Crossrail Action Group
Opposing the Crossrail Plan for Romford & Chadwell Heath

Appendix A


Transport Committee
22 July 2004
Transcript

Item 5: Crossrail

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): For the first half of this meeting we will be looking at Crossrail. I am delighted we have finally come to look at Crossrail, this is our third attempt to do so, but given the other attempts had failed I am quite glad, because as it turns out the timing this week could not be more fortunate. I would like to welcome our witnesses today, Norman Haste, the Chief Executive of Cross London Rail Links (CLRL), Bernard Gambrill, Head of Public Affairs (CLRL) and Jonathan Fox, Crossrail Contracts Manager, Transport for London. I understand you will start with a presentation and then we will follow with questions. A substantial part of the session will probably be on the Government announcement and whether there will be funding or non-funding arrangements, and we will also look at consultation.

Norman Haste, Chief Executive, Cross London Rail Links: It might be useful to provide an update on how we got to where we are at the moment. I propose to go through the background to the project briefly and start off with the objectives that were set for Cross London Rail Links (CLRL), and indeed set for the Crossrail project. The first objective was to support the plans of the Government, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and Transport for London (TfL). Whilst that means that Crossrail is very much a London-centric project, the involvement of the SRA was important to ensure that the Crossrail alignment fitted in with the national rail network and, if possible, enhanced it as well.

The next objective was to relieve congestion and overcrowding. We know from people who travel in London every day that levels of overcrowding on some of the Underground lines have reached proportions of unacceptability, particularly during peak hours. Crossrail will have a significant effect on relieving that overcrowding, particularly for lines such as the Central Line.

The next objective was to facilitate the financial and business growth. From both the socio-economic research carried out on behalf of the Mayor, and indeed the work we have done ourselves, the prediction shows that London’s population will grow by 600,000 by 2016, and job growth will be in the order of 100,000, particularly in the financial and business services sector. That level of growth means that more transport links to the City and Canary Wharf will be needed.

Another objective was to facilitate international links. The importance to the City and Canary Wharf of having a direct link with a single-seat ride to Heathrow has been the subject of much press comment, but I would like to say that it is also about connecting with the UK. At the moment, many people fly down to Heathrow for meetings in London on an every-day basis and spend a lot of time travelling. Their journey time into central London will be much reduced by the provision of Crossrail. So whilst we have an international connection, it also extends to the UK as well.

The final objective was to facilitate regeneration. I think anybody would clearly understand that a transport scheme by itself is not going to create regeneration. However, the need to have a strong transport network is very important, as is having an identifiable transport spine in the case of the Thames Gateway regeneration having an identifiable transport spine, which is part of Crossrail’s remit as well.

Taking those factors into account, it led to the analysis of several options for route alignment for Crossrail. The preferred scheme is the one included in the Montague Report. It includes Richmond and Kingston in the south west, it extends westwards to Heathrow on the northern part of the route alignment, and in the east as far as Shenfield, and to Ebbsfleet in north Kent. The central section is absolutely paramount in terms of delivering the benefits of this railway. As we know from the Montague Report, the Richmond and Kingston branch has been removed and no doubt you will wish to question us about that later.

The railway will have 10-car trains with each car being 20 metres long and air-conditioned. The 200-metre long trains will have a capacity for over 1,000 passengers and the frequency of trains through the central section will be 24 trains per hour, roughly one train every couple of minutes. However, depending on where you are going you might wait up to five minutes because although we will have 24 trains per hour through the centre, where the line splits and goes up to Shenfield in the east or down to Canary Wharf and across to Abbey Wood the frequency would be slower at 12 trains an hour. We will have very high-capacity stations in the central area with long platforms. The train design will enable rapid offloading and re-loading and each station will have access and egress at both ends and two ticket halls.

Much has been said in the past about the technology, particularly considering the experience with the Jubilee Line. I want to assure you that we are only going to use proven technology. That does not mean to say that we may not use something which does not exist at the moment or is not in place at the moment, but in the gestation of this project we will only be installing technology which has had a proven life. Similarly, with the construction methods, particularly the tunnelling technology where there has been some significant advances since even the Jubilee Line was built. Those changes are now well established and we will be taking advantage of them, but we will not be using Crossrail as any sort of experimental test-bed for this.

In terms of the timescale for the development of the business, in 2002 the first business case for Crossrail was produced by my team, and it was July of last year when the ‘definitive business case’ was submitted to the Secretary of State. He reacted very quickly to it by making a statement on 14 July, which said there is a clear transport case and the Government remained committed to the scheme. After that, he decided to put in place a review team which was announced on 8 September, and submitted its report in January this year. I do not know why we have been waiting between January and now for the report, you would need to ask them, nevertheless I am very pleased to say that we have now had a very positive statement from the Secretary of State. Our plan is to get the powers to build this by the end of 2006 if we can.

Moving to the announcement this week, this is a quote from Alastair Darling (Secretary of State for Transport), which of course we all support and we are extremely pleased to have this very positive announcement.

I would like to say something about the Montague Review, and you may wish to question us on this in due course. For those who have not read the Montague Report, the remit was set out as follows: scope, cost and revenues, the governance arrangements to get the project through, and the procurement strategy. We were specifically asked to ask them to look at construction market capacity and financial market capacity, which indeed Cross London Rail Links has spent considerable time doing. The remit also included the environmental heritage issues and the impact of this project both during construction and when it is an operating railway are key features of a scheme like this. Furthermore, there were issues about the timetables, whether it will deliver value for money, whether it will deliver wide benefits, and the all-important issue of funding and financing.

In terms of the Parliamentary powers, our expectation is an Act of Parliament, which we hope we are not being too presumptuous about. This would give us outline planning approval, define the works (the limits of deviation), and grant us the compulsory purchase powers we need to acquire land and property. It would also set out the detailed planning regime that we will have to go through, mainly with local authorities, and provide protective provisions that we need for the future.

I will hand over to my colleague Bernard Gambrill, the Head of Public Affairs at CLRL. Bernard is going to steer this bill through Parliament. He did the same job with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, so he has good experience and knows the processes and protocol procedures as well as all the rules.

Bernard Gambrill, Head of Public Affairs, Cross London Rail Links: Since September, we have had round one of the consultation and that took us through all the areas covered by the preferred scheme. Initially, we produced a campaign called ‘Public Awareness’ to make sure that people who lived in the area were aware of the likelihood of us doing the first round of consultation which was in order to introduce the scheme in strategic terms and provide information at a general level, which we have done. An analysis of the comments from visitors to the exhibitions and information centres and from community groups we have met has taken place so that we fully understand what people require of us.

One of the principal issues that occurred during round one was the lack of station stops on the western side of London. I believe that once the route that we are now pursuing to go into the hybrid bill is announced we will be able to clear up all those concerns because the skip-stop service which was proposed from Heathrow Airport will change markedly to provide local services as well.

