Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16800
- 16819)
16800. The Promoter's response: The Secretary
of State accepts the judgment of the Committee that the exceptional
and historical nature of the business of the tenants of Smithfield
Market justifies additional rights to compensation with respect
to impacts caused by the Crossrail work for this special case.
The Promoter's proposal to deal with this is as follows. It applies
to the market traders who are tenants of the city corporation
at Smithfield Market. Where an event occurs during the construction
of Crossrail which triggers a right for the market traders to
claim compensation under section 10 of the compulsory Purchase
Act 1965 (as modified by clause 50 of the Crossrail Bill) or Section
6 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation 1845 (as incorporated
with modifications by paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 to the Bill)
against the nominated undertaker, the Secretary of State will
require the nominated undertaker to include in the compensation
an amount representing any consequential loss, whether or not
reflected in the value of land, (1) which was caused by the construction
of the works under statutory authority, (2) for which the nominated
undertaker would have been liable to pay damages if the construction
had not been authorised by statute. The Promoter has written to
the Smithfield Market Tenants Association to offer an undertaking
on the basis and to explain how the proposal will would work in
practice. A copy of that letter is at Annex A. Sir, I should have
said, there are a number of annexes to this document, I do not
intend to read them out but they are all there for the Committee
to see.
16801. Charterhouse Street—the Committee
Decision: Following the Petition of Save Britain's Heritage, we
would also ask the Promoter to explore and assess alternatives
to the compulsory purchase of 33-37 Charterhouse Street.
16802. Promoter's response: In response to the
Committee's request, the Promoter commissioned an engineering
study to investigate whether there is an alternative way of forming
a passenger link between the Crossrail station at Farringdon and
the eastbound Metropolitan/Circle Line platform at the Barbican
London Underground station, providing PRM access to the platforms
and street level without the acquisition and demolition of 33-37
Charterhouse Square. The study showed that there were no suitable
alternatives which would not have more significant effects on
the area than the current Bill scheme. For this reason, the Promoter
proposes to continue with the original proposal. The Promoter
will work with the relevant planning authority to find the most
appropriate solution for developing the site once works have been
completed. Further detail of the engineering study carried out
is provided at Annex B.
16803. EMI Limited—Committee Decision:
The Committee has listened carefully to the case of EMI. We recognise
that the increased value of the building would have to be built
into any compulsory purchase order negotiations. Therefore, in
order to keep the cost to the public purse as low as possible,
we believe that the Petitioners should be subject to a CPO as
soon as practicable after Royal Assent.
16804. Promoter's response: The Promoter will
offer to EMI an undertaking to purchase their building at a time
of EMI's choosing from the point at which funding for Crossrail
has been secured. The form of that undertaking is at Annex C.
16805. Grand Central Sound Studios—Committee
Decision: Similarly, in the case of Grand Central Sound studios,
the Committee agreed that the exceptional technical nature of
the Petitioner's business required protection against potential
disruption from the works. We ask that sound mitigation work is
carried out before construction commences, where possible.
16806. Promoter's response: In its response
the Petition of Grand Central Sound Studios, the Promoter proposed
mitigation work to the railway itself in order to mitigate the
noise produced by the operation of Crossrail and the running of
the construction railway. The Promoter is in the process of discussing
with Grand Central Sound Studios precisely what form that mitigation
should take. The Promoter understands that the Petitioner has
written to the Committee to clarify that point. This Petition
has yet to be heard by the Select Committee. If the Promoter and
Grand Central Sound Studios are not able to agree, therefore,
the issue will come before the Committee in due course.
16807. Shenfield—Committee Decision: We
will discuss the cases presented to us about Shenfield in detail
in our report. At this stage, we wish the Promoters to demonstrate
that they have worked closely with the local community to ensure
that appropriate noise insulation has been provided to those who
will be affected by the additional noise of the Crossrail works.
16808. Promoter's response: Following the Select
Committee's decision, the Promoter commissioned revised noise
impact predictions for the Shenfield area. The results are still
being finalised and will be included in the Supplementary Environmental
Statement expected to be published in November. On 13 September,
Cross London Rail Links met with the relevant local authority,
Brentwood Borough Council, to explain what was being done and
to discuss how the revised noise predictions, once finalised,
might best be disseminated to the affected local community. As
a result, CLRL intend to write to the residents concerned, providing
copies of both the original and the revised predictions in readily
comparable and understandable map form. The letter will explain
what the predictions mean in terms of likely qualification for
either the provision of noise insulation and/or temporary rehousing,
and the trigger levels used for their provision. It will also
explain in layperson's terms the process for further predictions
to be made, nearer the start of the construction, once the detailed
design work has been done and a detailed construction methodology
devised, and for the actual provision of noise insulation and/or
temporary re-housing. The letter will make it clear that whilst
the trigger levels for the provision of noise insulation and temporary
rehousing will remain the same, it is these later predictions,
as opposed to the predictions done now, that will determine who
will qualify for noise insulation and/or temporary rehousing.
