Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15080 - 15099)

  15080. Does that deal with the question of temporary, extra, additional road use, because that is precisely the sort of matter in its implication which ought to be in an environmental statement, is it not?

   (Mr Berryman) Yes. The environmental statement for that site covers a very substantial number of lorry movements into and out of the site, some of which could be used for providing aggregate. You need to bear in mind that, irrespective of how it is served, there will be a batching plant on that site, if nothing else, to serve the Crossrail ones. Crossrail will use a phenomenal amount of concrete, as I am sure you realise.

  15081. Mr Berryman, that may be so. My simple point is you are now accepting that there will be some additional road movements which are an environmental impact which has thus far not appeared in the Environmental Statement?

   (Mr Berryman) No, I am not saying that. I am saying that there will be lorry movements required for that. That will be within the total number of lorry movements which are assessed in the environmental impact statement.

  15082. This is something which is still to be done, so to speak, this environmental statement?

   (Mr Berryman) No, this was in the original environmental impact statement.

  15083. That does deal, does it not, with aggregates coming to the site by road?

   (Mr Berryman) No, it does not. It does not deal with the concrete coming to the site by road or how it deals with coming to the site by road. It just deals with the total number of lorry movements into the site.

  15084. Bow Midland East, I just want to be clear on that. That is going for the Olympics and am I right in saying that, therefore, can come out of the Bill and you can give the undertaking we seek in respect of it?

   (Mr Berryman) Yes, I think so.

  15085. You say you think so, these matters are important to us. We do not want to know whether you "think" you can give an undertaking. You do not need the land for Crossrail, therefore it should not be in the Bill anymore, is that not right?

   (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. Obviously there is an issue of timing, what happens to the land after the Olympics is finished. If it is going to be reinstated as a freight site it may be useful for us and for your clients that we should have access to it, so I would like to think about that issue a little bit more.

  15086. One last matter which is on the timetabling matter. So far as access and egress to the freight sites, I am right, am I not, in saying that so far as the 2015 with-freight growth position there has as yet been no modelling of access in and out?

   (Mr Berryman) As I just said a few moments ago, yes, that is correct.

  15087. So far as 2004, there has been limited but not complete modelling of the in and out position?

   (Mr Berryman) Yes, there has been some modelling done on that. As I said earlier on, there is a major problem with doing this sort of thing, particularly for the 2015 timetable, because you just do not know exactly what the freight timetable is going to look like in 2015.

  15088. You may not know exactly but you can make an attempt, you can use your best estimates, which is precisely what traffic engineers do normally. It simply has not been done for the 2015 with-growth, that we can agree on?

   (Mr Berryman) No, we cannot agree that. We have used our best estimate and we have identified sufficient space for the timetable to allow.

  15089. There has been no modelling of individual movements into and out of the sites in the 2015 with-growth position, has there?

   (Mr Berryman) We can agree on that.

  15090. We can agree on that. Let us end on that happy note of agreement. Thank you.

  15091. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven?

  15092. Ms Lieven: No re-examination, sir.

  The witness withdrew

  15093. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you very much. Would you like a second attempt?

  15094. Ms Lieven: Yes. Sir, what I thought I would do is do the closing by reference to EWS's request for decision as an aide-memoire, EWS 40, page 96 of our exhibits, and deal with the first 14 together which are site specifics.[108] You have just heard Mr Berryman's evidence, I am certainly not going to repeat that. The crucial point, sir, is that we are happy to undertake that by the end of September we will have written to EWS on each and every one of these sites, setting out precisely what land we need, how long we need it for, whether temporary or permanent, and a short justification for why we need it. That will be done before the end of this Committee but, perhaps even more importantly, before the House of Lords, so if EWS are still not content and cannot enter into an agreement with us, then they have the opportunity to come back on that. So far as I suspect Mr George will say, "Well, that is all very well, but why was it not done before?" we have had meetings with them, we have set out in detail what we wanted. The suggestion that this is all coming as a terrible surprise at the last minute really is not accurate in my submission and it perhaps was not entirely necessary to come here and fight through every site given the tone of the meetings and the large element of agreement on the substance of what was needed or otherwise. In my submission, sir, it would be extremely dangerous to take land out of the Bill at this stage before Mr Berryman has entirely satisfied himself as to precisely what he needs and does not need. What is more, to do something at this stage is likely to be unhealthy to EWS because we would have to say that we needed more land until we were absolutely certain by the end of September. So without going back through each of the individual sites, I would suggest, sir, that they would all be dealt with in that way together.