Once we have the Government’s endorsement of the scheme to be taken forward to a hybrid bill, the next stage is for us to start round two of the public consultation, which will be carried out in far greater detail than round one, which was essentially for a strategic view of Crossrail. We will have public information centres operating for six weeks from September to October and they will deal with local area concerns, and at the same time there will be community group meetings. We will be concentrating on the Government announced routes, but for those areas where the route is no longer going to penetrate, we will need to have a close-out meeting to ensure that it is clearly understood why those people are now no longer on the scheme.

In addition to the public information centres, which will spend one or two days at local areas along the route, we will also have information exchange venues at Farringdon, Brick Lane and Paddington, with a view to having them open on more occasions throughout the whole consultation period, so that people with individual concerns can come and talk them through with us.

One of the things that seems to have caused concern during the first round of consultation has been the extent to which we are able to safeguard the route that would be required. The central London section of Crossrail has been safeguarded under Town and Country Planning Act legislation since 1991, although the central route was first safeguarded in 1990 and it is intended, and there has been commitment from Government, to revise that central alignment this year. The outstanding portions are those between Reading and Paddington, Bow to Stratford, Stepney Green, Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet, and if required, Acton to Kingston. That is to be debated with Government. We are prepared to take that forward.

We concluded after our first round of consultation and the meetings we held with local authorities and from the business case that has been prepared, that there are very large transport benefits to London. This is London’s way out of overcrowding and difficulties on the present system to provide additional capacity. The benefits we have assessed outweigh the considerable cost of this project and by providing this additional capacity Crossrail will facilitate growth for London, which is one of the Mayor’s principal strategies. The additional benefits come not only to London in the sense that we will be able to move around much better, but also to those people living elsewhere and using Heathrow Airport as a regional hub who will be able to reach the centre of London more easily.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): On a personal note, I first worked on Crossrail 30 years ago on a feasibility study about the central part which was then just a business plan to be funded by business. So when Alastair Darling referred to ‘decades’, I was there. I think it got as far as a hybrid bill in the 1990s.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: It was a private bill.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): It was a private bill, but there was no funding. Today’s first question has to be whether you agree with Simon Jenkins (columnist) in the Evening Standard when he calls it ‘the great Crossrail con-trick’? He says it is now a year since you submitted the business case, and 10 months since the commissioning of the Montague Report. Do you agree we are no further along the lines of getting a realistic, funded and deliverable scheme other than that the statements have become more positive?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I think Simon Jenkins’ feelings are fairly well known, although I have not read that article. Despite what you have just said, I believe that we now have a very positive commitment from Government and also a very positive commitment from the Treasury, the Department for Transport and from TfL to work together to find the funding for this project.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Would you say you are 100% convinced this will go ahead and funding will be found?

Norman Haste, CLRL: Yes.

Graham Tope (AM): I know you have not read it, but in his article Simon Jenkins says ‘The truth is that Crossrail is dead; it is deceased, defunct, departed, gone, lifeless, inert, finished, a phantom, a ghost.’ A fairly clear message there. He is basing it on that fact that he says it has been announced nearly every year since 1989 when Paul Channon (former Secretary of State for Transport) first announced it. Why is he wrong?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I think he is wrong because we have seen London’s population grow in the last 10 years by a similar amount to what it will grow in the next 10-15 years, in the order of 600,000. We have seen the growth in the strength of the financial and business services sector in London; we have seen the development that has taken place at Canary Wharf. Therefore, I think today’s circumstances are considerably different to those in 1989 or 1990, so the need is far greater, and the need is accepted not only by Londoners but also by the Government. Those factors combined created a very powerful reason why the project will go ahead.

Graham Tope (AM): I agree with you that they create a very powerful reason why the project should go ahead, and I believe that very strongly. However, given the length of time we have been waiting for this, I am still less convinced that it actually will go ahead. I agree with you the case is strong and gets stronger all the time, I very much want to see it happen, but I would like you to reassure me why you are confident it will happen.

Norman Haste, CLRL: We at CLRL are the servants, if you like, of the Government and TfL. The message is very clear to us, and we have to demonstrate that we can deliver this project both in the timescale and within the cost we have set out, and that it will deliver the benefits. This is where the Montague Report has been extremely important in having this level of scrutiny for what is a very major project, and I understand that, which has come out behind the project and in support of the arguments we have put forward although some checks and balances are still needed, but we cannot do any better than that.

Graham Tope (AM): Whatever the final funding arrangements are, eventually it will obviously require a very substantial contribution from the financial markets, for instance. In that sense it will be competing with several major projects such as Thameslink 2000, the East London Line and the Thames Gateway. How confident are you that you will be able to raise that money in competition with these other equally worthwhile, wholly necessary projects?

Norman Haste, CLRL: If the Government has the will to take this project forward, as I believe it is, I think the arrangements for funding it will be driven very hard by Government. Where Crossrail sits in the pecking order with those other projects will be for the Government to decide, but given the statements we have had this week, it is clearly behind the project. However, having said that, we know the Government has a wider agenda than Crossrail, therefore I believe there needs to be a balance of funding for this project with some funding coming from the public sector, some from the private sector and, indeed as widely reported in the press, some from the business community in London.

Something we have not discussed, but it will probably come out in the future, is how this project is delivered, whether it is delivered in one big project or in phases. By phases I do not mean a bit this year and a bit in 10 years’ time and so on, I mean progressive delivery of the project which eases the financial burden and stretches it out over a longer period of time rather than a ‘big bang’ approach. By doing that I am confident that it can be funded from the three areas I have just mentioned.

Graham Tope (AM): The other capacity issue is that of the construction industry, and whether or not we get the Olympics bid, but even more so if we do, there are projected and planned a huge number of very major construction projects, several in transport but also in Thames water and a number of others. How confident are you that the construction industry has the capacity to be able to deliver, and on time and to price?

Norman Haste, CLRL: As you quite rightly point out, time and price are the two issues as far as capacity is concerned. We are working very closely with the Office of Government Commerce in carrying out analysis to look at both of these aspects, as was recommended in the Montague Report. It does very much depend on the extent of activity in the UK as to what construction capacity is available to devote to Crossrail. There is some uncertainty about the activity, but clearly, if the Olympics proposals go ahead and Crossrail is under construction at the same time as the works for the Olympics, there will be a large demand for labour in the east part of London. I do not believe that this is by design, but it so happens that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is coming to a close and by the time the major Crossrail construction is commenced in 2007, the work at Terminal 5 will also be running down, which is the other big user of construction labour at the moment in London. We are looking at all these projects, together with the total capacity of the construction industry in terms of the companies who could carry out this work and also the labour capacity that is available to us. We are not only doing it for the purposes of identifying what the capacity is, but we are also looking at the need for training in specialist areas and the idea will be to put that training in place before we even start.

Clearly, if there is a shortage of labour that will affect pricing and this is a critical factor for a project of this scale. This is why I mentioned earlier that there will be the ability to deliver this project in stages, which as well as easing the burden on funding would ease the burden on the labour supply part of the industry.

Graham Tope (AM): It is not just labour, in the sense of what we used to call ‘navvies’, I suspect it is the major project management that is the bigger problem. You may be able to buy more labour, but you cannot necessarily buy the expertise if it is not available, even worldwide.

