Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11400
- 11419)
11400. A number of members of the Committee
will have met Mr King on the site visit. It is in relation to
the kinds of issues raised by PRACT this morning and perhaps I
will just read it out.[20]
"Dear Graham, at a meeting to attempt to resolve outstanding
petitioning issues from PRACT, John Walton and John Zamit raised
a number of points relating to the Paddington liaison panel as
it will operate in the future. In order to try and resolve these
concerns, which relate largely to the need for the timing of meetings
to be flexible, we agreed to write to you as Chair of the Panel.
This also has reference to the briefing we have agreed to provide
to the Panel at the appropriate time in the detailed design stage.
Clearly, the local authority is the consent-granting body with
regard to any applications under Schedule 7, and it is the decision
of that authority as to whom it treats as a consultee on that
basis. These are of course matters for you. As seen from there,
there may be some advantage in providing some clarity to groups
such as PRACT about how they see this process as operating. Conversely,
we do not wish in any way to appear to fetter the Council's exercising
of its powers under Schedule 7. In particular, PRACT suggested
that: meetings should be held (if felt desirable) more frequently
than on the current timescale, should the nature of agenda items
so dictate; again, if desirable to hold a more detailed discussion
(for instance, on issues affecting a specific geographical area)
outside the main Panel meetings that should go ahead, or that
we may (as was referred to at the first meeting) want to split
the Panel, depending on the nature of the issues being raised;
and that, in general, we should adopt a flexible and responsive
approach to the timing of Panel meetings—this includes the
assumption that the Panel is likely to need to meet more regularly
at certain critical stages in the project. We would welcome your
views on this. For your information, we will be bringing a formal
request to the May Planning Forum for local authorities to identify
the non-statutory bodies they would like copies of requests for
approval to be copied to." I think that is the list you were
referring to.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed.
11401. "I can also report that, in response
to issues about acoustics, Network Rail have some booster equipment
which we are going to trial with a view to using it at the next
Panel meeting in June". Then there is a response from Mr
King: "Gareth, John had raised some of these issues with
me earlier. My view remains that I would welcome a debate at the
meeting on how we take these issues forward. Such a debate is
needed alongside your programme of activity and how the various
members want to be involved. So please add to the agenda. I look
forward to the booster equipment! Graham." So are these the
kinds of issues which are being discussed with Westminster in
terms of how the liaison panel works as the project goes forward?
(Mr Berryman) They are. I think we are
only on about the possibly, I think it is, third meeting of the
liaison panel, so these are the kinds of issues which are bound
to become clear as the committee meets and the process develops.
As I said earlier on, Graham King appears to be doing a very efficient
job in chairing these meetings and taking care of our needs and
also the needs of the Petitioners in this case.
11402. If Mr King thinks that there should be
more meetings or smaller meetings or meetings of a slightly different
format, is that something we will seek to accommodate?
(Mr Berryman) We will certainly seek to
accommodate that as best we can. Obviously Westminster is a very
important authority as far as this project is concerned because
we have very significant works in the City area, so we maintain
a very close working relationship with them.
11403. MS LIEVEN: Can we then move to
a couple of quite discrete topics. Departures Road—Mr Zamit
raised concerns about the final design of Departures—
11404. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Excuse
me, but have you finished with consultation?
11405. MS LIEVEN: Yes.
11406. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: If
I may, I have a question. I am grateful for the copy of exchange
of letters there and the one that went from Mr Epps to Mr King
sets out a range of proposals that have come from PRACT and we
now have the response to open up a debate on it, but, adding to
that, as I understood it, Mr Berryman, you said that there will
be consultation with the liaison group or an "offshoot of
the liaison group". I am correct, I think, in hearing that.
(Mr Berryman)
You are correct, my Lord, in that. What I was envisaging as a
possibility there is that occasionally with this kind of group
you get sub-groups created or special interest groups or something
of that sort and, when I used the word "offshoot", I
was thinking of that sort of thing which may or may not happen
in the future, but there is obviously a strong possibility that
something like that will happen.
11407. So my reading then is that, subject to
agreement with Westminster City Council, a fair amount of what
the organisation was seeking this morning has been conceded?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, my Lord, that is the
intention of the letter, to make that clear.
