Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18020
- 18039)
18020. We can deal briefly with Maidenhead Station.
The access has been revised to allow a new housing development
to proceed unhindered. At West Drayton Station there are works
which are proposed in the event that the alternative depot strategy,
which I will come on to in a moment, is rejected by the Committee.
Those works are only required in the event that the depot strategy
which is now proposed is not accepted.
18021. The new depot strategy involves relocating
the proposed Crossrail depot from Romford in the east and the
Committee will be aware there have been petitions regarding the
loss of playing fields and the impact of the depot. What AP3 now
proposes is to relocate the depot to the west just north of Wormwood
Scrubs at Old Oak Common depot. The depot buildings and the ancillary
works and the sidings will be placed at Old Oak Common and you
can see it there.[15]
They are currently occupied by EWS and the Heathrow Express and
it would propose to replace Romford. Buildings currently located
on the site of the proposed new sidings will of course need to
be demolished and track-work leading to the depot will be revised.
Where it says Great Western main line you can see there are sidings
and a depot on the other side. That is called the North Pole.[16]
I am not sure whether it is called that because it is north of
Wormwood Scrubs or because of the pub which is located on the
road, but that is where currently it is proposed to relocate EWS
from this side of the Great Western main line to that side to
accommodate the Crossrail network. There are still discussions,
however, with regard to the EWS relocation. That, we would put
to the Committee, is a satisfactory alternative site for the depot
which will overcome the strategic problems of the playing fields
and the impact at Romford by utilising an existing depot with
consequently lesser impact.
18022. Next is Seven Kings Station, which is
Ilford depot—page 197 of AP3 ES—which is part of the
revised depot strategy as well.[17]
What is proposed, if the Committee are satisfied that the alternative
depot strategy should be followed, is this will allow for stabling
to be constructed at an existing depot site. Two existing buildings
in the Ilford depot would be demolished and replaced by 11 sidings
and ancillary works.
18023. Turning to Goodmayes Station and Gidea
Park Station, additional amendments are proposed to allow for
greater PRM accessibility, including revised ticket halls and
step-free access to platforms.
18024. Romford Depot (West)—these are
proposals, as with West Drayton, which only arise if the Committee
rejects the alternative depot strategy. There are proposals to
try and mitigate the impacts of Romford, if the Committee considers
the depot ought to remain there, despite the alternative strategy.
Those proposals will reduce the loss of playing fields during
construction and would reduce the impact, although we will still
be asking the Committee to recommend and endorse the wholesale
removal of the depot to West London rather than the east.
18025. Page 243—Blackwall Way and Limmo
Peninsula shafts—what are proposed there in fact is to replace
the barge loading facility from the Limmo Peninsula at Instone
Wharf which you can see marked in white on the photograph.[18]
That will ensure easier access and improve the handling of excavated
material.
18026. Finally in terms of pictures, page 262,
this is Clacton, which I do not think we have been to so far along
the course of the Bill.[19]
This again is part of the revised depot strategy it may surprise
you to hear. The alternative depot strategy includes a proposal
to reopen Clacton Depot temporarily to commission and test the
new Crossrail rolling stock. Because of the decision to relocate
Romford, if the Committee so endorses the decision, additional
commissioning and test facilities would need to be provided. We
have had to split up the function a little in order to make sure
that we can accommodate the relocation of the depot. That is proposed
at Clacton and because of the greater length of the Crossrail
trains some alterations to the existing maintenance shed will
be necessary to accommodate those trains. There are also other
provisions within AP3 which I am not going to deal with in any
detail: amendments to the Stockley Flyover, the limits of deviation
revised works site and access at Hanwell Station and a revision
to the Arsenal Way shaft to enable one of the businesses to remain
operational.
18027. I hope that is not a too rapid a canter
through the main proposals from AP3, but it at least gives the
Committee a flavour of the main items and, as the Committee will
have seen, they include a good deal of alterations in order to
give effect to the Committee's decisions.