John Biggs (AM): That leads into a simple question about the role of strategic governance and national Government in co-ordinating these projects. I think you are recognising that there is a capacity issue for major civil engineering projects. Maybe you can shed some light on this, but my understanding is that as far as the Mayor is concerned Crossrail is at the top of his queue of schemes to be funded and built. Consequently, as and when Thameslink 2000 is re-born (possibly as another version of Crossrail) that will have to take its place somewhere else in that queue, but Crossrail is at the top of the queue in terms of project priority. It is not as if there are monkeys with typewriters building things all over the country; I understand there is a context in which we programme and anticipate other demands for labour. How does your team fit into that? Do you talk to the Channel Tunnel people? Do you talk to Network Rail about the fact they may have to hesitate on Thameslink 2000, which they have done already for four years?

Norman Haste, CLRL: We talk to Network Rail, we talk to Channel Tunnel Rail Link, we talk to the trade unions in the construction industry and to the major contractors who are involved, and not just those involved in transport projects but in all sorts of different projects because the pool of technical skills as well as labour is not unlimited. I have also talked to the people I know very well in Europe, but we have not looked beyond Europe other than to the United States, where it is well known that there is a wealth of project management expertise.

John Biggs (AM): I recently attended a meeting with Bechtel where they made this very same point. I think this is a job the committee could perhaps take a view on. Who do you think is responsible for making sure that these projects are co-ordinated so that they do not run against each other and bid up wages and stop projects from being delivered?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I think that is central Government. As I mentioned, they have instructed the Office of Government Commerce to carry out a very detailed survey into these issues, which we are participating in.

John Biggs (AM): Is it the role of the Mayor of London?

Norman Haste, CLRL: Very much so. We could not do this work without the role of the Mayor and TfL, who are also very large users of the same market we are operating in.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): The Montague Report recommends a project promoter resting in Government ownership, a sort of Government company construct. Do you think that means a sort of sidelining of TfL? Do you welcome more Whitehall involvement? There are twin heads here.

Norman Haste, CLRL: I think Montague recognised that to deliver a hybrid bill requires a rationalisation of the present arrangement we have. The Secretary of State took that on board. I think his statement strengthened TfL’s position rather than sidelined it, because he said he was going to reform CLRL, still as a joint venture company, but in the hands of the Department for Transport and TfL, and he further said that TfL could be given the implementation responsibilities for the project. We should remember that as far as the hybrid bill is concerned, it is a bill which the Government has to promote and, therefore, I think the Government should be at the forefront, hence why Montague used the term ‘GOCO’ (Government owned, contractor operated).

Roger Evans (AM): Mr Haste, whenever I see you I ask you this question, and your answer alters, no doubt because the project specification changes from time to time. How much will this project cost on current figures?

Norman Haste, CLRL: Would you mind if I referred back to the base date that we are using for this project, otherwise I will confuse you all? For the sake of those who may not have read the Montague Report and perhaps who do not understand how we carry out cost estimates for a project like this, we work on a single base date, and it happens to be first quarter 2002. The construction estimate at first quarter 2002 levels for this project is just over £7 billion, but that included the Richmond and Kingston branch, so you have to take that off. If you take that section off you are talking about a project of round about £6 billion because, as Montague says, that was the least well developed part of the project and it had many technical difficulties that we were only just getting to grips with at the time the Montague Review started. However, it is in the order of £6 billion. If you apply inflation to that since first quarter 2002 you could probably stick another 10-12% on top, because you also have to remember for the reasons we have just been discussing that, unfortunately, construction inflation is running ahead of national inflation and making it difficult for us to hit what we see as a moving target at the present.

Roger Evans (AM): So you are saying that the cost is £7 billion minus the £1 billion it would have cost for the Kingston extension?

Norman Haste, CLRL: Yes, but in following the Treasury guidelines in setting the cost for the project we are required to put a significant contingency provision on top of that. The contingency provision we have used is £3 billion, which together with the original £7 billion made it up to the £10 billion figure you recognise from the Montague Report, without hindsights.

Roger Evans (AM): The Montague Report says about £11.25  billion.

Norman Haste, CLRL: It is £11.25 billion net present value and that is if you take into account inflation up to the point of delivery and then work back to the present. That is correct. If you want to take the straight construction cost plus contingency and then finance costs, the other number you will recognise in here is £15 billion, and that is when you take operating, maintenance and renewable costs into account as well.

Roger Evans (AM): I have heard from the City Corporation that they think it can be built for as little as £4.75 billion. Why is it not £4.75 billion?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I think the City Corporation is referring to the scheme that was promoted by LRM (London Regional Metro), which was considered in the Montague Report. The problem with that scheme was that it provided tunnels between Paddington and Liverpool Street and was based on allowing any train operator to use the two tunnels. It did not go into how you achieved both the transport benefits and the wider economic benefits of Crossrail. It did not extend the line to Canary Wharf, or to Stratford and Shenfield in Essex, nor to Abbey Wood via The Royals and to Ebbsfleet. Therefore it did not facilitate the regeneration of the Thames Gateway, and it also did not provide a link to Heathrow. Whilst I would be the first to admit that in our costing of that we show that you can build those central tunnels for less than £4 billion on our base data, it does not deal with the benefits. You have to extend it both east and west in order to meet the usage demand from those people who want to travel into the city from both directions in order to achieve the overall benefits of this project, and particularly the benefits of regeneration in the Thames Gateway. The LRM scheme did not do that. However, we could build two tunnels now if we had the planning consent to do so. This is a holistic and much bigger scheme than just about transport alone.

Roger Evans (AM): So even on the most optimistic of your figures, there is a considerable funding gap given the amount of money the Government will give us. When will you be able to put a financial package in front of this committee or TfL or the Minister that shows where all the different chunks of money will come from and that it adds up to your total cost estimate, because without that it is surely very difficult to get people to commit to the scheme.

Norman Haste, CLRL: Let me outline the process we will be working through in the next few weeks. Firstly, we have to respond to the Secretary of State’s request for us to advise him of what the route should be. That is fairly quick and will not take more than a .couple of months.

Roger Evans (AM): Can we presume that you will be discussing everything except the Richmond spur presumably?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I have to be very guarded about responding to that because this will be decided at a board meeting tomorrow by TfL directors and those who are left from the SRA (Strategic Rail Authority). We then have to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, which will be fairly straightforward and given what I have said I think it is possible to come your own conclusion, but I have to keep my counsel at the present time. Thereafter, as indicated in the statement from the Secretary of State, he wants the Department, TfL and the Treasury to create a working group to decide exactly how the funding is going to be apportioned between the public and private sector. At the moment, I do not have a feel for exactly how long that will take, but I do share the point you make that it has to happen fairly quickly in order to get the commitment from the financial institutions and so on.

Roger Evans (AM): Yes, because without the funding package we will continue to see people like Simon Jenkins drawing the conclusions they do. Is there a real commitment to this from all the parties concerned?

