Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21340 - 21359)

  21340. Let me give you some assistance, have you requested any information in relation to that?
  (Mr Winbourne) Yes, when we attended with yourself and two other people from Charles Russell, I asked for the base figures in order to make a sensible comparison. Even with my guestimates, at least I could make a sensible comparison. I have done my best with guestimates in my planning balance sheet because of the lack of information that they have provided.

  21341. For clarity, was any information given to you in relation to how that figure has been calculated?
  (Mr Winbourne) I do not seek to fault these figures on their own, I want to make that clear. Somebody has worked them out, no doubt they are quite correct as far as they go, they are only a quarter of the matter, that is all I am saying.

  21342. Have you any further points that you wish to make about Bond Street?
  (Mr Winbourne) Simply that I have already made the point about the easier route from Paddington for the tunnels. The station entrances will be roughly in the same place. I imagine there will probably be added-in construction or a tunnel inserted from the existing Bond Street Station roughly under James Street to get to the platforms, I imagine there might be something, bearing in mind where I have suggested that the station should be located to get to the platforms of Crossrail. I think it would be a far better arrangement all round for Bond Street Station. We are not talking about moving any of the other lines, we are adding Crossrail to it. On this point of alignment, if I may say something, this is not meant to be controversial, I draw to your attention that two previous ministers to the Secretary of State made a similar statement on 3 May 2001. They said that these stations were stipulated. At the time they did not mention Whitechapel, but they mentioned all the others in Central London and they said the details of construction of the stations and the potentials were yet to be sorted out. That is the difference between the two ministerial statements. It is was because of that ministerial statement, in both Houses, which was supported by the Mayor and the then head of the Strategic Rail Authority, that they all made simultaneous statements on the same date, I hope I have got the date right, 3 May 2001, and they made it clear that the portholes and the station designs were yet to be sorted out. It was with that information in mind that—and I have referred to this in previous evidence—I attended with others when the then Residents Association of Mayfair met Cross London Rail on 12 December 2001, the minuted meeting which I have referred to previously, and I said then, "I do not agree with going to the West End", those were roughly my words, " ... but if you must go there the way to do it is on the north side of Oxford Street and use Cavendish Square".

  21343. For clarity to assist the Committee, how does that comment and your comments generally about Bond Street relate to AP3?
  (Mr Winbourne) I think they relate directly to AP3 because if I hold up the `Bond Street 2' document which was for general public consumption, the whole point about it is that you have got the station extending underground north of Oxford Street so that they are coming within a matter of a few yards of my proposals. If you can see the existing Bond Street Station at roughly ten o'clock in the picture and then you are extending northwards across Oxford Street and that is taking the station to within a matter of almost feet, but let us call it 50 yards, it is nothing. For the members of the public the station is not in any different position. If you go into an underground station you follow the signs, you are not aware of where they are taking you underground. I am simply saying the underground workings are in the wrong place, I want them to be in the right place. I leave that as far as clarity with the earlier ministerial statement, both in the Lords and Commons and co-ordinated in some way. I hope I am right in saying this, the Secretary of State was making a similar statement when he made the direction which we are all concerned about except that it was shorter.

  21344. Mr Winbourne, for clarity, you believe therefore your comments directly relate to the provision of the intermediate station at Bond Street?
  (Mr Winbourne) Yes.

  21345. You have said that you believe that costs set out by the Promoter of £157 million could be as high as £700 million?
  (Mr Winbourne) Yes. We now have the picture in front of us, the big blue east to west bit of the picture, of course, all the way from Hanover Square to the existing Bond Street Station is what I am talking about, possibly up to £500 million and it is under major streets, it is near the embassies, lorries come time and time again and what is more, where they are going to do their condensation grouting from, goodness knows, and I am saying that we might even be able to do a cut-and-cover station.

  21346. Mr Winbourne, we will move on. I think we have now dealt with Bond Street so we will move to number five.[15] Tottenham Court Road Crossrail Station, what do you say about that under AP3?

  (Mr Winbourne) It is a similar story. The Crossrail proposals have a major working and lorry holding area on the north side of Oxford Street where the Royal Mail post office station and everything was, the post office station is closed, of course. I understood the position to be at the consultation stage I attended with the Crossrail people in Mayfair, where there was a consultation arranged, that they were now taking the entirety of the Royal Mail property whereas previously they had only taken part of it. That in itself, has an opportunity, next door to it practically, as far away as, again, 50 yards is the disused Middlesex Hospital so there is another huge opportunity site in that vicinity. If one goes straight across Tottenham Court Road at that point you will see at Cheyne Street, some large rail shafts built in 1941 as air-raid shelters in a hurry and so on, which are what are commonly called the deep tube shelters, on the Northern Line alignment, below the Northern Line basically. All of that is north of Oxford Street and if, again, we are talking about Tottenham Court Road Station, not talking about moving the station, you could go still go into Tottenham Court Road, the only difference is the escalators would be going to the north instead of the south from the point of view of the passengers. It has an advantage because Goodge Street Station is not very far, it is only about 500 metres away, so you would be able to take escalators to both of them probably. Under there is an area where there are a lot of the people in the rag trade, import stock houses and what not, and I believe that Mortimer Street-Goodge Street is suitable for going under. Again, there is a possibility of cut and cover. This needs looking into by engineers properly. If you do it by cut-and-cover you save an enormous amount of money, I have said that before.