18028. The final matter I want to touch on is
SES3, which was deposited in November, and contains some updated
environmental information, including particularly the comparison
between Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street which we promised.
Since the publication of SES3 last November, it became clear this
week that some corrections need to be made to a fairly small number
of paragraphs—in the order of four or five—relating
to the noise impacts on the proposed Hanbury Street shaft. It
is right that the corrections should be made so that there is
accuracy in the environmental statement, but I can assure the
Committee that they do not lead to different conclusions in terms
of the noise impact of the Hanbury Street shaft when one takes
into account the revised possibilities for mitigation, nor does
it lead to a different conclusion to the comparative exercise
between the Hanbury Street site and the Woodseer Street site.
If you remember, although a detailed noise comparison was not
available when the Committee heard the Spitalfields Petitioners
last summer, Mr Thornley-Taylor said in his view it was likely
that, at least in noise terms, the two locations would come out
broadly comparable. That was not the point—as Mr Berryman
made clear to you and will make clear to you again if necessary—which
led to the choice of Hanbury Street over Woodseer Street. The
assessment in SES3 leads to the conclusion that Mr Thornley-Taylor's
prediction was right that, in noise terms, the two are broadly
comparable in their impact. The point for decision arises on other
grounds, not on noise grounds.
18029. Accordingly, what we propose to do is
to make available the corrected text to the AP3 Petitioners from
Spitalfields who are appearing on 30 January. We will make the
corrections available to them this week which will be in good
time hopefully for their appearance on 30 January and we will
also publicise the amendments to SES3 as soon as we reasonably
can. I can assure the Committee from what I am being told over
the last few days that the changes will involve no Bill amendments;
they will involve no requirement of petitioning. They will open
the possibility to those reading the amendments that they may
wish to make representations, which is a separate process from
petitioning, which would then be presented by the Secretary of
State to the House at third reading along with any other representations
which do not arise in the context of bill petitions. Although
those corrections have to be made, we hope that they should not
give rise to any great difficulties. I simply say them for the
record so that everybody knows that we need to make them and it
may well be publicised to the AP3 Petitioners before the end of
this week.
18030. Sir, unless there are any matters that
the Committee would like further information on, that concludes
my run through the AP's.
18031. Chairman: I am grateful.
18032. Ms Lieven: The only other matter
today is the cyclists, Mr Selway and Mr Harrison. I do not know
if the Committee knows that they are finding it difficult to get
here this morning. I believe they can come at half past two.
18033. Chairman: We have a witness here
but we have not got the representative. I think it is probably
correct that we need to suspend until two thirty and then come
back and hear their case then. The last we heard from them was
that five or six emails have been received. He has left Birmingham
and he will be here as soon as he can.
Adjourned until 2.30 pm
The Petition of Michael Andrew Harrison, Arnold David
Moxon and Gordon Gemmell Selway
Mr Gordon Gemmell Selway appeared on behalf of the
Petitioners.
18034. Chairman: Welcome.
18035. Mr Selway: Thank you, sir.
18036. Chairman: Congratulations.
18037. Mr Selway: Thank you. Oddly enough,
it is not because of the weather; it is because of privatisation.
18038. Chairman: I am not entirely unsympathetic
to what you are talking about but I think we will leave it there.
18039. Ms Lieven: Can I make a very brief
opening, sir?
15 Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement,
Chapter 17, Route Window W3: Old Oak Common Depot, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-AP317-004). Back
16
Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 18,
Route Window W2: Canal Way, Aerial view of the North Pole Depot,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-AP318-004). Back
17
Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 19,
Route Window NE5: Seven Kings Station Back
18
Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 24,
Route Window SE1: Blackwall Way and Limmo Peninsula Shafts, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-AP324-003). Back
19
Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 26,
Route Window R2: Clacton, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-AP326-002). Back
| 
