Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21720
- 21735)
21720. Paddington Residents Active Concern on
Transport. The Committee recognises that the residents of Brewers
Court will be affected by the Bill. We ask the Promoters to provide
a liaison officer to actively make contact with the residents
and assist them with issues during the construction phase of the
project. We also ask Crossrail to adopt the model recommended
by the Committee in relation to the Spitalfields residents to
establish a local liaison group which would include local residents
and local community leaders who will then be able to liaise with
Crossrail throughout the construction period. We are also concerned
about the combined effect of Crossrail and the congestion zone
in this area on the people who live within it and travel through
it. This area will be placed at the edge of the congestion zone
and within a busy construction area for Crossrail. We strongly
ask that the Promoters liaise with the Mayor of London and Transport
for London to seek a sensible way forward on this matter with
a view to a temporary or permanent alteration to the boundary
of the congestion zone to accommodate more friendly and sustainable
use of the area. We ask the Promoters to report on what progress
has been made on this issue when they respond to the Committee
in the autumn.
21721. Soho and Great Western Sound Studios.
The Committee is concerned that the building and use of Crossrail
will seriously affect an international centre of excellence in
Soho. The Committee accepts that the various sound studios in
the Soho area are an exceptional example of British business,
talent and ingenuity. Therefore, we want to ensure that such businesses
are not seriously jeopardised by the construction or operations
of Crossrail. Therefore, we ask the Promoter to ensure that floating
slab track is installed in all the tunnels in the Soho area. As
before, we wish to make clear that should a better technology
arise before the construction of the tunnels takes place, it should
be considered for use as a substitute to floating slab track.
We wish to see floating slab track used as a minimum requirement
in such tunnels. We also insist that every effort is made to provide
these studios with sufficient sound proofing. Should the business
be affected by the tunneling process, we expect that the Petitioners
should be able to claim compensation under the terms set out in
the Bill. We are not minded to increase the provision of compensation
in this case as we wish to ensure that the industry is protected
in its current location. However, we agree that Crossrail must
take every useful mitigation measure to ensure that this important
industry is able to continue working in its current location.
21722. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets.
The Borough appeared on 13 March to raise several issues. The
Committee was satisfied with the response given by the Promoters.
However, the Committee agrees that the existing Astroturf pitch
at the Stepney Green worksite is of benefit to the local community
and should be kept on a permanent basis if possible and we strongly
encourage the two parties to liaise on this matter and find a
solution.
21723. Westbourne Park Villas Residents Association.
We are content with the Promoter's response regarding the concrete
batching plant. We note that Crossrail has followed the Committee's
request to make their south side of the footbridge DDA compliant.
Whilst we accept that it is not Crossrail's responsibility to
replace the bridge, we would ask the Promoters to go further in
making the current bridge accessible to those with restricted
mobility. We ask the Promoters to develop sensible engineering
design solutions and use mirrors and good lighting to enable those
using the footbridge to view oncoming persons. We would also like
the Promoters to explore the use of traffic light systems and
simple signage to show people with restricted mobility if another
wheelchair/pushchair user is approaching.
21724. Marriott Hotels and West India Quay Development
Company (Eastern) Limited. We accept that the Petitioners currently
face an uncertain level of disruption during the construction
of the Isle of Dogs station. We would ask the Promoters to clarify
at the earliest opportunity which construction scenario they intend
to follow. We accept that Crossrail will take steps to mitigate
the disruption of the Petitioners and recognise that if there
is a case for compensation, the code set out in the Bill will
apply. We expect that this matter may be considered by a committee
in the other place when there is greater clarity over the construction
scenario.
21725. Canary Wharf Group plc. We recognise
that these Petitioners would also appreciate greater clarity on
the future of the construction project. We are not in the position
to offer them a great deal of comfort; however, we have some sympathy
with their arguments. Under Clause 6 of the Crossrail Bill the
time limit for compulsory acquisition is set at five years from
Royal Assent. Clause 6, subsections 7 and 8 allow the Secretary
of State to extend that time limit. We believe that this limit
should only allow one extension of a further five years. What
is more, Parliament should approve such an extension only if it
can be demonstrated that it is necessary. We ask the Promoter
to amend the Bill accordingly.
