Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21450
- 21459)
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in
21450. Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen,
first of all, welcome back. I am sure you all missed us these
last few weeks. Just to recall, it is my intention to break about
11:30 for 15 minutes' or so comfort break for everybody. We are
here today to deal with one remaining Petitioner deposited against
the full set of additional provisions that need to be heard. First
of all, could I call on Ms Lieven to introduce the new AP4.
21451. Ms Lieven: Thank you, sir. What
I intend to do is briefly introduce AP4 and also touch on the
matters in the supplementary ES on Poplar Dock, just to give the
Committee an update and then Mr Mould is dealing with the AMP
Petition which is the outstanding business of the day.
21452. As the Committee are well aware, AP4
concerns the provision of a Crossrail station at Woolwich and,
as the Committee is equally aware, Woolwich lies on the south-east
branch of Crossrail, south of the Thames and to the west of Abbey
Wood. If I could have up the first exhibit, please, 001.[1]
This shows the alignment of the route coming across the Thames
going past—I am afraid it has not come up terribly well
on the screen, it is better on the screens in front of us—the
Warren Lane shaft, which is a ventilation shaft and emergency
shaft. On the left here, the west side of the alignment is the
demolished Woolwich power station which is relevant because of
the position of its foundations; I will show the Committee in
a minute. The route then swings down to the location of the station,
which is here, and which lies between Plumstead Road to the south
and the Royal Arsenal site which is the old munitions site which
lies to the north here and, in particular, the Royal Carriage
factory which is the building there. As the Committee are probably
aware, the Promoters have put a great deal of effort into trying
to bring forward a more affordable scheme at Woolwich. That has
involved somewhat changing the alignment of the route in order
to allow the station to be a less deep station and, therefore,
reduce the costs of construction. Just before we look at more
detail on the station box, the change in alignment is very difficult
to pick up on the large screen but is much easier in front of
you. The original alignment went effectively through the same
location as the box but then swung to the south to avoid the southern
outfall sewer and to go under the Docklands Light Railway which
is this line here, presently under construction and it then went
off to the east towards Plumstead where it emerged at a portal
at Plumstead Goods Yard. Because the line has been made less deep
in order to reduce the costs, the alignment has had to change
somewhat, and I will show the Committee the vertical alignment
in a moment. As far as the horizontal alignment is concerned,
what now happens is the line stays further to the north, it goes
over the DLR rather than under and it stays to the north of the
sewer—Mr Berryman will go through all this in more detail
later—and proceeds to the north of Plumstead Road off towards
Plumstead Goods Yard.
21453. If I can put up 005.[2]
It is, again, not a brilliant plan, I had forgotten how poorly
these things come up, but this shows in more detail the constraints
in the area because this is the station box and, as I have already
shown, to the north we have got listed buildings and to the west
listed buildings and we can see more clearly the DLR here and
the southern outfall sewer which lies to the south there. Just
while we have got this one up—it is not shown on this plan
but I will indicate—the above ground structures on the station
are two emergency shafts, one at either end, emergency and ventilation
shafts, and the entrance to the station which lies somewhat in
the middle. Just looking at this plan, the Committee may remember,
those of you who went on the site visit, the majority of the station
box lies to the west on a road called "Arsenal Way"
which you will hear more of when we come to the Petition of AMP,
which I am indicating on the drawing now.[3]
The area to the west of Arsenal Way is currently an open car park,
so there is no demolition in that area, it is just open land at
the moment, and the box will be constructed underneath. The position
to the east of Arsenal Way is that there are a number of properties
here, Gunnery Terrace properties, and the box goes into the building
of number 16 Gunnery Terrace which is the AMP building. Mr Mould
will go through that in more detail, but one can see the line
of number 16, I am indicating at the moment, and the box goes
into it where it lies to the east of Arsenal Way. The ventilation
shaft, which was previously a free-standing structure, has now
been incorporated into the eastern part of the station, as is
normally the case in our other stations as well.
21454. If I can put up 002, please.[4]
This shows the vertical alignment and it is just useful to see
some of the constraints. I do not know whether it is possible
to expand it on the top one so we can see in a bit more detail?
