Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11260
- 11279)
11260. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: You
would have to break it up completely to do it, though, otherwise
it gets tainted by what else is there.
11261. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: That
is what I was suggesting.
11262. CHAIRMAN: I think we have to bring
this to a conclusion. The difficulty is "in line with the
requirements of the House of Commons Select Committee". That
includes that TfL is one of the Promoters. I think this will have
to be changed.
11263. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, there would
be no difficulty, I would suggest, if—
11264. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: You
would have to put an asterisk in showing that they are not Promoters.
11265. MS LIEVEN: You could either put
in an explanatory sentence or you could simply endorse the words
"The Promoter is willing to continue to review and discuss
the findings of the TfL study into the CCZ boundary with TfL,
Westminster City Council and relevant stakeholders" full-stop.
That would incorporate the thought without endorsing the mistake.
11266. MR CLARKSON: We are happy with
that.
11267. CHAIRMAN: Solved. Thank you, Mr
Clarkson. That is your task achieved, is it?
11268. MR CLARKSON: And a happy ending,
my Lord, I hope, after a long debate. Thank you.
11269. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything
else?
11270. MR CLARKSON: No, my Lord, thank
you.
11271. CHAIRMAN: Then it is PRACT now.
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of Paddington Residents Active Concern
on Transport (PRACT).
MR JOHN
WALTON appeared on behalf of the
Petitioners.
MR JOHN
ZAMIT appeared as Agent.
11272. MS LIEVEN: We now move to the
Petition of the Paddington Residents Active Concern on Transport.
The Petition of Paddington Residents Active
Concern on Transport (PRACT)
11273. BARONESS FOOKES: Just one thought:
can we take it, then, that the issue of the level of Eastbourne
Terrace in relation to the other road has been settled, or left
in the air?
11274. MS LIEVEN: I think "left
in the air" is the way I would describe it, my Lady! As far
as Westminster City Council is concerned, they are content that
further design work has to be undertaken before a final decision
is made, and we have agreed a process for doing that which involves
them to a degree that they are happy with. So far as Westminster
is concerned, it is settled inasmuch as they are happy, although
it is not settled whether it is in the air or on the ground.
11275. The Petitioner that remains outstanding
that was very interested in this issue are Land Securities, who
lie to the west of Eastbourne Terrace and whose entrances to their
properties are affected by whether or not it goes up or down.
We are in deep negotiation with them at this moment and I cannot
say whether they will attend to ask the Committee to take some
further step on this or not. However, so far as Westminster are
concerned, they are content. So far as PRACT are concerned, my
understanding is that they are content with the process as it
is proceeding (I will touch on the consultation issue in a moment).
11276. BARONESS FOOKES: Is it right that
I seem to recall from the site visit that English Heritage had
views upon the matter in relation to Brunel's building?
11277. MS LIEVEN: It would be right to
say, my Lady, that everybody has views on the matter—very
few of them coinciding! English Heritage certainly do have views
but they have not petitioned and, as I understand it, they are
content—if I repeat the same words—with the process
that is being undergone, which is that engineers, conservationists
and architects are all discussing these things—traffic engineers—and
the pros and cons, and English Heritage are happy to be involved
in that, along with Westminster. So it is not that it is settled
one way or the other, but they are—
11278. BARONESS FOOKES: It would not
be with that group of people together, would it?
11279. MS LIEVEN: I am assuming that
one day it will be settled, or there will be a floating station,
but it may not be for a little time. That is where we are on that.
| 
