Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13240
- 13259)
13240. Environmental protection generally, I
think I have dealt with. As far as having some third party agency
or advocacy body, I have made my submissions on the role of the
local authority. In my submission, to have some other body—which
Mr Goodman has not explained or called any evidence as to how
it would actually work—but to have some other body which
might take a different view so we end up with arguments up and
down the route as to precisely what standards are being applied
is simply a recipe for chaos. Again, coming back to the point
Lord Brooke made earlier, this is a scheme that is of massive
public benefit, that is what both Houses have now said, and to
potentially delay it and escalate the cost through some completely
unnecessary process, which in reality is unlikely to give any
substantive benefit and could cause extremely great delays and
increased cost, is not a sensible way forward.
13241. Then the final issue I need to deal with
is alternatives. The way Mr Goodman is trying to get in alternatives
today is to say he is not promoting an alternative route, but
we should do a Supplementary Environmental Statement to assess
an alternative route in case it is a better alternative route.
In my submission, the only point of doing a Supplementary Environmental
Statement on an alternative route is if you think the need from
Crossrail could be better met by the alternative route. You do
not do alternatives analysis to do a comparative exercise on harm;
you do an alternatives analysis in order to see whether there
is a better way of meeting the need. The evidence of Mr Berryman
is absolutely clear, there are no advantages to the Wigmore Street/Cavendish
Square alignment; there are major disadvantages, so it was not
a main alternative and there is absolutely no justification now
for going back and doing another SES which can tell you nothing
and would not have any consequence in terms of giving better protection
to the people of Mayfair.
13242. There is also the very important point
that to now require another SES would involve major delay to the
project, again coming back to Lord Brooke's point. In fact, it
probably would cause very major delay because the way we have
approached SESs so far is that they have required an additional
provision in the Bill and that would require us to go back to
the House of Commons, so in any event it is a delay and, if we
were to follow that route again, it is very major delay.
13243. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, it would
also require major consultation with the people on the line, would
it not?
13244. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, that is
the first stage of the delay. We would have to do the thing and
that in itself is a big job because you have to consult people,
you have to carry out the environmental assessment, it takes months
and months and months and, particularly if you are going to do
it for the whole of an alternative route, it is a major exercise
but, in my submission, the evidence is absolutely clear; it is
not justified.
13245. If—and I do not suppose for a moment
that the Committee is going to get to this stage—you have
to weigh up the evidence of Mr Berryman on this subject and the
evidence of Mr Schabas, then I would, and I hesitate to say this
right at the end of what has been a very happy Committee generally,
ask you to treat Mr Schabas's evidence with considerable caution.
He told the Committee that there were major benefits to Cavendish
Square over Hanover Square. Point one on trees: he had not bothered
to find out that we are not taking down any trees in Hanover Square.
He told the Committee that there were no trees in Cavendish Square.
Anybody who has sat in the John Lewis cafe as often as I have
knows that there is a large number of very big plane trees in
Cavendish Square. He said that the historic buildings were much
greater in Hanover Square than Cavendish Square. Anybody who has
visited the place knows that is not true. Cavendish Square is
surrounded by Georgian listed buildings.
13246. CHAIRMAN: And one side of Wigmore
Street is also flanked by probably listed buildings.
13247. MS LIEVEN: We have not even gone
there, my Lord. Anybody who has been to Wigmore Street—we
have not done an analysis of how many residential properties there
are—but Wigmore Street is a very historic area. I would
hate to think what the noise impact on the Wigmore Hall would
be. We would have worksites in Portman Square, in Connaught Square—just
imagine the problems with that—it is endless. The suggestion
that just because you take it out of Mayfair you have got an environmental
benefit is, in my submission, extremely one-sided.
13248. So my Lords, no substantive benefit,
no substantive justification, major delay; in my submission, no
possible reason to go down that course.
13249. Thank you very much, my Lords. Unless
there are any questions I can deal with now on this issue.
13250. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms Lieven.
A final word for you, Mr Goodman. Have you discovered who you
are representing?
13251. MR GOODMAN: My Lord, I think I have been
quite clear from the very outset, it is on the heading of the
written submissions I gave to you first thing this morning. If
it needs clarification, I am representing the Residents' Society
of Mayfair and St James and the Crossrail Coalition of Residents
and Petitioners.
13252. CHAIRMAN: Who are the members
of the Coalition?
13253. MR GOODMAN: Which residents' groups,
was that the specific question?
13254. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
13255. MR GOODMAN: My apologies. Within the
Coalition are the Mayfair Society, the WHRA, Spitalfields—
13256. CHAIRMAN: I thought it was the
WHRA.
13257. MR GOODMAN: The Hyde Park Group.
13258. CHAIRMAN: This includes the WHRA,
does it not?
13259. MR GOODMAN: It does include it.
| 
