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
|
