direction towards the bridge.
11899. Sorry to interrupt for a moment. It might
be helpful if you could bring up the promoter's exhibit entitled
"long-term vehicular access, options taxis routes" on
an A4 sheet with some arrows in red[38].
(Mr Zamit) This is called option
two in the promoter's exhibit entitled "Long-term vehicular
access options—taxi routes". This option is not feasible
in combination with Crossrail so the revised scheme is that taxis
leaving the station should enter Eastbourne Terrace on the surface,
which will probably work but will reduce long-term capacity quite
substantially, we think. This scheme is called option three in
the Promoter's exhibits. Capacity is reduced not only by losing
the tunnel but also by the loss of road space equivalent to two
lanes taken up by the light spine for the Crossrail station. This
can be seen in the promoter's exhibit entitled "Lowering
Eastbourne Terrace", where the top half of the diagram, which
is in plan, shows the light spine in blue. Its position is not
affected by the question of lowering or not lowering Eastbourne
Terrace, so we have been told. To date, the 2016 date has not
been revised but work is now in hand we have been told. There
is a prima facie case, we submit, that in 2015 or 2016
the capacity what be insufficient under the system now proposed
by Crossrail. Until it can be demonstrated by the properly revised
predictions, that would not be the case. It is unsafe, we submit,
to pass the Bill in its present form. All these difficulties would
be avoided of course if the Network Rail phase two scheme were
built so far as its transport deck before construction of Crossrail
starts.
34 Committee Ref: A131, City of Westminster Plan-
Westbourne Terrace Villas (PRACT2) (WESTCC-1205-002). Back
35
Committee Ref: A131, Paddington Station: Traffic Diversion Diagram-Main
Works (WESTCC-12004-030). Back
36
Committee Ref: A131, Westbourne Terrace/Craven Road Bendi bus
swept path (WESTCC-12004-032). Back
37
Committee Ref: A131, Crossrail Link's Six Year Delay, West End
Extra, 9 June 2006 (PRACT4) (WESTCC-1205-004). Back
38
Committee Ref: A131, Westminster City Council Long term vehicular
access options-Taxi Routes (WESTCC-12004-031). Back
|