  21347. Mr Winbourne, this does not relate, does it, to the provision of the intermediate stations? It relates to the route?
  (Mr Winbourne) No, what I am simply saying is this is an intermediate station. I am simply saying do it from a slightly different position. It is the same station, it will be a better station, in my submission, they are proposing to take property on the north side. I was privileged to hear other witnesses through other petitioners when we were here the last time and it was an important hearing, they were there from the recording studios mainly. Now the majority of the recording studios they are concentrating on there are some on the north side of Oxford Street, sure, but they are mainly on the south, exactly where Crossrail want to put the station, so the damage to that, and they referred to it as a cottage industry but they were, I think, being modest. It is a cottage industry is which is extremely important to this country and London and they are concerned because of vibration damage and so on and so forth, which I am perfectly certain will arise whatever Mr Gambol proposes.

  21348. Mr Winbourne, item six, Tottenham Court Road to Farringdon via Crossrail AP3.[16] Could you elaborate on the points there?

  (Mr Winbourne) Yes, of course. I could have suggested a line directly—and I want to make this clear—to Tottenham Court Road Station platforms to Farringdon I, want to make that clear. Please, recall what I said, we went to a meeting and I said, "You can vary the northern interchange route" and this is what my suggestion does: I would not cut out St Pancras because of all the advantages of having St Pancras Station. You may say that adds on the cost because we have no St Pancras Station.

  21349. Could I stop you there for a second. Before you go on, the comments you are now going to make, do they in any way affect the provision of intermediate stations at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, the Isle of Dogs or Custom House?
  (Mr Winbourne) Yes, every single one of them is dealt with.

  21350. Those stations will still be provided?
  (Mr Winbourne) Exactly, at every point.

  21351. The provision of those stations is not being challenged, is it?
  (Mr Winbourne) No, what I am saying is that—and I hope Honourable Members will understand this because this is incredibly important—I can see at least one of you has got out the drawing that I have done showing the variation of the route. If I may explain the purpose of that plan later and you can see a rather, possibly awkward-looking, S-bend from Oxford Circus via St Pancras, but I have to explain to you that the cost of construction between St Pancras and Farringdon will be infinitely lower than what they are doing and, therefore, although this looks a lot more on the face of it, it probably may equate to their cost or it will not be much worse. You will get St Pancras in because they have got to have an emergency intervention point somewhere in Covent Garden because of the distances, I do not need any intervention points. I am simply saying you can get in St Pancras as well and the reason for this, if I can just explain the construction—

  21352. Mr Winbourne, with direct reference to AP3 I would like you to explain how you believe the costs of AP3 could be reduced in relation to this pathway.
  (Mr Winbourne) Could I move over to Farringdon and perhaps come back the other way for the moment.[17] At Farringdon there is a huge artificial cutting immediately north of the station which is about 400 metres long, just the right length for the station at Clerkenwell Green. It is setting up for oversite development, it will take about half a million square feet of some kind of development over the top, it will probably put in an extended Clerkenwell Green open space, you could do a wonderful city landscape job there with the right architects.


  21353. Mr Winbourne, in your estimation, what would the cost-benefit of that be and whether or not that benefit would be achieved under the current AP3 proposal?
  (Mr Winbourne) The station would finish up at nil because the development over the top would pay for it and more, and what is more the formal station would be better not only because of the cost, you see the way that I would approach the engineering there would be, if I can explain, not to put Crossrail under the tube but to rebuild the tube, the Metropolitan Line.

  21354. Chairman: We are going over old ground. We have dealt with the re-routing towards St Pancras and I am finding it very difficult, and so are our members, to see how it relates directly to the provision of AP3. I fully realise you keep saying, "in relation to AP3" but that phrase in itself does not mean you are dealing solely with those provisions, rather what we have got here is old ground we have been over before.

  21355. Mr Levaggi: Sir, I am not sure that is correct. Could I respond to that?

  21356. Chairman: I will let you go on a bit longer but just merely by adding the phrase "in relation to the AP3" is not sufficient.

  21357. Mr Levaggi: I entirely accept that. I think it is relevant to AP3 and the comments Mr Winbourne is making are relevant to AP3. The cost estimate given by the Promoter has not been, in my understanding, the subject of any petition for my client previously. We asked for a breakdown of the cost estimate, but that breakdown was not provided. The breakdown relates to the summary which was provided but was the identical summary which was given to us during the meeting with the Promoter of which we requested a detailed breakdown. It was not provided.

  21358. Chairman: I accept your argument in relation to cost-benefit but, as I say, I think we need to spend less time on the re-routing aspect of that.

  21359. Mr Levaggi: What the Petitioners are trying to establish is whether or not that cost estimate where we have no real detail, I can see that, is a fair estimate of the costs of the current proposal following AP3 and we have asked Mr Winbourne to give evidence in relation to what he feels about that cost estimate. What we are trying to do on the limited evidence we have before us, on the limited information provided to us by the Promoter, we are trying to make the best fist we can of the situation.


15   Committee Ref: A230, Revised `Planning Balance Sheet' covering broad brush comparisons between Crossrail and CNIR to include engineering costs, environmental, valuation, compensation and disturbance issues following AP3 (WESTCC-AP3-27-05-046). Back

16   Committee Ref: A230, Revised `Planning Balance Sheet' covering broad brush comparisons between Crossrail and CNIR to include engineering costs, environmental, valuation, compensation and disturbance issues following AP3 (WESTCC-AP3-27-05-046). Back

17   Committee Ref: A230, Revised `Planning Balance Sheet' covering broad brush comparisons between Crossrail and CNIR to include engineering costs, environmental, valuation, compensation and disturbance issues following AP3 (WESTCC-AP3-27-05-047). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007