  15095. So far as the strategic freight site issue is concerned, I dealt with that in opening. I think Mr Elvin touched on it last week. We can see no case for providing compensatory land to EWS—it would not be to EWS—it would be compensatory land to Network Rail in terms of strategic freight sites; Network Rail have not asked for it. There is nothing in the Railways Act or any other legislation which would suggest that is something we should do. Sir, I rely, as on many occasions, on the general railway processes for that.

  15096. I turn then to paragraph 15 which is access and a request for an undertaking that we give reasonable notice to EWS for any plan of interruptions.[109] That matter is dealt with through the rules of the road. If there were going to be interruptions by Crossrail construction, then that is dealt with under the industry process of rules of the road and, in my submission, there is no need to do any more.


  15097. Then capacity, paragraphs 16 to 17. As the Committee well know by now, the intention is that capacity and timetabling will be dealt with through Network Rail and the ORR and through agreeing an access option that meets the Petitioner's concern that the timetabling work and the option access should be set by an independent third party, it meets their concerns that it be done under normal railway processes and it involves the further work that they are so concerned is taking place. If the access option is satisfactorily completed, then the Secretary of State will reconsider the railway clauses; if it is not, then it is a matter that can come back to the House of Lords. In my submission, it is both premature and a waste of time for the Committee to get into lots of hypothetical situations at this stage.

  15098. Paragraph 18, capacity enhancements. Mr Berryman has just given evidence on this. We are not prepared to commit to build all the enhancements when further design work may show some of them are unnecessary. We can commit to construct the dive under at Acton because we are absolutely certain that is necessary as long as freight traffic remains at roughly the levels of the present day. Interestingly, Mr Smith himself said that until the timetabling work was completed, one could not know what infrastructure was needed, and that is precisely our point. There is some inconsistency, I would suggest, with EWS arguing that there is a need for more timetabling work before they can understand the impact on freight but at the same time trying to force Crossrail to commit to doing infrastructure work that may not be necessary. As far as capacity on the Great Western is concerned—it is worth touching on this—Mr Knapman's evidence on the importance of rail-worn aggregates in the West Country is entirely accepted. There is absolutely no intention to decrease freight capacity, quite the contrary. There have been a few things said by EWS witnesses that really just do not seem to have taken on board the reality of the situation at all. There is no intention nor any likelihood of there being a massive modal shift from rail to HGV, nor is there any intention, as Mr Knapman seemed to suggest, to use his words, "to banish freight from the Great Western". As Mr Berryman said, we would not be spending a billion pounds on freight enhancements if that was the intention. Finally, sir, on Great Western, you will remember that the timetable working group, at page seven, said there was sufficient capacity for growth on the Great Western.

  15099. Paragraph 19 deals with the further afield enhancements, that is, in effect, Gospel Oak, Barking and Felixstowe to Nuneaton. That is a topic that Mr Elvin will return to next week when Mr Barrett is recalled for Tarmac, so I am not going to say much about it. All I would say at this stage is we accept that there are issues about capacity at Forest Gate in 2015, but it is our case that is largely, if not wholly, unrelated to the Crossrail project, so that is a matter that the Committee will hear more about later.


108   Committee Ref: A168, Requests for Decision (LINEWD-19605-096). Back

109   Committee Ref: A168, Requests for Decision, Property and Capacity (LINEWD-19605-099). 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