Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16340
- 16359)
16340. Mr Kingston: Environmental impact
assessment only, that is correct.
16341. Chairman: Thank you, Mr Garratt.
The witness withdrew
16342. Mr Kingston: If I may, I will
call Mr Dixon.
16343. Chairman: Mr Kingston, how long
do you think you are going to take with this witness?
16344. Mr Kingston: Probably for this
evidence, 15 to 20 minutes.
16345. Chairman: If we can get the stenographers
to stay we will extend beyond 4.30 and, maybe, sit until 5.00,
which may cause the Committee not to come back at 6.00, which
would be helpful to the Committee. So if you could make your points—
16346. Mr Kingston: I have been attempting
to do so shortly, and will continue to do so, if I may.
Mr Peter Dixon, Sworn
Examined by Mr Kingston
16347. Mr Kingston: You are Peter Dixon,
is that right?
(Mr Dixon) Yes.
16348. You are a Chartered Planning and Development
Surveyor, a Member of the Institute of Highways and Transportation
and a Member of the Energy Institute. Is that right?
(Mr Dixon) Yes.
16349. In essence, you are someone who has had
considerable experience in consideration of the assessment of
major projects and their environmental impacts. Is that correct?
(Mr Dixon) Yes, it is.
16350. And that is over now quite a few years.
In this instance you have been asked to consider particularly
the effects which arise from Crossrail in terms of the way they
have been assessed for the purposes of the Environment Assessment
and meeting the requirements not only of the United Kingdom but,
also, European legislation. Is that right?
(Mr Dixon) Yes, it is.
16351. With regard to the requirements, if we
look at the detail of that, we have got, I think, probably the
most succinct way of expressing it, by having a look at circular
2 of 99, and perhaps a brief extract from that which tells us,
"to ensure that the authority, giving the primary consent
for a particular project makes, its decisions in the knowledge
of any likely significant effects on the environment there should
be an Environmental Impact Assessment." Yes?
(Mr Dixon) Yes, that has been the requirement
of the European Directive.
16352. As the Committee has been reminded of
those matters, in any event we perhaps do not need to deal any
further with the generalities of the obligation. Let us go to
the particulars of how they apply here. In terms of significant
environmental effects, Mr Dixon, what is your view about the position
here, please?
(Mr Dixon) It seems to me quite plain that
the effect upon rail freight interests are potentially significant
environmental effects for the purposes of the regulations.
16353. On that basis, what ought to happen with
regard to assessment of them?
(Mr Dixon) Those effects should be assessed
in the Environmental Statement that accompanies the Bill.
16354. In terms of a failure to do that, what
are the consequences?
(Mr Dixon) The decision-maker cannot grant
development consent if significant environmental effects have
not been assessed before the decision is taken.
16355. In this instance, have you had the opportunity
of considering Mr Garratt's evidence and indeed the evidence of
others as to the impacts that Crossrail has on other freight interests?
(Mr Dixon) Yes, I have, and I do not pretend
to be a timetabling expert myself, so I rely entirely—
16356. You are highly unlikely to lose your
seat if you say anything like that! Maybe your head, I do not
know! Tell us, please, what you have drawn from what the other
witnesses have said about the effects on freight?
(Mr Dixon) It seems to me either there are
significant effects on rail freight interests or one cannot say
with any confidence now that there would not be.
16357. Did you, in the course of preparing for
your evidence before this Committee, write to the Promoters to
ask them what view they had taken with regard to freight interests
and the extent to which they were going to be assumed to be impacted
or not?
(Mr Dixon) Yes. Because the Environmental Statement
is silent on the subject I wrote to the Promoters and tried to
understand what process had been gone through, and someone called
Mr Lancaster wrote to me in reply to say that the Environmental
Statement had been prepared on the basis of a working assumption
that there would have been no impact on rail freight interests.
16358. "A working assumption of no impact
on rail freight interests". Let us suppose, for the moment,
and I say it with no disrespect, this Committee and the House
remains seized of this right to approve or not the Crossrail proposals—in
other words, it is not going to be a regulator who will say whether
or not the Bill passes, but this House—what in your view
does the Committee need to be satisfied about before it could
pass the Bill?
(Mr Dixon) It either needs to be satisfied
that there genuinely would be no effects on rail freight interests
or, alternatively, that the safeguards were in place to ensure
that there could not be beyond the level assessed in the Environmental
Statement.
16359. Mr Elvin's response to this was to say
engagingly to the Committee: "Don't worry; you do not have
to worry about all this timetabling difficulties; we will pass
it all, after a discussion with Network Rail, to the regulator
and the regulator will ensure that these matters are looked at
before there is public consultation and before there is any Access
Option." Do you recollect hearing that?
(Mr Dixon) Yes, I do.
| 
