Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7640
- 7659)
7640. In terms of highway works that may or
may not be necessary, does the level of consultation on that to
some degree depend on what works come out of the joint studies?
(Mr Anderson) Absolutely. I apologise
if I did not make that distinction clear, but that is the case.
As I indicated, it would be subject to discussions with the two
highway authorities affected.
7641. In all probability, just assume that a
road has to be widened somewhere near Abbey Wood—I have
no reason to believe it does but let us just take that as an assumption—would
the road widening be done under the Crossrail Bill powers or under
normal Highway Act powers?
(Mr Anderson) It would be normal Highway
Act powers.
7642. In that case, is it likely that the consultation
would be carried out by Crossrail or by the highway authority?
(Mr Anderson) It would be by the promoter
of that particular order, which could be the highway authority.
7643. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much.
I want to be clear that we do not raise expectations or different
expectations that actually do not turn out to be true. I wanted
to make it very clear as to what was likely to be happening. Those
are all the questions I have for Mr Anderson.
7644. CHAIRMAN: Mr Anderson, one last
one from me: when the reopened inquiry into the Thames Gateway
Bridge takes place, there is bound to be an impact south of the
river. Will not the Bexley and Greenwich Councils have to come
to some conclusion about what is going to happen as part of the
evidence at the reopened inquiry?
(Mr Anderson)
My Lord, I believe that is the case, and that is why we have the
time-frame of this summer to start to see the emerging results
of that exercise.
7645. So you have a basis to go on when it comes
to your own TIA.
(Mr Anderson) Correct.
7646. Even if they do not always agree with
each other on everything there will have to be a conclusion on
this.
(Mr Anderson) Correct.
7647. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much,
Mr Anderson.
7648. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
Mr Anderson.
The witness withdrew
7649. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, is there anything
that you want to add on this?
7650. MS LIEVEN: I think, my Lord, only
just to reiterate very shortly what I have already said. In my
submission, all the issues that are raised by Mr Carrier are most
appropriately dealt with under the scheme set out in the undertakings
to Bexley, because we cannot decide now what works are required
because the baseline information is not fixed. No baseline is
ever completely fixed but in the particular case there are two
large uncertainties which have nothing to do with Crossrail and
which necessarily must involve further discussion with Bexley
and Greenwich, and then agreement between all stakeholders as
to what works are needed. So, in my submission, if the Committee
tie what Mr Carrier wants in paragraph 17 of his Petition against
what we have agreed with Bexley as the way forward, you will see
that each of those concerns is met.
7651. Given that both highway authorities feel
that this the appropriate way forward, in my submission, it is
really completely clear that it must be the appropriate way forward.
As you have said, my Lord, in my submission entirely correctly,
whatever political disagreements there may or may not be between
Bexley and Greenwich, ultimately, agreement will have to be reached
on these issues as to what highway works are necessary, and the
structure of the undertaking to Bexley deals with that. So there
is really no danger that because of political disagreement nothing
will happen; that is in nobody's interests.
7652. Then, finally, just to emphasise the point
that there is plenty of time here, so there is no reason to believe
that it is necessary to rush through a decision about what works
are necessary now, given that it is ten years before the Abbey
Wood station will open. I suspect I do not need to cover this
but, just for completeness, I should emphasise very strongly that
it would be completely wrong to hold up the Crossrail Bill and
all the manifest benefits that go with that to the whole of London
and the South East in order to sort out traffic in this bit of
south-east London where there is a mechanism set up and plenty
of time to implement that mechanism. So, in my submission, what
Mr Carrier is seeking is completely disproportionate to the problem
he wishes to have addressed.
7653. I have not gone into the substantive issues
because, in my submission, this is not the moment to go into the
substantive issues, but it is possibly just important for the
Committee to have in mind that the relative impacts on traffic
in south-east London between the bridge, the Transit and Crossrail
is likely to be the Crossrail impact being very slight, as a relative
proportion of those three projects.
7654. My Lords, I hope that is sufficient to
answer any of your Lordships' concerns. We will come back on that
note and we will try and do it as quickly as possible, but it
may need a little more than overnight in order to gather together
the various bits of information.
7655. CHAIRMAN: In the meantime, there
is the revised undertaking.
7656. MS LIEVEN: That will go on the
register.
7657. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know it will,
but I wonder if Mr Carrier has got a copy of it.
7658. MS LIEVEN: I am not sure about
that, my Lord, but we will provide him with one.
7659. CHAIRMAN: He certainly should have
it; it is a trophy as a result of what he has done by coming here
yesterday and today.
| 