Norman Haste, CLRL: Yes. It is interesting that when I first joined this project over two years ago, it was extremely difficult to try to get the Treasury interested, whereas now I can tell you that they are fully engaged because there is a very strong political will to deliver this project.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): Can you clarify for me the concept of stakeholder equity? The Montague Report said they think a 1% supplement on all fares in London would raise about £175 million over seven years, but surely a higher supplement is needed to fill this funding gap of nearly £8 billion?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I have to agree with you, and I think the jury is out on the whole issue of stakeholder equity. I must confess that I am not sure what it actually means. It would be very nice for every member of the public to have a share in the ownership of Crossrail, but I am not sure whether it means that or whether we are going to increase the fares with a Crossrail supplement throughout Zone 1, or the whole of Transport in London. We need to do more work on this to understand how it might be implemented.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): Can I ask you another question arising out of the briefing paper that we have been given? There were reports in the press on 19 July that fares are expected to bring in £3 billion and the GLA wants the Treasury to contribute £3.8 billion, so there is a £2 billion gap there already. The document suggests that the talks concluded that the financing would have to be shown on Treasury balance sheets as off-balance sheet financing and this would add £2 billion to the projected to the costs. Where does this off-balance sheet financing come from? Is it taxed? Are you going to sell off lots of stuff? Have you any idea how it is accounted for?

Norman Haste, CLRL: Not really.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): I know it is accountancy practice, but for people like me, what does it mean?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I will try to help you. When the Private Finance Initiative was set up in the late 1980s/the beginning of the 1990s, it was seen as a mechanism for enabling the Government to encourage private sector interests to invest in projects such that there was no burden on the Exchequer and therefore no evidence on the public sector balance sheet. As PFI has developed, particularly with hospitals and prisons, it has brought private sector finance into those sectors enabling new infrastructure to be constructed and then operated from an ongoing management and maintenance perspective by the private sector, with the Government paying back over a period of time, whether through an availability charge or per capita or whatever. I believe that is also seen as legitimate off-balance sheet forms of finance. In the transport area direct tolling on motorways is another way of getting it off the public sector balance sheet.

I think what we are talking about here is very tenuous in terms of whether it can be off-balance sheet or on-balance sheet. I think you have raised a valid point and I do not think any of us knows the extent to which this project can be taken with off-balance sheet finance. Generally speaking, the principle is that if you want the private sector to put money in and you can transfer the technical and financial risk to the private sector, then the Government sees that as getting it off-balance sheet. It is becoming a very complex subject in a project like this which will need a mixture of public sector finance, private sector finance and so on. At the moment, I do not know how much is there.

Elizabeth Howlett (AM): So you would presume that the Treasury know what they are doing, but they have not bothered to tell you.

Norman Haste, CLRL: Yes, I would hope so.

John Biggs (AM): According to our briefing note the 1% supplement on fares would raise up to £175 million over seven years. That implies £25 million per year. Obviously, that could contribute towards the build costs or alternatively it could be a contribution towards interest payments on a loan that was raised against that fare income. Are you looking at models in which revenues raised by TfL, for example, could be used to repay a loan which would help to form a part of the package to fund Crossrail, and if you are not, who is?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I would have to say that we are in the very early stages of looking at this at the moment, but that is a consideration.

John Biggs (AM): This is very much like the American model where you issue a bond on the basis of a revenue stream. My other question is about risk or contingency. There is a potential £3 billion contingency and I believe that there are discussions and reports in the press about the extent to which such contingency could be borne by London taxpayers rather than by national taxpayers. Have you been involved in discussions on that?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I have only read the press.

John Biggs (AM): Am I correct that the financial packaging is being done jointly by the Mayor's office and the Treasury?

Norman Haste, CLRL: The Mayor’s office, the Treasury and the Department for Transport.

John Biggs (AM): I appreciate I am a humble backbencher on this committee, Chair, but it would have been helpful if someone from the Mayor’s office had been at this meeting or been invited so that we could ask such questions.

Murad Qureshi (AM): Firstly, can I comment that I am quite impressed by the Liberal Democrat Members of the committee reading the Evening Standard on the way into work; I assumed that most Londoners only read it on their way back home.

This week we heard that the Kingston extension has been dropped. Clearly, one of the ways of bridging the funding gap is changing the extent of the route as well as the service specification. What other parts of the Crossrail proposal are being considered in the same light?

Norman Haste, CLRL: No other parts are being considered in the same light as Richmond and Kingston. I believe that route was dropped by the Secretary of State for a number of reasons, not only the financial ones, but there were also operational reasons mainly to do with the effect it would have on the District Line and the impact that would have for people who live in Richmond. Also, it would have created inter-working issues which, if you read the Montague Report, would have tarnished our ability to achieve the rate of 24 trains per hour through the centre that the Montague Review team were so concerned about. So I do not think it was just about funding because there is significant demand in that area, and although it is very high cost, as long as we satisfied ourselves that we were not effectively double-counting in terms of the benefits then it was still very viable. As I said, there were many reasons it was taken out. We are not looking at any other part of the project on that basis.

Murad Qureshi (AM): So you are not going to lose sight of the service specification. It sounds to me that you are suggesting that the Kingston extension was essentially dropped because of the knock-on effects it may have on the main flow of 24 trains per hour between east and west in the centre.

Norman Haste, CLRL: That was just one of the reasons.

Murad Qureshi (AM): What are the others?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I mentioned the operational difficulties in the Richmond area itself and the replacement of the District Line by Crossrail, which would have been necessary in order to achieve the operational levels that we need.

Murad Qureshi (AM): If other parts of the Crossrail proposal were to be dropped, how would you go about consulting with Government and other relevant parties?

Norman Haste, CLRL: It is not out intention to drop any of the other parts at this point in time. Our consultation plan for the whole of the route goes into action next week led by Bernard’s team, which will be concluded probably at the end of October, and no doubt will bring any major issues to the surface. It will only be subsequent to that that any decisions such as you are referring to might be taken.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): With the concerns that Montague raised about your ability to run 24 trains per hour because there are interfaces with key radial routes, do you think their concerns are right? Will you be able to run 24 trains per hour?

Norman Haste, CLRL: We think that the review team was overly concerned.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Okay, you do not agree. Do you think there will be any scope for running freight trains on Crossrail?

Norman Haste, CLRL: No. This is something that we have looked at extensively, but I think it is probably appropriate here to mention the Mayor’s wish that this should be as near as possible to a 24-hour railway. When I say 24 hours we need time for maintenance and the only time therefore you would able to take any freight whatsoever through Crossrail is the time we would need to carry out maintenance, so the opportunities are very limited. There are all sorts of issues to do with the power of locomotives, which would have to be electrically driven or certainly would have to be fire-hardened such that they met the safety criteria that is targeted. I think the general conclusion is no.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Alastair Darling (Secretary of State for Transport) said that this would be open to competition. Will other ideas that might be brought forward by LRM (London Regional Metro) and other interested parties delay the start of construction of this project?

Norman Haste, CLRL: No, it will not. We know the LRM team very well and they are made up of a group of companies who I think would be very interested in bidding to do the work.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): So they will do it either this way or that way.

