Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16360
- 16379)
16360. We know, of course, that beyond that,
if there is not a satisfactory outcome from Crossrail's point
of view, there are powers in the Bill which can override the regulator.
Is that correct?
(Mr Dixon) That is my understanding, yes.
16361. In those circumstances, what do you say
is the position? Is the Committee able effectively to decant its
responsibilities with regard to the assessment of environmental
effects to the regulator and say: "Well, he can sort it out
as to whether or not there is going to be an effect; that the
Bill should pass and when the Bill passes we will hope that the
working assumption with regard to freight is proved to be correct"?
Would that be appropriate?
(Mr Dixon) No, I do not think it would be.
In part, there is an issue of timing. The decision to grant development
consent is taken by this Committee. It cannot leave it to some
other body later to resolve a significant issue of this kind.
I suppose if the issue were resolved before the Committee's decision
were taken and appropriate safeguards could then be incorporated
in the Bill to ensure that the regulator's requirements, for example,
in relation to any physical infrastructure that might be needed
to secure the Access Option were then ensured by condition, to
use a planning analogy, then it would be satisfactory.
16362. At the moment is that mechanism in place?
(Mr Dixon) Not that I am aware of, no.
16363. Have a look at what the potential is
here. The first is, obviously, the situation I have described
to you, which has been put a few moments ago, which you described
as "unsatisfactory", in terms of satisfying the requirements
of the impact assessment legislation. What could the Committee
do here practically, please, in order to ensure, in your view,
compliance with the requirement in relation to the environmental
impact assessment?
(Mr Dixon) The first thing would be to require
the Environmental Statement to be supplemented by an assessment
of what is now known about the likely effects on rail freight
interests. That assessment would enable the effects to be quantified
and weighed properly in the judgment about the benefits of the
scheme, which I acknowledge are significant benefits, and any
mitigation that is needed and any measures to secure that mitigation
could then be also identified and secured by appropriate mechanisms
in the Bill.
16364. At the moment, none of that is in place.
Is that right?
(Mr Dixon) That is my understanding, yes.
16365. Have you seen in anything recently produced
(for example, the documents we referred to earlier produced yesterday)
which would result in it being in place?
(Mr Dixon) Not as I have seen, no.
16366. A part of what is involved here is, of
course, a consideration of what infrastructure might be required
in order to alleviate the impacts on other interests as a consequence
of the introduction of Crossrail services. Yes?
(Mr Dixon) Yes.
16367. In terms of ensuring the delivery of
those and any linkage to an Environmental Impact Assessment, what
do you say?
(Mr Dixon) If this was a conventional planning
application it would be normal to seek to require any necessary
infrastructure by condition or to have what are known as Grampian
conditions imposed which prevent the development from being carried
out or operating until some specific thing was put in place. That
is the sort of mechanism that might be appropriate here.
16368. For the Committee to require that before
Crossrail services run the infrastructure required to achieve
the outcomes asserted should be in place?
(Mr Dixon) Yes, that would be quite a normal
form of planning condition.
16369. At least with regard to those elements
then, if that were done is there some chance then of compliance
with at least that aspect with regard to an Environmental Impact
Assessment?
(Mr Dixon) yes, because then what the Committee
has been told would happen is enforceable.
16370. All of that, of course, assumes that
there has been a process gone through and put before the Committee
which has identified what the impacts are, identified the necessary
infrastructure and then we have moved to securing it.
(Mr Dixon) Yes, that is right. That is the
process that the Directive contemplates.
16371. The first few steps we have heard about
already.
(Mr Dixon) Yes.
16372. Mr Kingston: Thank you very much,
Mr Dixon. Thank you, sir.
Cross-examined by Mr Elvin
16373. Mr Elvin: I can be short. Mr Dixon,
it is common ground between us that in order for an environmental
assessment of a particular matter to be required there must be
a judgment as to whether it is likely to have a significant effect.
(Mr Dixon) Yes, that is right.
16374. Whether it is likely and whether there
are significant effects is a matter of expert judgment, is it
not?
(Mr Dixon) It is. Normally, of course, there
would be a scoping process in which the Promoter or the applicant
and the decision-maker considered those issues together; it would
not be an action carried out unilaterally by an applicant. You
are quite right, there is a judgment to be made.
16375. Mr Dixon, we are not in the normal planning
forum; we are applying the Directive under Article 1(5). I am
sure you are well aware of that, Mr Dixon; we are not applying
it under planning regulations, are we?
(Mr Dixon) We are not, although the standing
orders of the Committee do require environmental statements on
all-fours with one prepared under those regulations.
16376. I am sure you have read Standing Order
27A most carefully and you will see that what it requires is something
in the form required by Schedule 4 to the Regulations?
(Mr Dixon) That is right, including anything
that might be reasonably required.
16377. So if a judgment has been reached supported
by the Timetable Working Group that there are likely significant
effects, there is no obligation to carry out an environmental
assessment of those effects is there?
(Mr Dixon) If that were true, but the scope
of the judgment was formed approximately nine months before the
Timetable Working Group was. As I understand it what the Timetable
Working Group conclusion suggested that there would a—
16378. Mr Dixon, let us cut to the quick and
let us not make clever points, the point that you are complaining
about now is that the environmental statement does not deal with
the particular issues?
(Mr Dixon) That is right.
16379. If the judgment has been reached that
it does not require to deal with it because there are not going
to be likely significant effects, because we would say that is
what the TWG report shows, there is no obligation to carry out
environmental assessment of those effects is there?
(Mr Dixon) If it were the case that a reasonable
judgment could be formed that there would be no significant effects
under this heading, you are right, ultimately that is a matter
for the decision-maker, not the applicant.
| 
