Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16440
- 16459)
16440. There are two candidates to alleviate
the capacity constraint that is forecast to constrain freight
growth on the GEML, GOB and the Felixstowe/Nuneaton proposals.
Both are list candidates for TIF funding. Felixstowe to Nuneaton
is nothing to do with Crossrail issues, because of course it is
work related to the expansion of the Haven Ports where Crossrail
does not have an impact. The reality is that without Crossrail
these schemes have to be progressed by the Department of Transport
and the freight industry acting together if the anticipated growth
on the Great Eastern Mainline is to be accommodated.
16441. So far as timetabling is concerned, it
is for Network Rail and the ORR under existing regulatory procedures
that determine how existing capacity will be allocated in the
future. How Network Rail and the rail regulator allocate that
capacity as between freight and passenger services is a matter
for those bodies. It follows that the issue of timetabling capacity
is one for those bodies to consider as part of the access option
process. Any detailed concerns in relation to capacity can be
raised by the Petitioners with the Network Rail and ORR during
consultation on the access options. No doubt the work of the TWG
will be used as a basis for further work by Network Rail and the
ORR as part of the access option process and indeed Mr Garratt
agreed yesterday, day 54, paragraphs 16293-16302, that if the
timetabling work was not robust the ORR would not proceed to consultation,
but would not approve the access option until that work was robust.
16442. The Next Steps paper that we put
in explains what is now proposed to be done, with a group to replace
the TWG and take forward the timetabling and access matters. The
group may be reconstituted, but it is unlikely there will be representation
from all end users. Firstly, it would be far too unwieldy and
impracticable to have every traffic type represented on the committee
and members of the Committee who, I am sure, are well used to
sitting on committees, can imagine how unwieldy a committee that
has not only the current representatives on the TWG, but has all
end users represented as well, would be a very difficult committee
to operate in practice.
16443. Secondly, the railway industry, in adopting
the route utilisation strategy forecasts growth and the TWG reflected
this in any event, notwithstanding Mr Garratt's views for Tarmac.
And, thirdly, none of the end user interest has a track access
option.
16444. When the Committee asks itself whether
there is anything it should do in response to the points made
by the freight industry, it is important to have regard to what
Mr Garratt accepted yesterday, day 54, at 16303-16305 and the
Committee will recall that I put to Mr Garratt and I quoted the
relevant passages, that whatever conclusion the Committee reaches,
as a matter of law Network Rail and the ORR still have to go through
this process and still have to do the exercise, be satisfied of
operational viability and consult the industry before any access
option can be granted.
16445. Further, when re-examined, Mr Garratt
made it clear—this is paragraph 16399 yesterday—that
the forecasting and finding future capacity for freight is an
industry-wide responsibility and he noted that the Secretary of
State asked the industry to come forward with forecasts so that
in specifying time levels at the specification to Network Rail
the Government can ensure that rail freight achieves its potential.
16446. There is, therefore, no point in giving
the undertakings sought by the various petitioners that further
timetabling work should be required by the Committee as part of
the Bill process by the TWG. Timetabling work now needs to be
done as part of the access option application rather than through
the TWG and I hope our Next Steps paper and our reassurance
to the Committee makes that perfectly clear.
16447. So far as the infrastructure to be provided
is concerned, this too is a matter which can be determined through
the access option process. Network Rail and/or the office of rail
regulator can impose conditions requiring infrastructure to be
provided as a pre-condition to the operation of the service, I
made that clear on day 48, 13889. There is further work which
is required to reach a position where it is clear what infrastructure
is definitely necessary and what infrastructure is not necessary.
Mr Watson confirmed that to set the infrastructure in stone now
before the design and the timetable are finalised would not be
sensible—day 48, 13890. Therefore, the undertaking given
by the Promoter on day 48, and that is paragraphs 13861-13865
and following, is entirely appropriate and it is intended to give
sufficient assurance to the Committee at this stage in the design
process.