Norman Haste, CLRL: That is right. As promoters of their own scheme in fact they are using exactly the same alignment that CLRL has produced. They have not done any work on the alternative alignment, but I think it is right that if they have good ideas and they can do things cheaply they should be allowed to bid for the work. So that is what Alastair Darling meant.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): I think you will have recognised a certain degree of concern. The funding package is very important. We now move on to the consultation part of the agenda.

Darren Johnson (AM): On what basis did you decide the routes, construction sites, ventilation sites and depot sites that would be consulted on?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I am going to ask Bernard to answer questions on the consultation. Before he does, can I say that the alignment of Crossrail and the options that we looked at was based on thinking where demand existed and how we could route the railway to those locations to meet the demand. Thereafter, the locations of ventilation shafts, for instance, are looked at and the route is drawn between the stations and the ventilation shafts. It may sound a very crude way of doing of it, but to respond to your question today I think that is probably the easiest way of looking at it.

Of course, the consultation is concerned with the communities and the areas through which the line passes. I will hand over to Bernard to continue.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: It is usually covered by just one word, ‘optioneering’: you are trying to seek the elegant solution with the minimum environmental impact with the maximum effectiveness of the engineering infrastructure. The elegant solution for metropolitan railways in the centre is never that elegant and because of the restrictions on the number of ventilation shafts that are needed (at least one every kilometre, in addition to ones associated with the stations) this all has to be packed into central London. The difficulty is that since 1990 central London has not stood still. We have a defined corridor through which the railway can be designed that has been safeguarded under Town and Country Planning Act directions. Consequently, every time a new building is built within that corridor we negotiate with the developer to ensure that the piling structures below the ground will accommodate the tunnels that we will have to build. A case in point is Moor House, the large building on the corner of Moorgate and London Wall, where they have already built a shaft to accommodate a ventilation area at one end of the Liverpool Street/Moorgate Crossrail station. The work there has been going on for 10 years.

The decision on where the other ventilation shafts and working sites should be is taken after fairly careful study of the area through which the railway is to go to make sure that where the railway exerts a surface impact it is actually tolerable, acceptable and it also meets where the tunnel is. These things have to be connected, and so it is quite a complex process.

Darren Johnson (AM): Many people locally would argue that the proposed intermediate tunnelling shaft at Spitalfields, for example, is far from an elegant solution to the problem. On what basis did you decide to go for an intermediate tunnelling shaft there and did you look at other options, such as just having portals at either end rather than an intermediate tunnelling shaft in the middle?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I understand the point you are making in the sense of where that particular shaft was located, and remember the tunnel is going all the way from Royal Oak to Pudding Mill Lane on one leg and then beyond the Isle of Dogs on the other one, so it has to be chosen on the basis of this frequency. That is the first thing. The next thing, as Norman Haste said, is that you have to draw the straightest possible line between two stations and consequently, the sites that are chosen have to be close to the alignment, although I have to say there are few straight lines on Crossrail. It is rather complicated in the Spitalfields’ area by the pre-existence of an assumption from the previous scheme that the railway would surface in Allen Gardens and then join the Great Eastern railway corridor from there, close to Bethnal Green, all the way through to Stratford and Shenfield. That has changed in order to provide a station at Whitechapel. The difficulty is how to build that tunnel, it cannot be built in one single bite. A tunnel-boring machine would not deal with the kind of length that would be required to go from one end to the other. Also, if it were possible to build a tunnel-boring machine that would last that long –

Darren Johnson (AM): Presumably, the Channel Tunnel did that.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: It had a series of tunnel boring machines, but remember that they had intermediate caverns, so it was not bored one from end to the other with the same machine. There were short runs in on the landward side and also on the French side where they had one tunnel-boring machine which they then replaced with another one. However, these things can go on concurrently so that you shorten the construction period, otherwise the construction period gets longer and longer, rather like the situation where not keeping the paint bucket beside you when you are painting white lines on the road necessitates a long walk back to get the next fill of paint and the distance gets further and further. That is what happens with the segments, the spoil, and all the tunnelling equipment that you need to install in it.

One of the big difficulties with the Channel Tunnel was because it had no intermediate ventilation shafts they could not equip it from anywhere along its length, consequently the fitting-out of the tunnel was a huge task because they had to do it from both ends. We do not have to do that in London. We have the opportunity of these intermediate shafts from which we can build the tunnel, which will reduce the construction period and therefore reduces the impact. We have still have work to do to finesse the situation at Spitalfields and we do not believe that this present round of consultation that has just been completed is the end of the story. We have to go on and develop it so that inevitably it can be more elegant than perhaps it is at the moment.

Darren Johnson (AM): If the consultation or ongoing feasibility work shows that, for instance, the Spitalfields option is not a runner for various reasons, do you have a plan ‘b’ for that site or for any other sites where there is a shaft?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: As a result of the contact we have had with local groups we have been looking at other sites to see whether or not alternatives were possible. In fact, we had done that before we decided on the Spitalfields site, between Princelet Street and Hanbury Street. Consequently, this option is already the result of one round of optioneering, to look carefully at the possible sites. We have now looked at some others and eventually we will come back and give an explanation as to why we have to change the alignment between Whitechapel and Liverpool Street, or why we have to persist with that site and what we will do with that site to make it more tolerable.

Darren Johnson (AM): So if the consultation process does throw up serious and well-founded objections there are alternatives in the pipeline?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: There are some alternatives, but I am afraid the limit state of this particular part of consultation ends in front of the Select Committee in the House of Commons, or the first House in which this is taken. If petitioners are still unhappy with the way it has been designed they have an opportunity to make their point there. We have two rounds of consultation in front of the submission of the bill, plus a round of information to tell people what will actually be in the bill, so that if they feel the need to petition they can do so from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Then we have the bill. There are two Houses in which the bill will be taken, the Select Committee will listen to witnesses from both the project and the people who live close to it, who have what is called locus standi, the state of being close to and affected by the potential works. So there are plenty of opportunities.

Darren Johnson (AM): Because of all the constraints you are talking about, are you suggesting that it is unlikely that the consultation will throw up any serious changes and it is more an exercise in providing information?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: The first round of consultation has already produced a number of changes. We will publish a report on the changes that have taken place as a result of the first round shortly, so that it will be obvious that the consultation is a meaningful process; - we are required by parliamentary standing orders to ensure that is the case. We are following the guidelines provided in a code of practice by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the dissemination of information relating to major infrastructure projects, and to date we have done that.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): At this point, I should say that we have had representations from residents' groups who have a great number of very detailed and specific questions which we cannot take individually along the whole route in a session like this. If the committee puts those in writing to you would you be able to answer the specific questions.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: Yes. I would like to believe that those community groups have already put those questions to us individually anyway, because that is part of the consultation. Whether or not they have received answers that are satisfactory to them, we are under an obligation to ensure we do reply to those comments. In fact, one of the issues that may be addressed in front of a Select Committee is our ability to answer consultees’ concerns.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Okay. I just wanted to pick up anything that we could not cover today that may be outstanding.

