Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18020 - 18039)

  18020. We can deal briefly with Maidenhead Station. The access has been revised to allow a new housing development to proceed unhindered. At West Drayton Station there are works which are proposed in the event that the alternative depot strategy, which I will come on to in a moment, is rejected by the Committee. Those works are only required in the event that the depot strategy which is now proposed is not accepted.

  18021. The new depot strategy involves relocating the proposed Crossrail depot from Romford in the east and the Committee will be aware there have been petitions regarding the loss of playing fields and the impact of the depot. What AP3 now proposes is to relocate the depot to the west just north of Wormwood Scrubs at Old Oak Common depot. The depot buildings and the ancillary works and the sidings will be placed at Old Oak Common and you can see it there.[15] They are currently occupied by EWS and the Heathrow Express and it would propose to replace Romford. Buildings currently located on the site of the proposed new sidings will of course need to be demolished and track-work leading to the depot will be revised. Where it says Great Western main line you can see there are sidings and a depot on the other side. That is called the North Pole.[16] I am not sure whether it is called that because it is north of Wormwood Scrubs or because of the pub which is located on the road, but that is where currently it is proposed to relocate EWS from this side of the Great Western main line to that side to accommodate the Crossrail network. There are still discussions, however, with regard to the EWS relocation. That, we would put to the Committee, is a satisfactory alternative site for the depot which will overcome the strategic problems of the playing fields and the impact at Romford by utilising an existing depot with consequently lesser impact.

  18022. Next is Seven Kings Station, which is Ilford depot—page 197 of AP3 ES—which is part of the revised depot strategy as well.[17] What is proposed, if the Committee are satisfied that the alternative depot strategy should be followed, is this will allow for stabling to be constructed at an existing depot site. Two existing buildings in the Ilford depot would be demolished and replaced by 11 sidings and ancillary works.

  18023. Turning to Goodmayes Station and Gidea Park Station, additional amendments are proposed to allow for greater PRM accessibility, including revised ticket halls and step-free access to platforms.

  18024. Romford Depot (West)—these are proposals, as with West Drayton, which only arise if the Committee rejects the alternative depot strategy. There are proposals to try and mitigate the impacts of Romford, if the Committee considers the depot ought to remain there, despite the alternative strategy. Those proposals will reduce the loss of playing fields during construction and would reduce the impact, although we will still be asking the Committee to recommend and endorse the wholesale removal of the depot to West London rather than the east.

  18025. Page 243—Blackwall Way and Limmo Peninsula shafts—what are proposed there in fact is to replace the barge loading facility from the Limmo Peninsula at Instone Wharf which you can see marked in white on the photograph.[18] That will ensure easier access and improve the handling of excavated material.

  18026. Finally in terms of pictures, page 262, this is Clacton, which I do not think we have been to so far along the course of the Bill.[19] This again is part of the revised depot strategy it may surprise you to hear. The alternative depot strategy includes a proposal to reopen Clacton Depot temporarily to commission and test the new Crossrail rolling stock. Because of the decision to relocate Romford, if the Committee so endorses the decision, additional commissioning and test facilities would need to be provided. We have had to split up the function a little in order to make sure that we can accommodate the relocation of the depot. That is proposed at Clacton and because of the greater length of the Crossrail trains some alterations to the existing maintenance shed will be necessary to accommodate those trains. There are also other provisions within AP3 which I am not going to deal with in any detail: amendments to the Stockley Flyover, the limits of deviation revised works site and access at Hanwell Station and a revision to the Arsenal Way shaft to enable one of the businesses to remain operational.

  18027. I hope that is not a too rapid a canter through the main proposals from AP3, but it at least gives the Committee a flavour of the main items and, as the Committee will have seen, they include a good deal of alterations in order to give effect to the Committee's decisions.

  18028. The final matter I want to touch on is SES3, which was deposited in November, and contains some updated environmental information, including particularly the comparison between Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street which we promised. Since the publication of SES3 last November, it became clear this week that some corrections need to be made to a fairly small number of paragraphs—in the order of four or five—relating to the noise impacts on the proposed Hanbury Street shaft. It is right that the corrections should be made so that there is accuracy in the environmental statement, but I can assure the Committee that they do not lead to different conclusions in terms of the noise impact of the Hanbury Street shaft when one takes into account the revised possibilities for mitigation, nor does it lead to a different conclusion to the comparative exercise between the Hanbury Street site and the Woodseer Street site. If you remember, although a detailed noise comparison was not available when the Committee heard the Spitalfields Petitioners last summer, Mr Thornley-Taylor said in his view it was likely that, at least in noise terms, the two locations would come out broadly comparable. That was not the point—as Mr Berryman made clear to you and will make clear to you again if necessary—which led to the choice of Hanbury Street over Woodseer Street. The assessment in SES3 leads to the conclusion that Mr Thornley-Taylor's prediction was right that, in noise terms, the two are broadly comparable in their impact. The point for decision arises on other grounds, not on noise grounds.

  18029. Accordingly, what we propose to do is to make available the corrected text to the AP3 Petitioners from Spitalfields who are appearing on 30 January. We will make the corrections available to them this week which will be in good time hopefully for their appearance on 30 January and we will also publicise the amendments to SES3 as soon as we reasonably can. I can assure the Committee from what I am being told over the last few days that the changes will involve no Bill amendments; they will involve no requirement of petitioning. They will open the possibility to those reading the amendments that they may wish to make representations, which is a separate process from petitioning, which would then be presented by the Secretary of State to the House at third reading along with any other representations which do not arise in the context of bill petitions. Although those corrections have to be made, we hope that they should not give rise to any great difficulties. I simply say them for the record so that everybody knows that we need to make them and it may well be publicised to the AP3 Petitioners before the end of this week.

  18030. Sir, unless there are any matters that the Committee would like further information on, that concludes my run through the AP's.

  18031. Chairman: I am grateful.

  18032. Ms Lieven: The only other matter today is the cyclists, Mr Selway and Mr Harrison. I do not know if the Committee knows that they are finding it difficult to get here this morning. I believe they can come at half past two.

  18033. Chairman: We have a witness here but we have not got the representative. I think it is probably correct that we need to suspend until two thirty and then come back and hear their case then. The last we heard from them was that five or six emails have been received. He has left Birmingham and he will be here as soon as he can.

  Adjourned until 2.30 pm

The Petition of Michael Andrew Harrison, Arnold David Moxon and Gordon Gemmell Selway

Mr Gordon Gemmell Selway appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.

  18034. Chairman: Welcome.

  18035. Mr Selway: Thank you, sir.

  18036. Chairman: Congratulations.

  18037. Mr Selway: Thank you. Oddly enough, it is not because of the weather; it is because of privatisation.

  18038. Chairman: I am not entirely unsympathetic to what you are talking about but I think we will leave it there.

  18039. Ms Lieven: Can I make a very brief opening, sir?

15   Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 17, Route Window W3: Old Oak Common Depot, (LINEWD-AP317-004). Back

16   Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 18, Route Window W2: Canal Way, Aerial view of the North Pole Depot, (LINEWD-AP318-004). Back

17   Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 19, Route Window NE5: Seven Kings Station Back

18   Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 24, Route Window SE1: Blackwall Way and Limmo Peninsula Shafts, (LINEWD-AP324-003). Back

19   Amendment of Provisions 3 Environmental Statement, Chapter 26, Route Window R2: Clacton, (LINEWD-AP326-002). Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007