Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11160
- 11179)
11160. Perhaps I can then move on to another
part of this part of the route—
11161. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Sorry,
but what do Westminster want?
11162. MS LIEVEN: I believe, my Lord,
that Westminster think that very serious consideration should
be given to moving the boundary possibly to Westbourne Terrace.
I do not think anybody has come to an absolutely final and fixed
position, but they can clearly see the benefits of that.
11163. BARONESS FOOKES: Why is it such
a big deal that it takes so long?
11164. MS LIEVEN: Well, it is a big deal,
I think, my Lady, for two reasons. One is that there is a concern
that, with the limited space on Eastbourne Terrace, it should
not be a boundary road, but there is also, I think, a concern
that moving a boundary is not a straightforward thing for the
CCZ. Cameras have to be moved, signs have to be moved, lines have
to be moved, computers have to be changed, so it is quite a major
enterprise moving a boundary, and I think it would be fair to
say that it is not clear at this stage that there would actually
be very significant benefits from doing so.
11165. CHAIRMAN: Does it need an amendment
to the Bill?
11166. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, it would need
a new Order in the CCZ Orders promoted by TfL. If your Lordships
were going to deal with it under the powers in the Bill, then
yes, it would need it.
11167. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can,
can we?
11168. MS LIEVEN: Well, whether you can
in some absolutely far-fetched legal way, I am not sure, my Lord,
but, in my submission, it would be wholly inappropriate for this
Committee to start changing the CCZ boundaries. You might make
all sorts of suggestions! In my submission, the matter has gone
as far as it can as far as this Bill is concerned, which is that
TfL have undertaken a study and there are discussions going on
between all those concerned.
11169. If I can move to another part of the
Paddington area, which is the issues around Paddington New Yard,
perhaps we can put up 027.[3]
Those members of the Committee who came on the site visit will
remember that we went into Paddington New Yard going through the
existing bus garage, and it is a large area of land that lies
on the north side of the railway line largely underneath the Westway.
The existing bus garage, though very difficult to see, is there
(indicating), the Great Western Studios, where the artists currently
reside, is there (indicating) and there is an existing concrete
batching plant operated by Tarmac. Now, this is going to be an
area where there are two plans because the site actually stretches
all the way down here (indicating) and then, if we put the next
plan up, 028, so that the Committee get a sense of it, it stretches
on all the way down here into the former goods yard (indicating)
and then you can see that we have linked in because there is Paddington
Station and there is the Bishop's Bridge Road site service area
(indicating), so it is a very long, thin worksite which is needed
for a large amount of work for the Bill.[4]
Effectively, we have got to do considerable work to the tracks
in this location. I do not know if the Committee can see, but
here is the Royal Oak portal (indicating) and that is where the
Crossrail trains plunge underground into the start, the west side,
of the tunnel to go down underground under the existing tracks
and into the Crossrail station at Eastbourne Terrace. Perhaps
that explains why we have to knock down the building in Bishop's
Bridge Road because, as your Lordships can see, we have got to
get down quite quickly to get into Eastbourne Terrace. Therefore,
we have to construct the portal, we have got to reconfigure the
tracks, we have got to bring the spoil out from the massive hole
in Eastbourne Terrace and we have got to stockpile all the kit
we need to build the station in Eastbourne Terrace, so there is
a huge amount of work going on in this location. If we go back
to the first one, please, 027, there is a number of existing users
who have to be appropriately dealt with.[5]
There is the bus garage that I have mentioned which we are in
discussions to locate.
11170. CHAIRMAN: It is not actually a
garage, it is a standing, is it not?