16448. Turning now briefly to the three final
issues. Particular sites: the Promoter has explained that it is
working to identify with greater precision the extent of the land
that it requires in relation to site occupied by railway related
petitioners. It is intended that once this work is complete, undertaking
can be provided that will limit the land take associated with
Crossrail. This is consistent with the general approach to Crossrail
which is to minimise land take.
16449. On the strategic freight sites issue,
no compensation should be payable to freight operators for the
loss of strategic freight sites in which they do not hold an interest.
The SFS scheme itself indicates that a strategic freight site
can be lost where it is compulsorily acquired and does not provide
for alternative sites or compensation to be payable.
16450. Finally, on the question of compensation,
the Promoter has set out its position regarding compensation in
an undertaking to the Committee given on day 48, 13928, which
clarified the intention given, IP H2, and that is in three parts,
industry mechanisms will apply whether the access option or Bill
powers are used; where an industry mechanism for compensation
exists it will used; where an industry mechanism for compensation
does not exist and one has to be drawn up, the principle of no
net benefit and no net loss will be applied.
16451. Some Petitioners have sought to have
the industry mechanisms extended so that compensation would be
provided for Crossrail works in circumstances where no compensation
would be payable if Network Rail carried out the work and we say
that is inappropriate. The Promoters have provided clarification
regarding the ability to use part G of the network code to block
certain works. Part G of the network code should be disapplied
because if it is not train operators will be able to delay or
prevent Crossrail from being constructed as considered and approved
by parliament. It would be inappropriate to provide train operators
with the ability to hold the project to ransom.
16452. Those are our general submissions on
the last two and a half weeks and unless the Committee wants me
to clarify anything, I do not propose to say anything more unless
we need to respond in writing to the letters put in this morning.
16453. Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. We now move on to the petitions that we are going to take
collectively, petitions 183, Alastair and Eleanor Ferguson, 184
Gerald Collins and Mona Hatoum, 190 Eleanor Ferguson again and
194 Caroline Hamilton.
The Petitions of Alastair and Eleanor Ferguson, Gerald
Collins and Mona Hatoum and Caroline Hamilton.
Mrs Eleanor Ferguson, appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.
16454. Chairman: Mr Mould, you are responding?
16455. Mr Mould: Yes, I am.
16456. Chairman: Do you want to set out
the context?
16457. Mr Mould: Yes, if I may, because
the members of the Committee will recall, particularly, I think,
Mrs James and Messrs Binley and Liddell-Grainger, we heard these
Petitioners on day 40, I think it was. Ms Ferguson, who sits to
my right, set out the nub of the Petitioners' concerns and, for
the record, this is set out in paragraphs 10433 and following
and the position is this, just to set the scene: the Petitioners
are the owners of flats within a building at 61 Princelet Street
in Spitalfields. All but Ms Ferguson herself and her husband,
I think, are presently owner occupiers living in their flats as
their homes and our understanding is that Ms Ferguson and her
husband will shortly take up occupation of their flat, they have
been either living or working abroad and are shortly to resume
occupation of their flat.
16458. The concern that they brought to the
Committee was that the buildings are located adjacent to, and
indeed overlooking, the proposed Hanbury Street work site and
the concern was, and I think the concern shared by the Committee
on that day, that the impact of the operation of that work site,
which is expected to last for some months, would be sufficiently
serious as to render occupation of those flats during that period
essentially unacceptable, because of noise and disturbance and
we certainly made it clear for our part that we expected that
particularly the noise and disturbance generated by the operation
of the work site would be such as to merit noise insulation and
temporary re-housing under our noise and disturbance mitigation
policy for a period that would be significant and we expect it
would significantly exceed three months in duration, so that was
the position.
16459. Against that context, the Petitioner
has asked that the Promoter should now commit to buying their
properties and the question put to me was, "Is the Promoter
prepared to make that commitment?" and I said that that was
not the position, but I would go away and we would review the
position and we would report back to the Committee with our position
following that and that is what I propose to do now and then obviously
that will set the scene, I hope, for anything further Ms Ferguson
wants to say.
| 