11408. MS LIEVEN: Is it right to put
it this way, Mr Berryman: that how the panel takes forward its
work is a matter for discussion between the members of the panel,
including critically Mr King?
(Mr Berryman)
Indeed it is.
11409. I just want to make that clear because
we are not setting out some formal assurance or undertaking as
to how all liaison panels up and down the route will work and
that they will necessarily split into sub-groups and sub-panels.
Is that right? It will have to be discussed area by area?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, there are horses for
courses. In some areas, that may be an appropriate approach and
in other areas it might not be.
11410. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: It
is Crossrail's usual flexible approach?
(Mr Berryman)
We are always flexible, my Lord.
11411. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but it goes further
than that, does it not, because, as it will be the nominated undertaker
who has to give effect to undertakings and assurances, it will
not be Crossrail anymore and, if we are going to have assurances
and undertakings, they have got to be capable of being managed
by the nominated undertaker which may not be the same as you.
(Mr Berryman)
My Lord, it is our fervent hope that it will be us of course.
The nomination order will have to be made after the Bill has passed
into law, but the current intention is that it will be Cross London
Rail Links who is the nominated undertaker, and that is the company
for which I work and also Mr Epps and all the other technical
witnesses that you have seen are employed by.
11412. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I think it
is probably best to be frank about this because I am just concerned
that we might be getting on to slightly tricky territory. Confirm
this if it is right, Mr Berryman: that we are not giving an undertaking
or assurance that, where there is a liaison panel, we will necessarily
hold sub-groups and sub-panels, and the point of this letter is
that, in respect of this area, we have a very good working relationship
with a very effective chairman in Mr King and the letter shows
that it is all proceeding in a thoroughly helpful and collaborative
manner. Is that a fair summary?
(Mr Berryman)
That is a fair summary, but, as I said earlier on, there are horses
for courses and this may be appropriate in some other areas and
not appropriate in some other areas. It is just a question of
the attitude of the local authority.
11413. CHAIRMAN: I think we understand
what you are saying.
11414. BARONESS FOOKES: Is it also not
true that this is a particularly complex area and, therefore,
it is more likely that, for practical reasons, you might want
to break it down?
(Mr Berryman)
My Lady, that is absolutely true, yes. It is one of the most difficult
areas on the whole project not in terms of geology or anything
like that but in terms of fitting it all together.
11415. BARONESS FOOKES: Thank you.
11416. MS LIEVEN: Moving on from consultation,
Mr Berryman, a concern raised by PRACT was the treatment of Departures
Road at the end of the scheme. Could you just confirm, because
the Committee have not seen the agreement we entered into with
Westminster, in that agreement we have agreed the whole of Departures
Road will be treated as a work site for the purposes of the Bill
and, therefore, the way it is laid out at the end will be subject
to the approval of Westminster?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct and
it is not just the layout of it, of course, it is the uses it
is put to because clearly there is a potential to have things
like dropoff points and other facilities on this space if that
is what the local authority and other interested parties agree
to.
11417. If I can explain to the Committee, there
is a slight complication with Departures Road because it is not
highways. The reason it is coloured yellow is it is technically
not part of the highway and, therefore, on Eastbourne Terrace
Westminster would under the powers in the Act be fully involved
in the final scheme. In theory only the parts of the Departures
Road which fall within work the site would have fallen within
their agreement provisions in the Act. What we have done in order
to overcome that is to agree that we will deem the whole of Departures
Road to be the work site. That is why we had to go through that
slightly complicated mechanism.
11418. CHAIRMAN: Mr Berryman, that is
fine so far as concerns construction, but Westminster City Council
is also the highway authority?
(Mr Berryman) They are, my Lord.
11419. Therefore they will be dealing with traffic
flows?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct, my Lord
but, as Ms Lieven pointed out, that Departures Road is not a public
highway, it belongs to Network Rail. It is for that reason we
made a specific agreement with them that we will treat it as part
of the work site and, therefore, the reinstatement of it will
be governed by the provisions of our reinstatement policy, which
means in effect we get to the same conclusion that Westminster
City Council will be the main determinant of what happens to that.
20 Crossrail Ref: P77, Correspondence from Crossrail
to Westminster City Council Paddington Liaison Panel (SCN-20080506-004
to -007) Back
| 
