Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15940
- 15959)
15940. But if you look at the benefits, if am
Mr Bugatti and I want to bring my new Veyron on the site for the
purposes of displaying it because everybody goes, "Ooh, aah!",
I am not going to be able to put that on the roof-rack of a Crossrail
train, am I?
(Mr Anderson) No.
15941. In other words, Crossrail will assist
with people getting to it, the visitors, the public, but it does
not directly address the key problem of getting the exhibitions
set up and broken up, does it?
(Mr Anderson) I agree that
it would be an indirect effect if land currently used for the
visitor car park became available. It would be an indirect effect.
15942. I am now going to go back to that section
of the Promoters' exhibits which includes the meeting notes and
could we go please to the meeting note of 26 June, page 006 to
start with.[93]
How many of these meetings did you attend, Mr Anderson?
(Mr Anderson) I do not believe
I was at any of them.
15943. May I ask why, therefore, you are giving
evidence on this when to date, as far as I can see, you have played
no material part in the discussions on this particular Petition
which is one of detail? Why are you giving the evidence?
(Mr Anderson) I was asked
to give evidence on the benefits of Crossrail serving Custom House,
which I have done.
15944. I see, so you were asked to give evidence
on the benefits of Crossrail, but it follows, I assume, on your
own admission, that you are not particularly with the details
of this site, are you?
(Mr Anderson) That would
depend on what you describe as "details". I am familiar
with the site and the permanent effects of Crossrail.
15945. But you have not had the opportunity
in a meeting to have it explained to you precisely how this site
works in terms of setting up and breaking up exhibitions, have
you?
(Mr Anderson) I have not
had that first hand from ExCel, no.
15946. Could we go on to page 008.[94]
I will not reprise the matters which have already been discussed.
We know that there are four sites potentially offering alternative
off-site provision and if you look at the paragraph towards the
bottom of the page, "J Baggs said that there should be an
alternative site . . . " et cetera. Do you see that?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15947. That is the one which identifies the
possibility of an additional provision, does it not?
(Mr Anderson) Yes, it does.
15948. But it then goes on to set out that that
is not presently something which Crossrail is prepared to contemplate.
(Mr Anderson) Correct. I
think Mr Baggs was here setting out what the process would be
if there was an additional provision.
15949. I can entirely understand that policy
matters are matters for civil servants and the Government and
not for Ms Lieven and Mr Mould. Wearing your transport planner
hat, can we just see whether we can reach a measure of agreement.
There are available sites which could be prayed in aid to compensate
for the land-take, are there not, off-site? They are set out in
this report?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15950. It ought to be possible, take it from
me, as a matter of law please, and if I am wrong, I will be corrected,
to provide the certainty which the Petitioners seek for their
important facility, and we have agreed about the importance, by
additional provision and, therefore, there is a balance to be
drawn, is there not?
(Mr Anderson) If that is
a matter of law.
15951. Insofar as you are a transport planner,
are you able to advance for this Committee any cogent reason why
in transport planning terms there is a disadvantage in the additional
provision to give the certainty which is sought by these Petitioners?
In transport planning terms, is there any reason at all why an
additional provision should not be promoted?
(Mr Anderson) Because I
think when you are exercising that judgment, you need to take
into account the benefits as well which I have spoken about and
on that basis I would not consider that an additional provision
on those grounds would be necessary.
15952. Well, let's test this. If an additional
provision is promoted, the benefits are not going to alter one
jot or tittle, are they?
(Mr Anderson) No, the benefits
would be there.
15953. It, therefore, follows, does it not,
that you are not able to advance any reason, so far as lies within
your area of expertise, why an additional provision should not
be promoted, are you?
(Mr Anderson) Well, there
could be an adverse impact on others of course from acquiring
the land.
15954. Yes, but you are not in a position to
give us any information on that, are you?
(Mr Anderson) No, I am not.
15955. Going to the foot of that page, do you
see there is a reference to "MH"? If I have understood
the notes correctly, these are your, Crossrail's notes of the
meeting which we had not seen before we were sent them yesterday.
That is a Mr Max Henn, is it not?
(Mr Anderson) I believe
so, yes.
15956. Who is Mr Henn?
(Mr Anderson) He is a Crossrail
employee.
15957. According to the bit at the beginning,
he is the Senior Design Manager, Surface Rail East, so presumably
he knows about railway lines, parallel bits of steel. Is that
correct?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15958. Mr Henn noted three options for solving
the parking issue, the parking losses. Do you see that?
(Mr Anderson) Yes.
15959. Can we go over the page to the bullet
point right at the top of 009.[95]
One of the things which, as at 26 June of this year, less than
a month ago, Mr Henn identified was a "reworking of the railway
layout to accommodate ExCel's minimum parking requirement".
Do you see that?
(Mr Anderson) I do, yes.
93 Crossrail Ref: P113, Minute of Meeting between
CLRL and Excel, 26 June 2006 (NEWMLB-17304-006). Back
94
Crossrail Ref: P113, Minute of Meeting between CLRL and Excel,
26 June 2006 (NEWMLB-17304-008). Back
95
Crossrail Ref: P113, Minute of Meeting between CLRL and Excel,
26 June 2006 (NEWMLB-17304-009). Back
| 
