Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2140
- 2159)
2140. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman,
that brings me to the next question: why on earth was it not within
the limits of deviation?
2141. MR DRABBLE: That is for Crossrail
to answer.
2142. BARONESS FOOKES: I would like an
answer.
2143. MR MOULD: The answer is that our
primary objective is to build a railway, it is not to go significantly
further than that and to engage in urban regeneration. It may
help the Committee if I ask for page 29 to be put up because we
have given an assurance in relation to this matter—not specifically
as regards McDonald's but in relation to regeneration in the area
of Whitechapel Station.[8]
2144. This is a page from a letter which we
wrote to the London Borough earlier on this year to set out in
some detail the full range of undertakings and assurances that
we had entered into in relation to them. If I read to you what
we say from the top of that page, in relation to Whitechapel Station.
"We are not prepared to give an open-ended assurance that
would oblige the nominated undertaker to facilitate your regeneration
strategies at Whitechapel and the Isle of Dogs, especially as
those strategies may still be evolving, may well change over the
course of the Crossrail construction period and may well contain
aspirations that are at odds with the primary objective of the
nominated undertaker, which is, after all, to deliver a safe and
efficient operational railway without undue delay. That said,
we would be happy to offer an assurance in the following terms:
`The Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to work with
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets with a view to facilitating,
so far as reasonably practicable, its urban regeneration strategies
at Whitechapel and the Isle of Dogs, whilst acknowledging that
the nominated undertaker's primary objective is to deliver a safe
and efficient operational railway without undue delay.'"
2145. As I think Mr Drabble has acknowledged,
as regards regeneration strategies within the Borough of Tower
Hamlets, the Council, as the planning authority, has powers under
the Planning Act to take action for that purpose, and that assurance
effectively says that we will be prepared, using the colloquial
term, to work with them in relation to any such proposals that
they bring forward themselves as regards the environs of Whitechapel
Station.
2146. BARONESS FOOKES: Lord Chairman,
am I correct in asking Mr Mould this question? Enclosing something
within the line of deviation does not require the undertaker to
do certain things which are not absolutely essential?
2147. MR MOULD: That is right. The purpose
of the limits of deviation is to identify those areas of land
along the route which are judged to be required in order to give
the necessary land and flexibility as to land to enable the railway
to be constructed.
2148. BARONESS FOOKES: But would it not
have been easier to have included this on the understanding that
maybe somebody else, not the undertaker, might put up a new part
of a building which looked to be part of the new station.
2149. MR MOULD: My Lady, I think our
response to that is this: that it would not ordinarily be considered
appropriate to include within the limits of deviation land that
is not directly required for the purposes of constructing the
railway, but might be said by others to merit redevelopment or
regeneration in order to improve the streetscape or whatever.
2150. As Mr Drabble has acknowledged, and I
respectfully agree with him, there are powers vested in the local
planning authority to acquire land, compulsorily if necessary,
in order to carry out regeneration purposes; and no doubt there
have been occasions—and in principle there clearly could
be occasions—where those who are constructing an infrastructure
project and who have obtained powers to acquire land for that
purpose can work with other authorities who have powers to acquire
land for regeneration purposes, and work with them in order to
integrate those two purposes together. In terms of the assurance,
it speaks for itself.
2151. BARONESS FOOKES: But it is clear,
is it not, that in order to make the station entrance clearly
visible for all it would have been far better to have included
that particular section and to that extent one can say that it
vastly improves the actual station and its entrance?
2152. MR MOULD: We did not take that
view.
2153. BARONESS FOOKES: No, I can see
that.
2154. MR MOULD: It is not simply that
we did not take that view, that debate was had before the Committee
in the other place.
2155. BARONESS FOOKES: I am not really
interested in what happened there; it is what is happening here.
2156. MR MOULD: My Lady, I appreciate
that, but it is not a matter on which my learned friend has petitioned
this House, as he has made clear, and it is a matter which was
the subject of the Tower Hamlets' Petition in the other place,
and was put fairly and squarely before the House of Commons' Committee.
We gave our answer; we said that we were in the position, and
we argued, that with signage and other provisions we would expect
to put in place in relation to the construction of the new Crossrail
station that it would not be necessary to undertake the kind of
more expansive works that your Ladyship has in mind.
2157. So it is not simply a case of saying that
the Select Committee in the other place did not require us to
do this, that was having heard full argument on the point; and
they having not required us to do that the matter has not been
resuscitated by the London Borough in this House.
2158. BARONESS FOOKES: Was that because
the London Borough was satisfied or because they felt that there
was no earthly use—
2159. MR MOULD: I cannot speak for the
London Borough
8 Crossrail Ref: P14, Correspondence from CLRL to
the London Borough of Tower Hamlets-Eleanor Street Travellers
Site (petition 218 and register entry No. 196) (TOWHLB-86_4-029) Back
| 
