Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11980
- 11988)
11980. Mr Walton: I think I have two
points of a generic kind and maybe four or so which are specific
to Paddington, but, of course, the generic points are viewed from
the point of view of their impact upon Paddington.
11981. Generic point one is we support the local
authorities on the question of the 35 decibel threshold.
11982. Number two, we ask that controls upon
lorry movements should be based on the principle of maintaining
the amenity of residents so far as possible.
11983. On the site-specific point, we seek fully
effective acoustic screening of all works around the portal and
cut and cover ramp when these are done at night and the same in
regard to the demolition and the other works which are being done
at the site of 14 Bishop's Bridge Road.
11984. The next one is we hope that the Committee
will support the principle that buses in both directions will
be kept on Eastbourne Terrace without stops during the main works.
We have suggested moving the bus stands to the bridge, but we
have not seen any detail about why this is not practical so we
maintain our position that we think the buses should stay on Eastbourne
Terrace in both directions during the main works or for as long
as possible. The question of moving the bus stands to the bridge
should be looked at again or at least the reasons for not doing
should be communicated out of the City Council or to the Committee
as appropriate.
11985. We have been told that the Network Rail
phase 2 project is unlikely to go ahead, but the position, as
we understand it, is that there is an outstanding planning permission
and listed building consent. Nobody in PRACT has heard anything
about a proposal to abandon this project and, therefore, it is
reasonable, in our view, to raise the question that the diversion
of traffic to Departures Road and Eastbourne Terrace after Crossrail
is completed, which would be needed if the Span 4 development
or any other development on that site goes ahead, should be considered.
I say "considered" which means a properly worked-out
scheme with predictions such as was produced for Terminal Five
inquiry. We have not seen these and until such time they have
been seen we suggest that the Committee should not regard passage
of this Bill as being safe.
11986. We would accept if the Span 4 development
does not go ahead that the taxi access on the site of the Red
Star parcels depot should remain. I would point out that if the
Span 4 development does not go ahead which is matter for Network
Rail, who I believe are going to be giving evidence to this Committee,
the community will lose a lot of social benefits because this
development opens up the station to the canal basin and to St
Mary's Hospital. If that is not proceeded with and we have taxi
access on the site above the Red Star parcels depot, then the
station will remain isolated from St Mary's Hospital and from
the canal basin development which is a loss of social benefit.
Now this is a matter for decision of Network Rail and you will
be hearing evidence from them. I think I would like to say residents
would be very sorry if this scheme does not proceed.
11987. On the pedestrian access at the Sainsbury's
store, there may have been a misunderstanding, I distinctly recall
seeing a document saying that it was proposed to keep both the
Horse Arch and the Clock Arch entrances closed for as long as
36 months. If, on the basis of the evidence we heard today, that
it is only for short periods then we are content. That completes
my case.
11988. Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. The Committee does appreciate when local groups do take
the time to come forward and make representations on behalf of
the people. Thank you very much for that. That concludes today's
evidence. We will next meet in this room tomorrow morning at 10.00am
to hear further petitioners.
| 