21726. Trustees of the SS Robin Trust.
We understand that the trustees of the SS Robin were in
the process of making a bid for a Lottery Heritage Fund grant.
We accept that negotiations are still ongoing to settle a suitable
location for the ship. In the interim we would ask Crossrail and
the Department for Transport to write letters of comfort to the
lottery board explaining the current situation and ensure that
the ship does not lose out on possible funding due to the uncertainty
of its relocation.
21727. Residents of Poplar Dock. We are delighted
that through much hard work and continued negotiation the residents
of Poplar Dock are no longer under the threat of being relocated.
We were greatly impressed by this floating community and we have
strongly encouraged Crossrail and British Waterways to find an
agreeable solution. We are grateful to all involved in these discussions.
This community deserves to be safeguarded during the construction
period. We would encourage Crossrail to continue meaningful dialogue
with the Petitioners.
21728. City Post AMP Limited and Mr Daniel Albert
Charlesworth. On Tuesday the Committee heard the case of the only
Petitioner appearing against the fourth set of additional provisions.
We agree that the Petitioner's case is unique and that they have
been considerably disadvantaged by the new provisions. We welcome
the Petitioner's support of the Crossrail project and note the
positive attitude with which he has embraced the works forced
upon him. We also recognise that the Petitioner has experienced
financial loss and whilst we accept it is usual that during the
process of hybrid bills that parties pay their own costs, we intend
to make an award in this unique case without prejudice. We ask
the Promoter to prepare to pay the Petitioner half the costs he
incurred during the negotiations of AP3. We ask the Petitioner
to prepare a list of reasonable costs incurred for the Committee.
We will examine this when the Committee returns in October with
a view to allocating half the cost against the Promoters.
21729. Woolwich. Finally, we come to Woolwich.
We are pleased that the Secretary of State followed the request
of the Committee and brought forward the necessary provisions
to build a station at Woolwich. However, we have been concerned
about the cautionary language used by the Promoters when bringing
forward this additional provision. Therefore, we encourage the
Promoters to do all they can to make this station a reality. This
Committee has always been firmly of the view that there must be
a fully operational station at Woolwich. We have seen the evidence
that demonstrates it will provide exceptional value for money
and be a valuable transport link in an area of considerable deprivation.
Therefore, we reiterate our view that the station at this site
must remain central to the Bill. Ms Lieven, do you want to respond
in any way?
21730. Ms Lieven: Mr Mould will.
21731. Mr Mould: No, in relation to the
decisions that you have just made known to us, we will report
back, as you say, in due course with our responses. Arrangements,
no doubt, will be made for that to take place after the summer
recess.
21732. There is one other matter, if I may,
briefly and that is on this side, particularly Ms Lieven, myself
and other members of the counsel team, we would wish not to leave
today and these sittings without expressing our appreciation for
the work of yourself and this Committee and, indeed, your clerk
and others who have so ably and conscientiously supported you
and others and assisted us during the course of the these proceedings.
I dare say that when we sat down in the Boothroyd Room in January
2006, you and other members of this Committee would have been
slightly taken aback if it had been suggested to you that you
would still be meeting in this room some 18 months later, but
there it is, that is where we are. Certainly, on the counsel team
we wish to say that we have been consistently impressed by the
fairness and inclusive approach that the Committee has taken.
The main purpose of these proceedings, as I understand it, has
been to give petitioners affected by the Bill the opportunity
to place their concerns before this Committee and to ask that
this Committee look sympathetically upon the genuine problems
that they expect to experience arising from what will be, undoubtedly,
a project which will provide very significant advantages to the
public. For my part, and I know for Ms Lieven and others who sit
with me, this Committee has conspicuously, if I may say so, fulfilled
that purpose. I think it right to say that, by and large, petitioners
have gone away feeling that they have had a fair and sympathetic
hearing. If that is so, then the Committee, if I may say so, has
clearly fulfilled its function. Sir, I wish to put on record our
appreciation for that.
21733. Chairman: Thank you and thank
you for those very kind remarks. Could I admit to you something,
when we first met, prior to the first hearing, other members of
the Committee were warned; my prediction was two to two and a
half years.
21734. Mr Mould: So you got off lightly!
21735. Chairman: Thank you for your very
diligent and mostly helpful work. We are very grateful and I will
now adjourn the Committee until Tuesday 9 October.
| 