On the west side we have the line coming under the Thames and
the first constraint is that it has to avoid the foundations and
the water outlets from the demolished Woolwich power station;
the foundations are still in the ground, so there is a fixed point
that has to come underneath. It then goes through the Warren Lane
shaft, that is this building here. The next constraint—No,
sorry, because it has been split in two. It then has to raise
the line to the optimum level for the station, this is the station
box. An important constraint at this point is that the gradients
on the route have to accord with the Crossrail standards, one
cannot have trains zipping up steep gradients or, indeed, zipping
down the other side, so we are tightening the constraint on this
side by the Thames and the power station. Then if we swap to the
eastern side of the power station, we have got the station box
here, but the critical issues on the eastern side are that somehow
Crossrail has to get past the DLR, these are the two DLR tunnels.
As I told you a moment ago, originally the line came underneath
the DLR tunnels, but that necessarily would have involved a very
deep station with much greater expense so we are now coming over
the DLR tunnels. The next problem, which I have referred to and
which Mr Berryman will explain in more detail, is the position
of this sewer, the southern outfall sewer, which is a major sewer
in South London. It is absolutely critical that, firstly, obviously
we avoid it but, secondly, we do not cause settlement to it. Those
are the constraints on the route which Mr Berryman will go through
in more detail.
21455. The other point to say about the route
is that further east, because of the changed alignment, the portal
at Plumstead Goods Yard has been shifted somewhat to the east,
but there are no petitions respecting Plumstead Goods Yard that
are outstanding in this House, so I do not intend to say any more
other than that, but there is that knock-on effect further east.
21456. Perhaps we can go back to one of the
general pictures to set the context. Could I then turn to the
position of Woolwich Station within the powers of the Bill.[5]
As the Committee know, the construction of the station box at
Woolwich is dependent on the successful completion of a binding
agreement between the Secretary of State and Berkeley Homes. There
is, as you know, an outline agreement which you were informed
about by Mr Elvin in the last session. The Department is currently
in negotiations with Berkeley Homes to finalise that agreement
and those negotiations are progressing satisfactorily. The outline
agreement is that Berkeley Homes will fund and build the station
box, receiving a contribution from the Department commensurate
to the savings to the project from avoiding Crossrail works in
the area, principally the Arsenal Way shafts and the tunnels.
The fitting-out of the box depends on the project receiving sufficient
contributions either from developers and/or businesses which stand
to benefit from the station, so there is a division in the agreement
between the construction of the box, which is down to Berkeley
Homes, and the fitting-out. It is because of that agreement that
the Environmental Statement is somewhat complicated in respect
of Woolwich because what it does is it assesses the base position,
which is the construction of a fully operational station at Woolwich
and then assesses four alternative scenarios: first of all, the
fit-out of the station being delayed by five years; secondly,
the construction of the box but no fit-out; thirdly, the construction
of the shaft at the eastern end but no station; and, fourthly,
and this is a very minor point, having a surface level ticket
hall rather than a subsurface ticket hall, the primary assumption
is the subsurface ticket hall. I think it is worth explaining
that because it is a different position from many of the other
parts of the Environmental Statement.
21457. If we can have up the more detailed plan
that shows Gunnery Terrace, please, 005.[6]
It is just worth explaining one detailed point about Berkeley
Homes, the outline agreement for Berkeley Homes. The outline agreement
involves Berkeley Homes retaining the land to the west of Arsenal
Way—the Committee will recall this is Arsenal Way—that
being allowed, Berkeley Homes currently have a development option
so the agreement is Berkeley Homes keep their rights over that
land and that is being dealt with in detail in the agreement.
That is also the land where Berkeley Homes currently have a benefit
of an outline planning permission for development on that land,
but the agreement does not involve any provision as to Berkeley
Homes gaining rights over the land to the east of Arsenal Way,
that is land which they currently have no interest in and there
is no agreement, outline or final, with the Secretary of State
that Berkeley Homes will be given any rights to it, so there is
a crucial distinction by the boundary of Arsenal Way.
21458. Could I then turn to a specific point
about over-station development at Woolwich. The Committee may
remember, although I do not think it is a subject we have ever
really had to labour in a petition, that the Secretary of State
gave an undertaking in respect of those sites where there is demolition
within a conservation area where Crossrail is going to demolish
the buildings. We gave an undertaking as to the process that we
would go through to give some level of certainty as to the future
of those sites that development would come back, so that the Committee
and local planning authorities could place some reliance on the
sites not being left vacant and an eyesore for prolonged periods.
In respect of Woolwich, the undertaking has no relevance to the
land west of Arsenal Way because, the Committee will remember,
there are no buildings on that land, and so there is no demolition.
