Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18260
- 18279)
18260. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Brewster,
have you any questions? At the moment I would like you to confine
yourself to any questions you have. You will get a chance to make
a statement, so if you would like to do that, would that be helpful?
18261. Mr Brewster: I would like to ask
if Mr Berryman would consider that a building project on this
scale in a built-up area is ever likely to be anything other than
inconvenient?
(Mr Berryman): No, it will never be anything
other than inconvenient. That is the reality of life.
18262. Mr Brewster: Thanks.
The witness withdrew
18263. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven?
18264. Ms Lieven: Very briefly, sir,
because you have heard all the issues, I would start by saying
that we do really genuinely need this site. This is a location
where a very large amount of effort has been put in in the Bill
development to try to minimise the impact on Acton Yard, and quite
significant changes have taken place, so this has been tested
out hard. It probably is true to say that when a Bill like this
first goes in fairly generous parameters are set, and as one goes
through Parliament and goes through detailed design, hard scrutiny
is put on certain places and this is one area, in which hard scrutiny
has been put, and it is the clear professional advice that we
need this site, I am afraid, and if we cannot have it it is going
to have knock-on effects on the project.
18265. It is important for the Committee to
bear in mind that all along the route this project is about balancing
out interests, and the interests we have here are the freight
lobby, whom some Members of the Committee will remember well,
and who feel very strongly for very good environmental reasons
that their interests must be protected along the western line,
both in terms of the diveunder but also in terms of the operation
of Acton Yard. So we have to protect their interests, and we also
have to protect the operation of the railway for all the millions
of people who use it up and down, so increasing possessions by
having a work site further away is something that has very real
consequences.
18266. It is not the case that we just thought
"Oh, allotments, that is easy, we will take those."
That would be a very unfair view of the process here, so I am
afraid it is our clear position that we need to have this site.
18267. Therefore, we come to the issue of the
alternative. Again we have looked long and hard at this and nobody
is suggesting that there is a better alternative. The problem
with the northern part of the site we are taking is that of access.
Even if access could be got in, the difficulties of safe access,
given the kind of activities going on, are really very obvious,
so this appears to be the only alternative site. It is of the
right size; it does allow the allotment holders to stay together,
which I would suggest is very important given the sense of community
and the clearly successful nature of the allotments, and we have
said, and I am going to sound like Mr Mould now, we will do everything
necessary to provide this as suitable allotment land. If we have
to put in extra conditioning, we will do it; if we have to do
it the year before—and I have not had an allotment and my
vegetables die with boring regularity so I am no expert, but if
it is the case that the manure has to go in a whole season in
advance in order to get the thing rolling early, we will do that.
We are thoroughly committed to making suitable provision here.
18268. So far as the fundamental argument that
this is an unsuitable site is concerned, it is my submission this
is quite a difficult argument to run given there are large and
successful allotments next door. It might not be perfect site
because it is next to an aggregate site but it is obviously perfectly
capable of being successful for allotments because there are allotments
next door and it is also obviously capable of being successful
because there were allotments on this site before.
18269. So it is really a question of energy
and commitment, and we have that, and this is one where we cannot
say: "We will go back and look at it again and try and find
alternative sites", because our position is that is just
not possible. I hope that is a fair summary.
18270. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you.
Mr Brewster?
18271. Mr Brewster: The local residents'
association have been supplying me with news letters from the
past year where local residents living in Lowfield Road, which
is shown on this map, are complaining about dust levels. I take
the point that allotments are viable alongside this site so therefore
some more to the side of it will be all right, but I do consider
that the dust levels are an issue regarding this.
18272. I do not feel that anyone has answered
the point regarding the space of land itself and the discrepancy
between this plan and the overhead photograph I showed earlier.
You will see the area in pale purple after the additional provisions
have been taken, and that is totally different to what is on the
map plan. We are suggesting that this tract of land on the left
could make the perfect substitute for that. This tract here is
part of Network Rail, I think, or BRB, one of the two, and that
would provide access without needing to disrupt the allotment
at all because that access is in place now, and vehicles regularly
go down there to work on the tracks down here, and I know that
because I can hear them at night! But this piece is clear and
I have not heard a decent argument yet why that section of land
could not act as a replacement.
18273. While we are on the subject I would really
like some assurances that Crossrail only intend to take half the
allotments now, because the plan we have been looking at that
they have supplied keeps showing the whole site going, so there
needs to be some clarification there.
18274. Ms Lieven: I had hoped I had clarified
that but let me say it again—it is the access issue.
18275. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven,
the point is taken very well; I think we have gone over that.
The Committee will make up its own mind but we thank you. Would
you like to move on?
18276. Mr Brewster: Yes. Sorry—is
that the whole site to be taken then, or just half of it?
18277. Ms Lieven: We are taking the whole
site, sir, because we cannot provide access to the northern part,
so the whole thing is being taken.
18278. Mr Brewster: That is the first
I have heard. When we had a meeting with Crossrail just before
Christmas we were told that they only intended to take the section
marked purple, plots 156, 157, so it has extended again. That
would have affected my approach to this.
18279. This diveunder is for the sake of Foster
Yeoman's aggregate yard, and that is where the construction should
be taking place. There is loads of spare land around there and
with a bit of effort and a bit of ingenuity that is the place
where the construction workers' accommodation can go. There are
big tracts of land, nothing going on, great areas of land that
need a bit of tidying-up anyway. What about the site itself? I
still do not feel that has been answered satisfactorily. There
is a rail network there to move stuff up and down the line, and
that could be used as a conduit for those materials.
| 