John Biggs (AM): I have an obvious interest as a constituency representative in that I represent the people of Spitalfields and attempt to do that on as thorough a basis as I can. This year I think I have attended six meetings on Crossrail in the Spitalfields’ area. There is another next week that I hope to attend, and indeed many more I hope. We are obviously well aware that there is a particular challenge with Spitalfields, are there any other sites along the proposed route where you have substantial community concerns about the alignment and the proposals?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: The one that existed prior to Spitalfields was the issue that had been raised at Richmond about the land-take that would be required to construct a ‘dive-under’.

John Biggs (AM): Although the decision has not definitely been made, is it correct to say that if the Richmond branch does not proceed, then Spitalfields would be the only location along the proposed route where there is substantial concern?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I believe so.

John Biggs (AM): That helps to scope this. Obviously, Londoners who may hear or see reports of this meeting and discover it is going to go under their house had better wake up. I am pleasantly surprised that people in Mayfair seem to have come to terms with Crossrail, because there were problems in the past.

Spitalfields is the only outstanding issue, it is also the only outstanding major area of community concern area, but it is also an area where there is some confusion about alignment. That part of Spitalfields is effectively safeguarded under the historic safeguarding, but it would be lifted if your preferred route were to go ahead and an alternative route slightly to the south of that would become safeguarded. That has caused much concern and confusion because those who currently experience a safeguard find their properties are blighted and are wondering what is happening, and those who are not yet safeguarded but potentially will be are in a sort of ‘no man’s land’ where they might face a safeguarding which would blight their properties but they have no legal decision on that. Could you briefly explain the problems and how you are dealing with them?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: The issue of safeguarding is quite complicated, but I will briefly go through it. Safeguarding is a technique used by Government. The Secretary of State lays a direction on the local planning authorities to direct any planning application that is made within a limited consultation to a project. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link had its own safeguarding in the same way that Crossrail has its safeguarding. Crossrail’s safeguarding, as you say, dates back over 13-14 years and that historic safeguarding is about to be revised and the Secretary of State has indicated in his statement to the House that he wishes to do that as quickly as possible. Obviously, we are assisting in the process in that we provide the plans that specify the limit of consultation.

The effect on individual owners is that if they were to put in a planning application to undertake some change at their property that would impinge on Crossrail and they would come into contact with us, we would talk to them about the development they propose, and if it were possible to allow them to continue then Crossrail would not have any objection. If a fairly large structure was to be proposed, which had a pattern of piling going down into the ground that impinged on the tunnels that we were proposing, then we would have to talk more seriously about either changing the pattern of pilings to accommodate the tunnels or about making some other change. If that change is not possible, effectively the owner of the property, or the person who is applying for planning permission, and that may not necessarily be the same of course, would feel that they could not properly enjoy their property to the fullest extent. Once their property is safeguarded they can issue a statutory blight notice to us, which in the final cast would mean we purchase the property because they are unable to develop it in a way they would wish to.

The instance you have brought up is the situation where it is neither one scheme nor the other, and since the safeguarding applies to a scheme we are now not going to build, the question is whether those people are safeguarded or not. In that situation it is referred to as ‘perceived blight’ on which the Government has had an inter-departmental working group. It resulted from two cases: one was the Cirencester by-pass and the other was Channel Tunnel Rail Link itself, where people felt that the value of their property was effectively compromised by the announced existence of a possible scheme that could possibly be safeguarded in the future. It is hoped that those periods will be kept as short as possible.

Certainly there are people in Richmond who are inevitably experiencing some form of ‘perceived blight’, because we are under an obligation to tell people if we are going to require their land for a scheme prior to everybody else knowing. We sent out 653 letters to individual property owners in order to invite them for a discussion on where Crossrail had a surface impact. Many of those people came forward and we have had discussions. We have had discussions with people in Richmond who are concerned about this, and inevitably we will need to go back and close out that debate. Nevertheless, I cannot stop ‘perceived blight’ happening, all I can do is to encourage the Secretary of State to safeguard properly as soon as possible, and we will provide him with the necessary plans so that he may do that.

I am sorry it was a long, complicated answer, but it is quite a complicated issue.

John Biggs (AM) That is useful for the record.

Roger Evans (AM): You say that the only main objection along the route is at Spitalfields. I am certainly only too well aware of the objection to the depot site proposal at Romford and the way that is being handled. What is being done in the way of environmental and social impact assessments on those types of proposals, because a depot or a worksite is different to a ventilation shaft? The shaft has to be on the line in a certain location, whereas depots and worksites are more mobile. How do you carry out an assessment and how do you reach a conclusion that is the best site?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: In much the same way as we do for ventilation or tunnel sites. We have to look at the operation of the railway, the way it imposes itself on the existing environment, and in the case of the Romford depot, of course other depot sites were investigated and for one reason or another have been turned down. The selection of Romford resulted from a desire not to go into green-belt land, to use existing railway land for a railway purpose, and so that it actually worked with the operation of the railway. These things came together at Romford, but we now have to assess the impact of that facility and that will be part of the bill submission.

There will be a full environmental impact assessment for this project as is required by British legislation. The assessment of that particular structure and that function within the railway will be assessed and that takes into account around 15 different disciplines from bio-diversity, to air quality, to visual intrusion within an urban landscape. It will be properly assessed to ensure the best possible solution is achieved, but the location of the depot there was a decision that was made by the project and it has been consulted upon. As you say, there are feelings running against it, but I do not believe those cannot be assuaged by careful design of the depot itself.

It works in two ways: it is a ‘dis-benefit’ in that it imposed changes to the environment, but in terms of social impact of course it will make a change to Romford because it will suddenly introduce quite a large number of highly-skilled jobs there for dealing with the train maintenance, refurbishment and cleaning of the trains. There are two sides to this.

Roger Evans (AM): I think we appreciate that, and certainly it is good that we are not losing green-belt land and there will be no harm to anything beyond what is already a fairly rough site. When you do an impact assessment on a site like that, will you be considering other concerns apart from the change to the land? I use Romford as an example because it is one I am familiar with, but certainly there are concerns about things like being a bad neighbour, noise and working at late hours. Is that addressed in your assessment process? Do you look at changing work practices or doing something to mitigate the problem?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: You will appreciate I am speaking as someone from the project. I do not regard railways as bad neighbours; I think they bring all sorts of benefits. We have to ensure that the impact is controlled as close as we can to the source, and if we cannot do that then we mitigate at the edge of the railway boundary.

I believe that this particular depot need not be a bad neighbour. It is located next to a gas-holder station and a hospital. On the other boundary it is next to the Great Eastern mainline and the approaches to it go through a football club practice ground. There are many things to take into account.

