HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2005-06

CROSSRAIL

PETITION

Against the Bill - Praying to be heard by counsel, &c.

TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF BRENTWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL

SHEWETH as follows :-

1. A Bill (hereinafter called "the Bill") has been introduced into and is now pending in your Honourable House intituled "A Bill to make provision for a railway transport system running from Maidenhead, in the County of Berkshire, and Heathrow Airport, in the Borough of Hillingdon, through central London to Shenfield, in the County of , and Abbey Wood, in the London Borough of Greenwich; and for connected purposes".

2. Clauses 1 to 20 set out the Bill's objectives in relation to the construction and operation of the railway transport system mentioned in paragraph 1 above. They include provision for compulsory acquisition, planning permission, heritage issues, trees and noise. Clauses 21 to 44 of the Bill establish a regulatory regime for the railway transport system and clause 45 to 59 of the Bill deal with miscellaneous and general provisions.

3. The works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill and the scheduled works are defined in the Bill as the works

P:\CROSSRAlL\Brentwood\Petitionfinal.doc specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill which are works authorised to be constructed by the nominated undertaker (defined in the Bill and hereinafter referred to as "the nominated undertaker"). Your petitioners are Brentwood Borough Council. The Bill would authorise the compulsory acquisition of land belonging to your petitioners, to which they object. Furthermore, part of the area for which your petitioners are the local authority will be injuriously affected by the provisions of the Bill, and your petitioners accordingly object thereto for the reasons, amongst others, hereinafter appearing.

Introductory

4. An Urban District Council was first established in Brentwood in 1899, with the District being considerably enlarged as a result of the Essex Review Order in 1934. The Local Government Act 1972 established the District of Brentwood.

5. Other enactments have added to your petitioners' statutory powers and duties. Amongst the responsibilities of your petitioners is that of the provision of off-street parking. Your petitioners are responsible for enforcement of noise and pollution controls within the Borough, including the monitoring and control of actual or suspected contaminated soil. They are the local planning authority, and are thus responsible for general planning control and the preparation of local development plans within the Borough.

6. Whilst neutral about the principal issue of whether should be constructed, your petitioners are opposed to the decision to extend Crossrail into, and service stations in, their Borough. The proposed rail link would not, by the promoter's own estimates, give any advantage to your petitioners' residents in terms of increased or quicker rail access to the City of London, or to Heathrow Airport, as a result of the line being extended from Stratford through to stations in your petitioners' Borough. Your petitioners require more information from the promoter to justify why the promoter considers that the railway should be extended to their Borough. There are, furthermore, a number of matters which cause great

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petitionfinal.doc concern to your petitioners, arising from the proposals in the Bill. Some of these points apply generally to the whole length of the Crossrail line within your petitioners' Borough and some of the points are specific to particular sites. Your petitioners are hopeful that many of their concerns can be met by agreement with the promoter.

7. Your petitioners have serious concerns over the provision of information by the promoter, both prior to the deposition of the Bill and up to the date of the deposit of this petition. This has meant that thorough and detailed assessments of the proposed project, its impacts, and benefits have been impossible to compile. Your petitioners are concerned that requests for further information and responses to specific requests remain outstanding, particularly with regard to baseline assumptions made to predict likely noise levels during construction, noise measurements taken and a justification for using the identified worksites at Shenfield and Brentwood Stations. In addition, your petitioners are still to be satisfied about the adequacy of the Environmental Statement and its Supplement. Baseline assumptions made over a number of generic issues have all still to be substantiated. Ancillary documentation remains in a draft form which is neither acceptable in principle, nor in its presumptions, proposals and extent of detail.

Work Sites - General

8. Your petitioners note that there will be site preparation and construction activities at work and construction sites at Brentwood and Shenfield Stations within your petitioners' Borough. The matters with which your petitioners are particularly concerned are the problems of noise, vibration, dust and dirt, hours of working, visual impact and disruption to the safety of road traffic and pedestrians. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should be made subject to suitable standards in respect of each of these matters and that there should be a provision for a noise insulation policy and for compensation to be paid where these standards and policy are breached or other suitable mitigation or remedy put in place.

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petition final.doc 9. Your petitioners note that the Bill and the supporting documents adopt similar regimes to those which were established for the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Your petitioners are pleased to note that this regime will include the agreement of a Construction Code. Your petitioners will wish to ensure that the Construction Code is complied with properly, and in that respect, your petitioners will incur a great deal of expenditure. Your petitioners wish to ensure that all of their reasonable expenses in monitoring construction sites are met by the nominated undertaker, together with expenditure incurred by your petitioners in planning and programming activities related to the Construction Code.

10. Your petitioners respectfully suggest that they should be able to specify, in respect of any development authorised by the Bill, the hours and days of the week in which work may be carried out. Those hours should be a matter falling within the ambit of arrangements which are to be approved by your petitioners under clause 10 of and Schedule 7 to the Bill. The table set out in Paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 to the Bill, should, in your petitioners' respectful submission, be amended to include inappropriate proposed hours of working as a ground on which your petitioners may refuse to approve those arrangements. Hours of working are a crucial matter which your petitioners as Local Planning Authority need to be able to modify in order to preserve the local environment and local amenity.

