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
| 