The undertaking is only relevant in respect of the land to the
east of Arsenal Way, the Gunnery Terrace properties which are
to be demolished. Because of the particular agreement in respect
of Woolwich and the timing issues that throws up, there is a slightly
different undertaking in respect of Woolwich and the land to the
east of Arsenal. I know it is tedious but I have been instructed
to read that undertaking into the record so that there is no confusion.
Perhaps if we could have it up.[7]
I will read it, sir, while it is going up. "The Secretary
of State will take steps to ensure that: (1) If—(a) a decision
is made to proceed with the fitting out of station at Woolwich;
or (b) a decision is made that a station will not be provided
at Woolwich; a planning application and (if required) an accompanying
environmental statement for a proposed OSD is submitted as soon
as reasonably practicable and in any event no later than 2 years
after"—I should say I have changed "that"
from "that" to "either"—"after
either decision has been made and the construction of Crossrail
Works at Woolwich has commenced, unless the Local Planning Authority
agree to a deferral or agree that an application is not required".
That gives a long stop date for when a planning application should
be made, but it does in respect of the particular Woolwich situation
which is in (1)(a) taking into account the fitting-out of the
station because that is a separate stage and in (1)(b) the possibility
that the whole deal with Berkeley Homes collapses, so that is
Woolwich-specific. Then "(2) There is consultation with the
local planning authority, prior to submission of a planning application
for OSD on: (a) the proposed use, quantum, lay-out, scale, access,
appearance and response to context of the proposed OSD (including
where appropriate co-operation in the preparation of a Planning
Brief and/or SPD)"—that is Supplementary Planning Documents
for those who are not in the know—"and (b) the means
by which the fundamental design elements of the new development
will be integrated with the Crossrail Works (including loadings,
support and access)." That is all in exactly the same terms
as the standard undertaking. "(3) The OSD will be designed
in accordance with relevant national, regional, spatial and local
planning policies, and in consultation with English Heritage",
again standard. "(4) In assessing the contribution that the
OSD will make to the character or enhancement of conservation
areas the quality of buildings that existed prior to demolition
will be a material consideration", again exactly the same
as the others. "(5) Reasonable endeavours will be used to
obtain planning consent by the date the works for the new station
or railway on the"—"site", it should be,
not "sites"—"site is completed. (6) Reasonable
endeavours will be used to ensure that development is commenced
in accordance with the planning consent granted once the works
to the new stations or railway on the site is completed".
Five and six are taking into account the possibility that there
will not be a station. Sir, that is the slightly amended undertaking
in respect of Woolwich.
21459. Sir, that is all I intended to say in
respect of Woolwich. The other matter I am to deal with in opening
is just to touch on the Poplar Dock and Blackwall Basin issue,
that the Committee will remember was, I think, the business of
the last time we sat and was left slightly over. The Committee
will remember that the issue—could we have up the Poplar
Dock plan—was the boat residents of Poplar Dock and Blackwall
Basin being able to get access out of the dock during construction
and that at the last session we brought forward a possible change
to the scheme which would allow such access to be maintained.[8]
Now we have taken that work forward and what we are now proposing
to do is to construct a long cofferdam along the eastern section
of North Dock to allow access through.
1 Crossrail Ref: P158, Woolwich Station-Crossrail
alignment (GRCHLB-AP4-6-04-001). Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P159, Woolwich Station-Position of a Station Box
and Petitioner's Premises (GRCHLB-AP4-6-04-005). Back
3
Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES4), Map SE5(ii)
Woolwich Station, Amendment of Provisions-Revised Scheme and Impacts
(LINEWD-AP4-010). Back
4
Crossrail Ref: P158, Woolwich Station Alignment at Woolwich Arsenal-East
and Westbound Long Sections (GRCHLB-AP4-6-04-002). Back
5
Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES4), Map SE5(ii)
Woolwich Station, Amendment of Provisions-Revised Scheme and Impacts
(LINEWD-AP4-010). Back
6
Crossrail Ref: P159, Woolwich Station-Position of a Station Box
and Petitioner's Premises (GRCHLB-AP4-6-04-005). Back
7
Crossrail Ref: P160, Proposed Undertaking to Parliament-Over-Site
Development (OSD) at Woolwich (SCN-20070710-001 to -003). Back
8
Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement (SES4), Woolwich
Station, Amendment of Provisions-Revised Scheme and Impacts (LINEWD-AP4S4A-008). Back
|
