Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20800
- 20819)
20800. The final point, sir, is that I would
stress, and I know I have said this on a number of occasions in
the last 18 months, and maybe I will say it once or twice more,
but there is a need to keep some hold on what is Crossrail's responsibility
in London, and what is other people's responsibility. It is no
part of the need of Crossrail for this bridge to be DDA- compliant;
it is not for Crossrail passengers, it is not for Crossrail's
operational purposes; it is a bridge owned by Network Rail, a
Network Rail operational track where the need appears, if there
is one, to stem from Westminster City Council education and the
Academy proposal and use. I do suggest to the Committee that there
is a moment to say that Crossrail cannot solve a vast array of
problems that really have absolutely nothing to do with it. That
is the bridge.
20801. On noise, I split this into two parts.
The batching plant. There are two major advantage, as Mr Berryman
explained, to our proposal in terms of noise from the batching
plant. The first is that the freight trains will not go anywhere
near so far east. You saw that from the photographs; they cannot
physically go beyond point Y.[26]
There is no question of detailed design there; there is no space.
So residents living at the western end of Westbourne Park Villas
will have a major advantage in terms of noise from freight trains
there. The second advantage is that the new batching plant will
be enclosed—you saw the photograph of the King's Cross plant—and
for those who went on the site visit you will remember the existing
batching plant is entirely open, so there will be a major benefit
there by the enclosure in terms of the noise that comes from the
aggregates being dropped into and out of vehicles.[27]
So two big advantages.
20802. In terms of should we just wipe out the
batching plant, sir, I gave quite a long submission on this back
in June, day 45A and before, on planning policy. The London Plan
is entirely clear that rail-served plants such as this must be
protected. The reason is obvious: if they are removed then it
is highly likely that there will be a transfer of traffic from
rail on to road which is wholly contrary to the sustainability
principles in the London Plan. So the idea that, really, it would
be better to wipe it out is, in my submission, a non-starter.
Sir, the idea that it is acceptable for Crossrail to go along
and remove businesses such as Tarmac in order to assist local
residents—if we did that we would have Tarmac here, who
were Petitioners earlier, protesting in the strongest possible
terms that it was simply unjustified for Crossrail to wipe out
their business at this location because there was a perfectly
feasible plan to put it back.
20803. Sir, on the batching plant and the suggestion
of sending it to Old Oak Common, there is neither the space at
Old Oak Common and it involves significantly longer journeys by
road for the concrete, which as Mr Berryman said is neither good
for the concrete and is likely to involve more of it being rejected,
but also is contrary to the sustainability principles in the London
Plan, again.
20804. Finally, on noise barriers, the point
to stress is that Crossrail causes virtually no appreciable difference
to noise at this location because the new trains will be quieter
than the existing trains and for a significant proportion of this
section they will be going down into cutting. The real noise here,
and Mr Berryman was asked this something like nine times, is from
the high-speed diesels coming along; not Crossrail. I quite understand
Lady Bright's desire to seek this opportunity of Crossrail to
gain a noise improvement, but it is important to understand the
cause of the problem here, which is the high-speed diesel. So
far as putting up the noise barrier is concerned in terms of limiting
Crossrail noise, you have just heard Mr Thornely-Taylor's evidence
that it would have a minimal to non-existent effect on Crossrail
noise because of the location, and even will not impact on the
high-speed train noise, because the noise is coming out of the
top of the train, at something like 4 metres high. It would be
exceptionally difficult to build a barrier high enough to have
any real impact on the bedrooms. As you have heard from the witness
earlier, it is the bedrooms at the upper level of the house which
are suffering noise at night, and in order to protect those you
are talking about a monumental barrier. So, sir, in my submission,
it is just not Crossrail's problem. The answers just do not lie
in the proposal.
20805. Sir, that is all I was going to say in
closing, unless there are any other matters you would like me
to cover.
20806. Mr Binley: No, thank you. Lady
Bright?
20807. Lady Bright: The bridge and wheelchairs
rushing about. We spent half an hour waiting outside and we saw
two wheelchairs pass twice in the corridor, while we were sitting
there, and it is a nice, wide corridor. So it is not that rare.
The bridge that we need there has to be done properly; there is
no point in doing it if you are not doing it properly.