16809. CLRL then propose to organise, in liaison
with the local authority, and advertise widely, including by leafleting
all properties within 100m of the proposed work, a drop-in centre
or meetings at which concerned residents can be taken through
the revised predictions and the process outlined in the letter.
16810. Committee Decision: The Committee would
also like the Promoter to look again at the possibility of using
the existing sidings at Shenfield as highlighted by Mr Jardine
on 29 March, paragraph 6145.
16811. Promoter's response: CLRL have considered
Mr Jardine's proposal again and reached the same conclusion as
before that it is not possible to make use of the existing sidings
safely for Crossrail services. More detailed information is provided
at Annex D and this has also been provided to Mr Jardine.
16812. London Borough of Havering—Committee's
Decision: In the case of the London Borough of Havering, the Committee
has found certain merit with the Petitioner's case. At this stage,
we invite the Promoter to find a way to provide appropriate access
for mobility impaired people to the developed station in the location
of the current ramp. In the same way, we expect access to all
Crossrail stations to be developed with awareness of the access
needs of people with impaired mobility.
16813. Promoter's response: The Promoter will
provide a new access ramp complying with modern standards for
access for people with reduced mobility at the south side of Romford
Station. The new ramp will be built to the west of the existing
door, providing access to the south end of the mezzanine level
subway of Romford Station.
16814. Southend Arterial Road Action Group—Committee
Decision: We are aware that these Petitioners did not have the
opportunity to fully finish their case. However, the Committee
agreed with the Petitioners that the cul-de-sac was not appropriate
for the level of access proposed. We believe that the Promoter
must find either an alternative access to this worksite or an
adequate solution to this particular problem.
16815. Promoter's response: The Promoter will
bring forward an additional provision to provide for an alternative
access to the Crossrail worksite. The access will make use of
a vacant residential plot immediately adjacent to the worksite.
This proposal would remove the need to access the site from the
cul-de-sac off the Southend Arterial Road.
16816. Freight—Committee Decision: The
Committee is persuaded that the freight industry faces an increasing
challenge with current capacity insufficient for the needs of
growth in the industry, and we believe that the Government should
take steps to address this. However, the Committee believes that
these issues are largely the responsibility of Network Rail and
others and not wholly that of the Crossrail project. We will return
to this issue in our full report. The Committee is concerned about
the uncertainty regarding the Access Option and asks that Promoter
to ensure that the Committee is updated on these issues later
in the year.
16817. Promoter's response: The Promoter agrees
with the Committee's analysis that there are issues in relation
to freight capacity which are broader than the impact of the Crossrail
project and which need to be analysed and solutions considered
by the rail industry's planning mechanisms (including developing
further two short-listed applications for Transport Innovation
Fund support). This work will progress at the pace of the industry
mechanisms rather than necessarily before the Select Committee
completes its work. The focus of the work in relation to Crossrail
is developing the Access Option with Network Rail, and consulting
the ORR, which is currently at the stage of heads of terms. To
support this, a considerable volume of technical analysis and
modelling have been commissioned to demonstrate operational viability,
as explained in the paper put to the Committee shortly before
the summer recess. This includes, but is not confined to, further
train timetabling work. As this work develops, input will be sought
from the rail industry via the Reference Group that has been established
to replace the Timetable Working Group. Formal consultation will
be undertaken by the ORR once it receives the application for
the Access Option. Further updates on progress will be given to
the Committee.
16818. Ealing Broadway—Committee Decision:
The Committee asks the Promoter to demonstrate that a good cross
platform interchange could be made available at Ealing Broadway
between the Reading and Crossrail lines.
16819. Promoter's response: Although Crossrail
will not directly serve Reading and Twyford, passengers from these
stations will find significant improvement in the journey times
into central London. This is because they will be able to interchange
onto Crossrail trains either at Paddington or at Ealing Broadway.
Interchange will be particularly attractive at Ealing Broadway
where same platform interchange will be possible. To do this,
a passenger will simply get off their semi-fast service from Reading
or Twyford and get onto the next train, which will always be a
Crossrail train. As an example, passengers travelling from Twyford
to Liverpool Street by relief line trains will experience at least
a 15-minute reduction in journey time by making a same platform
interchange at Ealing Broadway when Crossrail opens.
| 