11171. MS LIEVEN: There is a garage as
well, my Lord. Where we come in off the bridge there is a big—it
would be fair to say—not very pretty red building which
is a bus garage and then the buses overspill from the garage all
down the bus hard standing area. They have to be relocated. The
studio is being relocated into Alfred Road and, happily, we have
reached the point with the studio that they are not going to attend
before your Lordships. The Tarmac batching plant has to be dealt
with. As far as the batching plant is concerned, there is going
to be a temporary batching plant built and then once the work
is completed there is going to be a permanent batching plant put
back on the site as well. We may come to this tomorrow in more
detail with Westbourne Park residents, but I am sure it is easy
for the Committee to understand this is a rail-served batching
plant and, as such, is a very important facility for London because
it is one of the closest in concrete batching plants to central
London that is rail served. It is extremely important in planning
policy to make sure it is reinstated so all the materials used
in it continue to go by rail rather than on the roads. There is
a great deal of work going on in the Paddington New Yard area.
There are more issues about the batching plant but, I think given
we have reached agreement with Westminster, all I need to say
at this stage is that the existing batching plant operates largely
outside planning controls because it has been there for so long
and there have been very close discussions with Westminster and
with the owners and operators of the batching plant, Tarmac, about
the conditions that will attach to the reconstituted facilities.
Your Lordships can see that those issues all feed down into Paddington
Station.
11172. My Lords, I was going to leave it there.
That is a brief outline. If there are more detailed issues which
arise—I do not think they will arise from Westminster but
from PRACT later on in the day—I will call Mr Berryman and
Mr Anderson. Mr Berryman to talk about the engineering; Mr Anderson
to talk about the traffic arrangements. I was going to stop there
in terms of my introduction.
11173. Could I run through then who the Committee
may or may not hear from this week. Westminster City Council,
I have mentioned, I think at the most will be a short statement.
Paddington Residents Active Concern on Transport are here, I saw
them outside, and will be touching on some of the issues I have
just gone through. I understand that the Woodseer and Hanbury
Street Residents are coming this afternoon/this evening.
11174. CHAIRMAN: I think they are coming
this evening.
11175. MS LIEVEN: Yes. Tomorrow Westbourne
Park Villa Residents Association represented by Lady Bright will,
I am sure, be attending and talking largely about the batching
plant and also about the footbridge, which I should have mentioned.
The footbridge which the Committee walked over is here (Indicating),
described by somebody concerned in this process as probably the
footbridge that has taken up more parliamentary time than any
other footbridge in Parliament's history. It is a footbridge that
runs between the residential area south of the tracks and the
new Westminster Academy—which I think is now built here—and
there are fairly vexed issues about this footbridge which I am
not going to go into now because they are not vexed with Westminster,
but I will describe those tomorrow.
11176. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: On that
map it says below it "footbridge reconstructed". Does
it imply that is exactly the line of the reconstructed bridge
or the current bridge as it is?
11177. MS LIEVEN: It is both because
the bridge is not being reconstructed in its totality, it is only
being partially reconstructed. The only thing that is changing
in terms of its line—the line across the tracks remains
exactly the same—is following on from the House of Commons
recommendations we are putting in a ramp that allows people with
restricted mobility to get up to the footbridge and that is going
into this area here (Indicating). The line of the bridge stays
exactly the same.
11178. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Ms Lieven,
it is quite an important point because the bridge as shown on
that map is straight and, therefore, eliminates the hidden angles
which people were concerned about for the line and if that is
the case it would be important for us to know whether that is
going to be it when we come to that.
11179. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I think that
is just a product of the very small scale of this plan because
we are not intending to reconstruct that bridge so the very slight
kink, which your Lordships saw on the site visit, remains. Could
we put up 009.[6]
3 Crossrail Ref: P76, Westbourne Park-Crossrail proposals
(WESTCC-56_04-027) Back
4
Crossrail Ref: P76, Royal Oak Portal-Crossrail proposals (WESTCC-56_04-028) Back
5
Crossrail Ref: P76, Westbourne Park-Crossrail proposals (WESTCC-56_04-027) Back
6
Crossrail Ref: P76, Westbourne Park Passage-Footbridge plan (WESTCC-40_04-009) Back
|