Roger Evans (AM): Among those operational things you can do mainly to assuage the problem over a wider area, something that I suggested in the past was that you take maybe a couple of sidings you are planning to put into Gidea Park and elsewhere on the line and try to put those into the depot as well, so you could minimise the grief to neighbours by doing as much as possible on one site rather than spreading out the problems elsewhere. The response I have had seems to have been that you are not happy about doing that because that would mean a change to the way you operate at the moment. Surely with a new rail project there are going to be changes to the way you operate as a feature of the scheme? I just wonder whether you might be being a little bit inflexible there, and perhaps inflexible throughout the rest of the project.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: No, we have attempted to be wholly open-minded about the whole project itself. We have to deal with people in an even-handed way. The people in Mayfair, Tower Hamlets, Romford or Ealing all have to be treated the same way. I do not believe that the suggestion made to us recently about relocating the Gidea Park depot close to Romford would actually produce overall benefit. I have to look at the two situations. I regard the loss of open land in the metropolitan area as extremely serious. I think that if we tried to transfer the Gidea Park sidings we would obviously get kudos in Gidea Park from removing a facility that has been there since the last war, but giving it to a different group of people in the centre of Romford is another kettle of fish, and one which perhaps would be too difficult to handle. Furthermore, they would also have a view on whether or not we had been inflexible about where we put the depot and the stabling sidings.

Roger Evans (AM): Can I ask you about the way some of these big decisions are made? You had a proposal either for a depot at Romford or a depot nearby at Maylands. We did not know what was going to happen for a long time, and then suddenly the decision that it would be at Romford rather than Maylands was announced by the Mayor at Mayor’s Question Time. Was that a decision that you made as the project managers and engineers based on evidence, or was it a decision that the Mayor made on the basis of political lobbying and then forced on you? If we could know that perhaps it would direct other people along the route who object as to where they should be addressing their concerns.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I cannot account for the Mayor’s announcement of project decisions. The project decisions take into account various aspects of perhaps two different opportunities for a depot, one of which is the operation of the eventual service, the other one is environmental, the other is consultation with local people. The decision is taken using workshop opportunities within the project group and everything is systematically done like that. The decision is logged and then it is made known principally to the people who are affected by that decision, including the SRA and TfL, and if the Mayor then chooses to announce it he is allowed to do so.

Roger Evans (AM): So there was no political interference and it was the best decision operationally.

Norman Haste, CLRL: Just to support what Bernard Gambrill is saying, we had several workshops which analysed a large number of options on where we put stabling sites and depot sites. The decision that was arrived at was based on key criteria, not least of which were the environmental issues and particularly those issues which would affect the quality of life for the people there.

Roger Evans (AM): Thank you, that is quite reassuring.

Murad Qureshi (AM): Are you confident that your consultation process has been good enough so far and that, as you have said, everyone who wants to express their views gets the chance and such views are fully taken into account?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: Yes, I believe that everyone who has wished to express a view has not only been given the opportunity to do so, but also that their view has been taken into account. As I said before, it is not possible to take into account everybody’s view in the sense that we are going to accept and incorporate it into the project, it would not be possible. We have to consider those suggestions and we formulated a way of analysing the comments that came up. We had a decision-making tree and then populated it with the comments people had made from the public information centres and from the community group meetings we have attended.

Murad Qureshi (AM): I am just concerned that the nature of London’s communities is such that some are quite happy to deal with the system as it is and have the professional skills to do so. I do not mean the ethnic diversity, I also think many working-class communities do not traditionally input into these processes. Are you sure that with major capital programmes like this their views are taken on board as readily as they can be?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: We try to recognise where people’s views are clearly not coming forward. We undertake follow-up calls with certain groups, and I hate to say impose meetings on them, because if you impose a meeting on someone the chances are the outcome will be neither what you want or what they want. Consequently, we have to be careful about how that is produced, but we do try to spot where there is a community that is not responding. We do try to understand that London is full of different communities and they are not all best able to respond to consultation. In some cases, there has to be a process of education first, then another one to explain the scheme and a third one where you listen to their feedback. You try to get all the community groups in the best possible condition to contribute to the formulation of the scheme itself, and we have tried to do that. It will become even more difficult in the second round because of the level of detail that will be involved.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): In view of your last answer, how do you explain this statement from the Woodseer and Hanbury Residents’ Association which represents people around the Spitalfields’ area in Hanbury and Pedley Streets. I will not quote the entire statement, but in it they say: ‘The community will consider itself prejudiced if Crossrail now attempts to move into round two consultations as it will exclude the community and accepts the route is fixed, despite the wholly inadequate consultations about the details of the route.’ Clearly, this community feels that the round one consultation has been a dismal failure.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I believe that their expectation of the first round is perhaps too great. The first round is a strategic round of consultation and the answers that we have given to them will probably appear in the second round, and they would have to tell us if they believe that is the case. The requirement of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s code of practice is that we undertake strategic consultation first, then we will get to the detail at the next round.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): When you proceed to round two consultation, will that take into account unresolved issues from round one?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: Yes, of course. It is a continuum. Round one and round two is only a kind of process name that we give to the operation of public information centres and the material that comes out of them. Round two essentially starts in August, but the information centres will not start until September for the obvious reason that many people are on holiday in August. Consequently, the public will have the opportunity to see the information from September through to the middle of October. The consultation itself in the more general terms of contacting all those people who have registered with us to receive information will take place in August, so that will be sent out and people will start to formulate their view on the information that is sent.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): How do you respond to the criticism that the round one consultation did not take on board the language spoken by many residents in that particular area and did not in fact inform that particular community in the right way?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: Yes, we have taken that on board as a criticism, but we do not believe that it invalidated the first round. All our material made it clear that if people wanted material in another London community language then it would provided, and it would also be provided in Braille and in large print. We have gone further for the second round and already there is a project briefing on our website and available from us either through email or a letter, in the community languages recommended by TfL. Already that has changed the way we are consulting and, of course, the material will be available in the other languages in the public information centres in September and October.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): I was making the point that where you have a community which does not have English as its first language, in order to reach that community to start with you have to meet them on their own ground. It is no good putting something on a website if people in that community do not use the web or do not know how to do it. It is no good issuing material in English if they do not look at that type of publication.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I have already accepted that criticism and I have told you how we are going to overcome it from here on in. Those language versions of our briefing material are already available and all our material will come out with a piece in each of the community languages that explains how to get hold of further material and more detailed material in that language.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): You mentioned that these things were on the website, did you actually put everything on the website?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: No, as I said, we put our principal briefing materials on the website. As you may imagine, it would be difficult to include absolutely everything because of the sheer number of websites that it would need. Quite clearly, if there are more detailed answers required to questions in those languages you could go into that, but I have to be careful with the way this is presented and I am quite happy to provide any translation of any material that we have produced publicly. It only requires people to tell me they need the material and I will produce it.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): How many sites did you look at before deciding on this site in Pedley and Hanbury Street?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I cannot tell you because I was not part of that process. Certainly, our engineering consultants were given that brief and are commissioned to find alternatives sites. They have assessed all the sites they believe to be realistic in terms of the work that has to be done from that site.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): Is there any plan in the future to expand the information that you give on the website?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: Yes, as I said, the next round of consultation will have a greater level of detail than was available in the first round. I think you are holding a copy of one of the panels that was used at the information centre.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): I took this from the website.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I know, but it was also used at the public information centre close to that location. It was used at the public information centre in Valance Road, and they are all available on the website for those who were unable to get to the information centre. You can take a virtual walk through the exhibition on the website. It is our understanding that the numbers of people using the website is growing but still not very high, and we accept that is a limitation. Whilst it is growing, it is not an ideal form of communication because it is not universally available, but we feel it is one of the mediums we have to use.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): How many complaints have been referred to you for explanation by the Crossrail Referee?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I believe that the present number is 50.

