Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15460
- 15479)
15460. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think you
can safely say Mr Taylor will have taken that well on board.
15461. Mr Pout: We have made point 10
as an observation. We have not been part of the many people who
have objected to that but have put it as an observation to ensure
that the station design of Abbey Wood is such that it can be later
extended.[38]
15462. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I am sorry,
we can take it as an observation but it is not within the auspices
of the Bill. We work between the stations we have got.
15463. Mr Pout: Even a full understanding
of the layout of the station—
15464. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I thought
you meant an extension of the line. The station, of course we
do. I am sorry; I thought you meant that you wanted it to go to
Dover or somewhere.
15465. Mr Pout: No. I have been told
by a couple of local authority officers that they believe that
there is design capability.[39]
Our concern is that that design capability is there for Abbey
Wood, so that, at a future station, if additional works were required
beyond Abbey Wood, then a T&W Act application can go in to
extend the route beyond—as far as it need go: Dartford,
Ebbsfleet or wherever.
15466. Mr Liddell-Grainger: The observation
is taken on board.
15467. Mr Pout: Lastly we are concerned
about the protection of local street trees and whether construction
activities may affect trees in the vicinity and what mitigation
is being taken to ensure that if trees are removed they are replaced,
and to ensure that the take of mature trees is minimalised.
15468. Mr Liddell-Grainger: In relation
to Shenfield, we had great representation about trees. It did
strike the Committee that it was pretty well answered by the Promoter,
but, again, Mr Taylor will have taken that on board.
15469. Mr Pout: Thank you, Mr Liddell-Grainger.
15470. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much indeed, Mr Pout. Thank you for your briefing paper.
It is A172.
15471. Mr Taylor: Sir, I am not going
to call any evidence but I will respond as briefly as I can, going
through the headings that the Thames Gateway Forum have put in
before the Committee in the document you have just referred to.
15472. In relation to consultation on the Whitechapels
and Spitalfields area, we would agree with the Gateway Forum that
the Crossrail team were somewhat taken aback by the hostile reception
they got back in October 2004. It is difficult not to be somewhat
taken aback when people are throwing biscuits at you!
15473. In relation to the concerns about the
extent to which there has been consultation in that area, the
Committee has already had a large amount of evidence on that.
In particular, I would refer you to Day 1, paragraph 71 and following,
where documents were referred to which examined the extent to
which there had been penetration and knowledge about the project
in that specific area, and to Mr Elvin's closing on Day 43, paragraph
11682 and following, on that specific issue.
15474. Turning to Hanbury Street, the Committee
is of course aware that there is ongoing work in relation to the
assessment of the environmental impacts of Hanbury Street. It
is a matter on which further information is going to be provided.
In relation to lorry movements, that will be included in that
assessment. So far as the implications of traffic are concerned,
it is proposed in the Crossrail Construction Code to produce traffic
management plans, but there is a specific section, 4.5 in the
Code, relating to street cleaning, and all reasonably practicable
measures will be taken in that regard. So far as other impacts
of construction, such as noise, the Committee is already well
aware of the mitigation scheme proposed in information paper D9.
15475. I shall not say anything about Romford
Depot. That is a matter that you will be hearing more or less
about in relation to AP3.
15476. In relation to cycles and cyclists, the
position has already been addressed in information paper E2, which
the Committee has.[40]
I would refer the Committee to Section 4 of the information paper
E2. "Crossrail will be consistent with the London Underground
policy on cycle carriage"—because of course there is
an interface between the two systems. Of course it is not possible
to take cycles on the London Underground at the moment for obvious
safety reasons, and similarly, in relation to Crossrail, where
it is in the tunnelled section through the central section the
same thing is proposed. Those who want to use Crossrail on the
outer limbs will have to change their trains at stations before
they get into the tunnelled section.
15477. So far as mobility access is concerned,
that was addressed, as Mr Binley may have mentioned or whispered
to you before, on Day 46, paragraph 13069, in some detail and
I will not repeat the points that were pursued there.
15478. The Eleanor Street travellers' site is
going to be a matter that is pursued through AP3.
15479. On Woolwich and the extension to Ebbsfleet,
you have heard a great deal of evidence from us on that and I
am not going to repeat it. You know very well what our position
is in relation to those matters.
38 Crossrail Environmental Statement, Volume 4b, Abbey
Wood Station, Key Environmental Features-Map SE8(i), billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-ES17-125). Back
39
Committee Ref: A172, London Thames Gateway Forum-Extension of
route beyond Abbey Wood (LINEWD-35105-004). Back
40
Crossrail Information Paper E2-Cycle Carriage and Cycle Parking,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
| 