20808. The Committee was helpful in its questioning
and seems to have taken the point very well, so I do not want
to hammer it all too hard. The difficulty is that the Academy
which Ms Lieven has just blamed for not doing the southern end
has not even been born yet; it opens in September, so it is a
bit rough to blame the Academy for not making plans that work
better on Network Rail's bridge. I say that Network Rail is really
the ghost at the feast today; there are so many things we would
like to have been able to say to Network Rail or asked Network
Rail about. I think we are right in assuming they will be the
nominated undertaker; they have, at some point, to pick up responsibility
for what is their bridge. What we have asked Crossrail for is
to abide by and stick to the recipe they were given in Inclusive
Mobility for standards, which would mean doing a proper job and
to have broadening consultation to include Westbourne Neighbourhood
Forum and the various local residents groups, the police and the
disabled. The later part of the Disability Discrimination Act
which has just come into effect, at the end of the year, says
that you do actually now have, as a public body, to have a disability
equality policy. There is time to phase it in but that means including
them in consultation. So I do hope for the support that we are
asking you to sign up to and which Crossrail finds difficult.
Obviously, Network Rail will be part of the consultation.
20809. Thank you to Crossrail for clarifying
and tightening up and all the work you did on those drawings for
the freight side. It clearly will make a lot of difference. I
am sorry we were a bit sceptical to begin with but thank you for
doing that. We still do not think the concrete plant should be
there and, just for the record, we would not call Old Oak Common
a place with no space—it has 33 acres and not much happening
there. Also, it will have Crossrail's own concrete plant, but
will leave that subject at that point.
20810. Noise barriers. I hope you accept there
is an alternative view. I hope you accept that by the time Crossrail
trains start running the high-speed trains should not be there
any more. So that makes a difference to all the calculations.
I hope you also accept from Ms Hessenberg's evidence, that you
may have gathered that it is quite a complex noise environment
and it would require a much more detailed study before anyone
could say with any certainty what the noise effects of Crossrail's
trains are going to be, bearing in mind that the initial baseline
measurements were taken at the noisiest location and only one
on the north side where the houses sit on the track. Also, the
projections do not account for Crossrail starting later and there
being high-speed trains there. So we have to repeat, as we said
before, we find it quite incredible that anyone can run 48 trains
an hour and that sometimes they will be passing so that will amplify
the noise, and have a siding there so close to the houses with
nothing but that low-ish wall between us and them, and that we
will not hear an appreciable difference. What we are asking for
is certainly no material worsening from Crossrail. As for improvements
in the rail noise environment, we would refer you to last week's
publication of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's
latest report on the urban environment, some of you may have read
it, some of you may at least have heard what Sir John said that
"The commissioners were absolutely astonished that on the
eve of a new phase of urban generation and expansion we lack an
overarching urban environment policy to co-ordinate the provision
of housing, transport, energy and other vital services".
20811. Ms Lieven referred to the Greater London
plan on losing rail serve batching plants, we are not going to
go into that argument again, but what about planning PPG24, that
equally important planning guidance note, which says, "You
should not give planning permission where the day time noise level
is higher than between 66 and 74 decibels and the night time level
between 59 and 66", if that were applied you would not be
building anything around us. That is one reason why we have only
got office blocks in the Paddington development where they are
immediately adjacent to the railway. I think this picks up the
point that the Royal Commission was making, we do need some joined-up
thinking here and we would be very grateful for any help that
the Committee can give us in pushing that forward because we do
believe, not just for our own narrow interest, that the time is
now. Thank you very much.
20812. Mr Binley: Thank you very much.
That ends the deliberations at this stage on this particular item
and it is time for me to relinquish this rather comfortable chair
to the dually appointed Chairman of this Committee and resume
my place on a less comfortable chair over there.
Mr Alan Meale resumed the Chair
20813. Chairman: The next petition will
be the Marriot Hotels presented by Mr Allan Leddon. I understand
that you are representing two cases including the West India Quay
Development?
The Petitions of Marriott Hotels Limited and West
India Quay Development Company (Eastern) Limited.
Mr Allan Leddon appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.
20814. Mr Leddon: That is correct, Sir.
If I can give you a bit of background about the matter.
