Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11960
- 11979)
11960. If Crossrail is constructed and the Red
Star deck brought into operation at taxis point and Span 4 came
forward after that point, then obviously the construction of Span
4 will have an impact on the taxis upon the Red Star deck?
(Mr Anderson) That is correct.
11961. In that situation, is it for Crossrail
to identify the solution for taxis during the construction of
the Span 4 development or is it for Span 4?
(Mr Anderson) It would be for the developer,
Span 4.
11962. It would be for the developer of Span
4. In relation to buses, you have seen the points that PRACT have
raised in relation to buses. What do you have to say to the Committee
about that?
(Mr Anderson) Obviously in the matter of diversion
of buses, we would discuss with Transport for London and TfL buses
in particular. The suggestions that have been put forward to them
have been put to TfL and they were, I think it is fair to say,
not at all keen on them. The suggestion that we locate the bus
stands on the new bridge was not one they were keen on at all.
The reason for that was the effect on their operation: a number
of the buses in this area turn around and that is why we need
the stand capacity, but for them to do so on the Bishop's Bridge
Road would entail them travelling all the way up to Harrow Road,
turning around and coming back again. They were also very keen
to attain a stop in the eastbound direction for all services,
including the through services, and the location to do that is
on Eastbourne Terrace.
11963. Mr Taylor: Thank you very much
indeed.
11964. Chairman: Mr Walton?
11965. Mr Walton: Thank you. Mr Berryman,
you have mentioned the technical nature of extending the footbridge.
Our submission is there is a contribution to community benefit,
that the entire bridge should be replaced. It is correct, is it
not, that in extending them, as under additional provision, it
will need to be closed for a period?
(Mr Berryman) It will need to be closed for
a very short period, probably a couple of weeks at the most, which
we will obviously arrange to do during the school holidays. To
put you straight on one point, we are not proposing to extend
this bridge at all. As I said in my evidence, we are proposing
to merely raise it by about 300 millimetres, one span of it by
300 millimetres.
11966. There was mention of a raised walkway.
(Mr Berryman) The raised walkway is being built
as part of the Academy by the Academy. It is not being built by
us.
11967. Would you accept the position of the
residents is they would much prefer to see this bridge completely
replaced as a contribution to the community benefit?
(Mr Berryman) I could certainly understand
the residents would wish to see the bridge replaced. All I am
suggesting is the need for its replacement does not arise as a
result of the Crossrail scheme. It is a need which exists anyway
and it should not be part of the Crossrail scheme because it is
not anything to do with the works that we are doing.
11968. If it were to be replaced completely,
the work of raising the span which you say is necessary on the
Crossrail scheme and the rest of it could be taken together, I
presume?
(Mr Berryman) It could be but, as I have explained
already, the basic works to raise the span up would be relatively
minor. It may prove we have to replace the span depending on the
condition, of course, but it would be replaced on a like-for-like
basis. Bearing in mind this is only one span on a multispan bridge.
We are not talking about replacing the whole bridge, even in the
worst situation.
11969. You do understand, I am sure you do,
that residents, when dealing with ordinary planning procedures,
are accustomed to the idea that there is some community benefit
or "planning gain", as it is called, and that is what
we feel we are lacking in the case of this bridge.
(Mr Berryman) The community benefit arising
from the construction of Crossrail, I think you said in your opening
remarks, is the benefit to the local area and to the economy of
London which will produced. We are not a developer who is trying
to make use of public assets to service our development. The project
is part of the general public benefit which will accrue from the
works.
11970. I turn to the bus part of TFL and their
attitude to keeping buses on Eastbourne Terrace. Will they be
presenting evidence to this Committee on this matter?
(Mr Anderson) I do not believe so, no. What
I was reporting in my remarks was the outcome of the consultation
on this matter.
11971. Will Westminster City Council be involved
in more detail in the future than they appear to have been in
the past?
(Mr Anderson) Clearly, the detailed highway
arrangements would be a matter for discussion with the authority,
yes.
11972. Mr Walton: Thank you.
11973. Chairman: Mr Taylor, would you
like to sum up?
11974. Mr Taylor: Yes. So far as noise
issues are concerned, you have already heard in evidence from
Mr Thornely-Taylor about matters relating to groundborne noise
and, indeed, you have been to the site as well. I am not going
to go over that ground. You have also had the benefit of the Promoters'
Information Papers D9 and D10 setting out what is proposed in
relation to groundborne noise and, indeed, to construction activity.[43]
11975. So far as bus routes are concerned, the
proposed diversions into Westbourne Terrace are appropriate for
the operational reasons that Mr Anderson has just explained to
you. The turn into Craven Road can be carried out acceptably albeit
the stop line needs to be moved. You have no expert evidence that
any environmental impact will arise from the diversion of buses
into Westbourne Terrace.
11976. On the Red Star deck, the Red Star deck
is proposed to accommodate taxis indefinitely. That proposal meets
PRACT's concern about taxi provision in the Paddington area. The
only issue is if the Span 4 development comes forward, and there
is no evidence that it is likely to come forward before Crossrail.
If it does come forward, the impact that would arise would be
a temporary one during the construction of the Span 4 development.
A solution would have to be found by the applicant for Span 4
for provision of taxis at Paddington, so it is simply not a matter
for Crossrail to solve.
11977. So far as pedestrian access is concerned,
what is proposed is entirely satisfactory and Mr Berryman has
just explained it is a matter for detailed design to try and keep
open the western entrances as much as possible. For the short
periods that cannot be done, there is an appropriate access available
on the ramp to Craven Street.
11978. Mr Taylor: Lastly, so far as the
footbridge is concerned, there is no reasonable basis for requiring
Crossrail to replace the entire footbridge given the nature of
the works needed as a result of the Crossrail project. You have
heard from Mr Berryman it was simply a matter of jacking up one
span to accommodate the electrification. That addresses the points.
Thank you very much indeed.
The witnesses withdrew
11979. Chairman: Mr Walton, would you
like to sum up your case?
43 Crossrail Information Papers D9 Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Scheme; and D10 Groundborne Noise and Vibration, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
| 
