Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12600 - 12619)

  12600. Mr Stoker: A very simple point: just looking at understanding of journey opportunities, having looked at that and realised the new service, the new stations and the concept of Crossrail, how good a candidate is it for an increased understanding of journey opportunities?
  (Mr Reed) I think there needs to be some more thought involved in looking at the journey opportunities and what that might mean on the forecasting. If we could just go to the next points, which are 5.17 and 5.18, I made a note here that Maidenhead would be the first station on the Great Western Main Line where Crossrail would attract a significant number of passengers. I appreciate that is "attract" and not necessarily "generate", which is I am sure what counsel will point out. I think the other point here is that in 5.18 there is a statement that Crossrail will increase capacity between London and the western policy area, so a significant increase in capacity between London and parts of the western policy area. Perhaps if I could, in the time we have left, just draw a parallel with the M25? Every time we add an extra lane to the M25 the amount of car traffic goes up. If you add a new rail service with 10 trains and lots of capacity, I think it would be unrealistic to expect that there would be no growth beyond with and without Crossrail, and certainly over a period of time that that would occur.

  12601. Just one factual point. Mouchel are exceedingly experienced in taking these surveys. Is there anything unusual about the one you have just undertaken, in the light of your experience?
  (Mr Reed) No. There is no indication within the Crossrail transport assessment—their assessments were done in one day.

  12602. Mr Stoker: That is all I have.

  12603. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very much, indeed, Mr Reed.

  The witness withdrew

  12604. Sir Peter Soulsby: It is very clear that we are coming towards the end of our session. The continuation of the consideration of the Petition of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead will need to be heard later in our programme. It is obviously not possible, for a number of reasons, to continue it this week. I say that with some regret, but clearly it is the fact of the situation.

  12605. If I can just summarise and build on the point that Mr Binley was making, there is clearly a difference of perception between the Petitioners and the Promoters about the likely predicted growth in usage of the station and, indeed, in car parking and to what extent such growth might or might not be attributable to Crossrail. It is also clearly the case that there is a difference of opinion about whether the proposals for the station design and the car parking have adequately addressed the levels of usage and demand that might result from Crossrail. It seems to me, and I expect to other Members of the Committee, it might be helpful if there might be some other discussions on these matters before the Petition comes before the Committee at whatever later date it comes back. I will say no more at this stage. It may be that the matter will be clearer when we come back to the Committee.

  12606. That concludes our session for this afternoon. We do return for the consideration of other Petitions at 6 pm, so the Committee stands adjourned until that time.

  Adjourned until 6pm



In the absence of the Chairman, Sir Peter Soulsby was called to the Chair

Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in

  12607. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Mould, would you like to set the scene for us for this evening's Petitioners?

  The Petition of Thames Reach Residents' Association.

  Mrs Pat Fairbairn appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

  12608. Mr Mould: Sir, what I will do, if you will allow me, is I will set the scene for the Thames Reach Residents' Association, who I think are first up this evening, by simply reminding the Committee that I opened in some detail this morning in relation to Maidenhead and the Guards Club Park in particular, and I believe that the issues that those Petitioners are going to raise are very much to do with the use of the park as a worksite. Given that I am sure you want to make progress, I was not proposing to repeat that, if that is convenient, and just hand over to the Petitioners straightaway.

  12609. Sir Peter Soulsby: We did have a very full presentation this morning about the general issues so we do understand what they are.

  12610. Mr Mould: Ms Lieven is going to take over from me and she will deal with the other Petitioners this evening.

  12611. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very much indeed.

  12612. Mr Mould: Mrs Patricia Fairbairn.

  12613. Mrs Fairbairn: I am aware that you have spent some considerable time today already with regard to this but the Residents' Association were very keen that we should actually present our case as, if you like, the general public and people who live very near the park. I have organised what I want to say so I promise I will not waste your time at all.

  12614. My name is Pat Fairbairn and I represent the Thames Reach Residents' Association. This is approximately 200 houses surrounding Guards Club Park or in close proximity to it. Of course, Guards Club Park is a public park and so it is obviously important to people who generally live in Maidenhead, not just the residents.