Peter Hulme Cross (AM): What is the nature of these complaints? Do they fall into any particular categories or are they all different?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: The Crossrail Referee, Professor Kennedy, is in the room listening to your question. You might want to direct your question to him.

Professor Tony Kennerley, Crossrail Referree: I am Tony Kennerley, the Crossrail Referee, which is a sort of Ombudsman that has appeals referred to him. Strictly my concern is the dissemination of information, as Bernard Gambrill has outlined in the code of practice. Overall, the complaints that we have received have been reflecting a variety of circumstances and concerns, not all of which are possible to address at this time. As Bernard Gambrill has pointed out, much of the detail that has been requested is not yet available. In terms of the details of the preliminary stage of why a particular route was chosen, or why the Hanbury site was chosen as a worksite and so on, there were technical reasons given for those cases. I understand that because of the concerns raised Crossrail is now going to look at it again and go on to the second round of consultation.

There have been around 50 complaints that have come through Crossrail and been referred to us, and they address a whole range of concerns. If I may just elaborate and say that for any person who is presented with the news that a railway line is going to run under their house this is very traumatic and alarming. Obviously, they want to have all the detail about how this decision was reached. I think Norman Haste and Bernard Gambrill have given the technical background, the demand situation and the requirement for an east-west route and so on, and the engineers have come up with these particular sites. Those are the reasons why these particular decisions have been made up to now to present this particular preferred route.

Because of the concerns that are being made and have come through to us, I think the second round will have far more detail, and Bernard Gambrill has taken on board certain issues such as languages. In the second round there will be a large amount of material available in new languages. Perhaps we have been critical in that respect to say that possibly they should have anticipated the residents of Brick Lane might have needed literature in a more appropriate language. The other comment we have made on the basis of the representations to us has been that possibly they might have tried to communicate directly by writing to the people whose houses would be tunnelled under, whereas they only wrote to those whose houses were going to be affected on the surface. However, I do not think these things negate the whole principle of the consultation process.

What is now going to take place is the absorption of those concerns and all the conditions affecting the railway will be looked at again in much more detail. I know personally that in the last few months many of the engineers have been working on alternatives to things like the Hanbury Street site; there are restrictions and there are real reasons why this may not be possible, but we will see at the conclusion of the second round of consultation. Certainly, as far as we are concerned, we think that the process of consultation in round one to make people aware of the whole circumstances of the railway and how it will affect them has been quite well handled, and much better than previous schemes that I could name.

I think we are in a situation where it is obvious that there are real concerns for the people who are going to be affected, and quite properly so. I am confident that in the second round the detail will be there to negotiate to some degree with people who have these concerns, and it may be that some minor changes can be made, but I suspect they will be minor changes as a result.

John Biggs (AM): As I said, I am involved in a whole number of meetings outside of this committee and I do not want to waste time by proving this to people in the audience who have come here to see me fighting on their behalf. I broadly agree with Peter Hulme Cross’s deposition. I think the consultation has been flawed, and certainly in the distant past as a local councillor I played a role in helping to shoot down the previous Crossrail proposal because its consultation in Spitalfields was so deeply flawed and it caused enormous damage to the area.

My question is a very simple one. Elsewhere in my constituency, in Poplar, there were concerns and following those concerns the alignment was changed. As I understand it, it was changed because there were good engineering reasons for doing so; that is to say, it suited Crossrail’s interest to change the route, and, coincidentally, it met some of the concerns on housing estates in Poplar. In Spitalfields, there are alternative alignments which could be followed which would meet some of the residents’ concerns, but as I understand it, they would carry a cost and they would not align with the priorities and objectives of CLRL. Do you undertake that during the consultation and when you place the bill before Parliament, you will place alongside that information about the additional costs of alternative alignments so that there can be a proper debate about these issues? If the cost of the peace of mind of the people of Spitalfields is an extra £5 million or £100 million or £2 million then perhaps Parliament should be aware of that so it could make an informed decision.

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: You have that assurance. From my experience of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link hybrid bill I can tell you that is exactly the material which has to be put forward, although I have to say that cost is only one of the issues we have to take into account in deciding the alternatives or the option that is eventually chosen.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): We understand that it has to be viable in engineering terms. If the Richmond and Kingston link has ‘hit the buffers’, how quickly can that be announced and all the perceived blight or CPOs (compulsory purchase orders) removed?

Bernard Gambrill, CLRL: I hope we can do this very quickly. As I said earlier, a meeting is taking place tomorrow morning with the board of CLRL to approve the recommendation to be made to the Secretary of State for the route and this will confirm that Richmond and Kingston is not included. I believe it is then our duty to go back to all the respondents to the original Richmond and Kingston proposal to formally notify them that it is not being taken forward. It would be my intention to do that straight after the Secretary of State has received our recommendation.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Please can you clear up something on the Astoria. The Mean Fiddler organisation says that they have been in talks with you and Crossrail is not going to affect the Astoria, but a spokesman for Crossrail says plans have not been finalised and there are various options and it could face demolition. Do you know anything about this?

Norman Haste, CLRL: We are in discussion with TfL, London Underground that is, who we are working very, very closely with because of the need to expand capacity at Tottenham Court Road. There are two or three different schemes on the table, but I have to say that a couple of them do involve the demolition of the Astoria.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): So it is something to have concerns about.

Darren Johnson (AM): How confident are you that Crossrail will not be open to legal challenge?

Norman Haste, CLRL: This is the fourth major project that I have been involved in which has been subject to either a parliamentary bill or a public inquiry, and I have learnt that it would be foolish of me to make a statement saying that I am confident there will be no legal challenge. It is clearly our intention to avoid such via the quality of the work that we do between now and when the bill is presented.

Darren Johnson (AM): What would be the implications for the scheme should such a challenge be made, as we have seen in the case of the East London Line extension and Congestion Charging for example?

Norman Haste, CLRL: I think the main implication would be delay.

Darren Johnson (AM): A serious delay?

Norman Haste, CLRL: It depends on the nature of the challenge.

Darren Johnson (AM): So that is a possibility that you will have to work into your timetable and a possible plan ‘b’?

Norman Haste, CLRL: We have to recognise that there are risks to any project given the constraints that we work under, and it would be foolish of us not to take them into account. At this point in time, we are not in a position to make any assessment of what the delay would be until we receive some further notice of what a legal challenge be made against.

Lynne Featherstone (Chair): Thank you very much for coming today. I suppose the ‘proof will be in the pudding’. All of us want it to go ahead quickly and that peoples’ concerns are taken note of. Maybe we will see you back here.

Norman Haste, CLRL: It would be our pleasure.

Home  | Contact Us  | Site Disclaimer