20815. Chairman: Before you proceed,
Ms Lieven, would you like to outline?
20816. Ms Lieven: Yes, I will give you
a very quick factual outline of where we are, Sir. We are moving
from the west side of London to the east side of London, it is
one of those days. Isle of Dogs; you will remember the station
lies in the dock and the Marriott Hotel and the West India Quay
apartments are in this block here on the north side of the dock
in this tower here.[28]
I do not know the disposition between the hotel and the apartments,
but I do know they are all in the same building.
20817. Very briefly, Sir, I understand the Marriot's
concern is that the Committee may remember, and I am afraid I
have not checked who was here when, for the construction of the
Isle of Dog station, there are two potential construction scenarios
and that was explained to you by Mr Berryman two or three weeks
ago. Under Scenario Two the proposal is to place the cut-off wall
from roughly outside the Marriott across to a little insert here
which is known as Wren Landing and the proposal is that the cut-off
wall there, and Mr Berryman will explain it to you in far more
detail, the silt from the east side of the dock is brought over
and deposited at the west side of the dock under water and on
the east side of the cut-off wall the dock is drained in order
for the construction to go ahead and the Marriott's concern is
that they are not very happy about the loss of the water view
in front of the hotel through the period of the works and they
would like us to move the cut-off wall further to the east and
Mr Berryman will explain to you in technical engineering, and
I will not attempt to pre-empt him on that, why moving it east
is really not a feasible or sensible alternative so that gives
you a very brief overview of where we are. As I say, the station
itself lies in here and ultimately will be under the water and
you will remember there are two station entrances that pop up
out of the dock.
20818. Mr Leddon: Sir, if I can briefly
explain why we are here. The Marriott Hotel is owned by West India
Quay Development Ltd which is the second largest freeholder in
the Canary Wharf area. The hotel itself is operated by Marriott
Hotels Ltd and there is a management contract between the two
whereby the freeholders, West India Quay Development, have an
interest in how well the hotel is doing and operating. To that
end, it is our intention to address both the petitions before
you today. I am calling one witness who is Paul Downing who is
the General Manager of the hotel and who is the person, if you
will pardon me saying so, at the sharp end of the receipt of these
proposed works by Crossrail. I think I can do no more than ask
Mr Downing to address the Committee and tell them a little bit
about himself and the operation that goes on onsite and perhaps
I can ask him to do that, Sir.
Mr Paul Downing, examined
Examined by Mr Leddon
20819. Mr Leddon: Mr Downing?
(Mr Downing) Good afternoon. I have been in
the hotel business for 25 years and I have been with Marriot International
for that length of time, and I was with other companies ten years
previous to that. I have opened and operated in eight different
countries. Marriot International has 2,700 properties worldwide
and operates in 63 countries. Marriott has a management contract,
as we have just heard, with the West India Quay Development company
who is owned by the Yianis Group. I have worked at the London
Marriott West India Quay Hotel and Executive Apartments since
June 2003, one year before it opened and in June of this year
the property will be open three years. The hotel is positioned
as a fresh take on London and it is a five star property. The
annual occupancy for the hotel last year was 78 per cent and for
the serviced apartments 86 per cent. Our main source of business
is from the international business guests, Sunday through Thursday.
We sell out most nights. On the weekends the customer profile
changes totally as it is the leisure customer, mostly from the
UK and Europe. Canary Wharf and West India Quay is one of the
largest areas for al fresco dining in London and our customers
love relaxing outside by the water for both business and pleasure.
We have spent thousands of man hours and advertising pounds letting
people know that there is an alternative to West London, that
our property represents a fresh take on London and our point of
difference is being on the water. We also recommend that our guests
use water commuter boats to experience the river and the different
perspective it gives to our great city. The Quayside and Canary
Wharf area is growing steadily to becoming viewed as a brilliant
destination for the leisure traveller.
26 Crossrail Ref: P152, Westbourne Park-proposed turnback
and freight area (WESTCC-AP2-10-04-016). Back
27
Crossrail Ref: P152, Concrete batching plant at Kings Cross (WESTCC-AP2-10-04-002). Back
28
Crossrail Ref: P152, West India Dock North-Aerial view (TOWHLB-AP3-45-04-007). Back
|