  12615. The park is tiny. If I could just show you a slide that I know you have seen already, it shows very well how small the park is.[85] That is very useful, thank you very much. And it illustrates also, understandably, why Crossrail should see this area of land as the easiest and most convenient way to carry out the electrification of the central columns of the Brunel Bridge. I do not know whether the Select Committee have had the opportunity to visit the site, if you have please bear with me whilst I show you only a few photographs. If you have not visited the site, I think you might find it helpful. I know you will have seen some but this gives you a picture of the park, particularly its size. It is a very beautiful park. The park is so small that the whole of it can be seen from wherever one is standing—at either of the two gates or within the park. Residents' houses overlook and come right up to the edge of the park.


  12616. If you could go through, there are just eight photographs I want to look at, please. This one, first of all, shows the road called Oldacres and you can hardly see where the park gates are.[86] There is a chap on his bike and then there are some brick pillars and that takes you straight into the park, so you can see the residents' houses go straight into the park. Thank you. The next one is the car park and you are looking across to the other side of the park near where the house is, the other gates, and the photograph limits you but you can see the whole park.[87] Thank you. You are standing in the middle of the park, a little pagoda there, and the next one please.[88] That is the listed Edwardian footbridge that there has been a lot of discussion about and the River Thames and, again, you are in about the middle of the park there.[89] Thank you. This is a particularly good one of the footbridge and you can see Maidenhead Bridge just on the left-hand side there.[90] Thank you. This one shows the path beside the river which I would like to come back to later on.[91] Thank you. That one is the Brunel Bridge and it shows where you will get on to the footbridge to the left there just at the bottom of the picture.[92] Thank you. This is looking to the area that Crossrail are looking to actually use for the portacabin site offices and storage of material.[93]









  12617. Sir Peter Soulsby: I guess those are the posts that we are told will need to be removed temporarily during the construction phase?

  12618. Mrs Fairbairn: Absolutely, yes. When this petition was submitted we were aware that 50 per cent of the park was within the Bill's limits. In the latest information to us from Crossrail last week we do note that there has been a considerable move to reassure the local authority and us that in fact Crossrail is now prepared to undertake to limit the worksite to 10 per cent of the park. That is excluding the use of the footbridge and the island. However, because the park is so tiny, any worksite portacabins and storage materials would be highly visible and intrusive for people visiting and spending time in the park. The Residents' Association and Maidenhead Civic Society met with Crossrail a year ago in June and put forward a suggestion that Crossrail might like to look into using the river, ie using barges, for transporting equipment and as a site office. If this could be effected then there would be no need to use Oldacres which is very much a family estate road or to gain access to the island via Guards Club Park and that listed footbridge.

  12619. However, in the latest information from Crossrail received this month Crossrail say that they do not consider the use of the river an appropriate option because there is "a relatively small amount of construction activity over a relatively short duration of time." If there is a relatively small amount of activity over a relatively short duration of time perhaps one could argue that it is even more feasible to use the river.


85   Committee Ref: A137, Aerial View of Maidenhead Bridge from South (WINSRB-12005-010). Back

86   Committee Ref: A140, View of Oldacres, Maidenhead (WINSRB-12005-001). Back

87   Committee Ref: A140, View of Guards Club Park (WINSRB-12005-002). Back

88   Committee Ref: A140, View of Pagoda at Guards Club Park (WINSRB-12005-003). Back

89   Committee Ref: A140, View of listed Edwardian footbridge at Guards Club Park (WINSRB-12005-004). Back

90   Committee Ref: A140, Alternate view of listed Edwardian footbridge (WINSRB-12005-005). Back

91   Committee Ref: A140, View of footpath and listed Edwardian footbridge (WINSRB-12005-006). Back

92   Committee Ref: A140, View of Maidenhead Bridge (WINSRB-12005-007). Back

93   Committee Ref: A140, Alternate view of Guards Club Park (WINSRB-12005-008). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007