11. Your petitioners note that the promoter proposes that the works should be carried out between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday, and 7.00am to 2.00pm on Saturday. Your petitioners have adopted as standard certain hours for construction work in order for them to comply with the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These hours are set at 8.00am to 6.00pm on Mondays to Fridays, 9.00am to 1.00pm on Saturday, with no work to be carried out at all on Sundays, or public holidays. Under the hours of work proposed by the promoter, your petitioners do not consider that they would be able to comply with their obligations under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Your petitioners note that these hours are longer than those which have been adopted in other construction operations on this scale, such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Line scheme, and longer than the hours applied to all other construction works in your petitioners' Borough. Should construction activities be

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petition final.doc A required to take place outside the standard hours, your petitioners request that all such work should be agreed in advance with your petitioners, so that the reasonableness of the request can be considered and as much notice can be given to residents and businesses within your petitioners' Borough by the nominated undertaker, and the nominated undertaker can make arrangements with your petitioners to mitigate the impact of any such works.

12. Your petitioners also note that the promoter is arranging for deliveries of material to be made to the worksites outside the suggested periods of time for construction work, which could result in deliveries being made to worksites up to 10.00pm on weekdays. Your petitioners are always willing carefully to consider the movement of abnormal loads along the highway outside their normal construction hours as set out in paragraph 11 above. The movement of loads along the highway up to 10.00pm at night would, however, be an increase well above normal construction hours, and could result in lorries moving heavy loads well into the evening, causing danger to pedestrians and other traffic, particularly in poor weather or during wintertime, and noise and inconvenience to the residential and business areas through which they would travel. Your petitioners therefore request that the delivery times should be limited to the normal hours of construction work of 8.00am to 6.00pm adopted by your petitioners. Should it be necessary for deliveries to take place outside the normal hours of construction work, your petitioners request that all such deliveries should be agreed in advance with your petitioners, so that the reasonableness of the request can be considered and as much notice as possible can be given to residents and businesses within your petitioners' Borough by the nominated undertaker, and the nominated undertaker can make arrangements with your petitioners to mitigate the impact of any such deliveries. The promoter should also put in place sufficient provisions to ensure the safety of the public, particularly pedestrians, at all times.

13. Your petitioners would hope and expect that, through the process described in paragraphs 10 to 12 above, uniform hours of operation for the different worksites will be agreed with the promoter. Your petitioners will be seeking to ensure that the promoter agrees to such requirements.

P:\CROSSRAIDBrentwood\Petition final.doc r If no agreement can be reached, your petitioners submit that the promoter should be required to adhere to your petitioners' uniform hours of work.

14. Your petitioners are also concerned to ensure that the nominated undertaker is required to adopt the very highest standards in respect of mitigation of the effects of noise, dust and vibration caused during the construction period and in particular that the Construction Code replicates your petitioners' best practice requirements imposed on other major construction projects in their Borough. There should also be a guarantee that any future changes to industry standards will also be complied with. The nominated undertaker should be required to carry out noise sensitivity property surveys in advance of any construction works and notify your petitioners and seek their agreement to any proposed changes to uniform hours of working.

15. Your petitioners are concerned about the potential effects on road traffic, pedestrians and property owners near to and en route to worksites. Your petitioners are concerned to ensure that all of the residents, businesses and property owners in their Borough are properly compensated for damage caused by the construction and use of Crossrail and most importantly that they are consulted fully as regards the construction programme at worksites.

16. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should provide detailed plans, method statements, work programmes, and schedules of deliveries (particularly abnormal deliveries) in relation to each working site, well in advance of the commencement of operations. Your petitioners should be notified well in advance of any alterations in methods of construction and construction operations, particularly in relation to site servicing and set up arrangements.

17. Your petitioners are concerned about the number of trees which may be lost due to construction activity and submit that the number of trees to be lost should be kept to a minimum and that a detailed mitigation strategy as regards tree loss should be provided by the nominated undertaker. Any trees lost should be replaced to the satisfaction of your petitioners.

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petitionfinal.doc 18. Your petitioners seek undertakings and assurances from the promoter as regards the management of construction worksites so as to prevent loss of amenity to your residents in your petitioners' Borough during the construction period. The physical area of each proposed worksite should be kept to a minimum, with the safety of the public, whether pedestrians or other road users, being of paramount importance. This should also apply to potential impacts on residents and businesses.

19. Your petitioners are concerned about the wider impact of construction related activities on the public realm, for example the impact that dust generated from worksites would have on properties in the vicinity. Property maintenance would need to be carried out on a more frequent basis.

20. Your petitioners submit that all worksites should be screened to reduce the visual impact of the sites upon the residents and businesses within your petitioners' Borough, as well as to help reduce the impact of noise and dust from the worksites. Your petitioners request that they should be consulted upon the design and structure of the planned screens for each worksite, so as to ensure as far as possible that the screens are effective and do not impact upon the local amenity.

21. Traditional vehicle and reversing alarms have the potential to cause disturbance to nearby residents and businesses. Alternative methods exist to minimise this disturbance, whilst complying with the need to protect the health and safety of workers at the construction sites. Your petitioners are anxious to seek an assurance that, wherever practicable, banksmen or a less intrusive form of audible alarm will be used.

Construction Traffic

22. It is clear that both the construction sites in your petitioners' Borough will be centres to and from which quantities of construction materials and equipment will be transported, together with staff. There will also be the potential problem of removal of excavated material from the working sites. The matters which your petitioners submit should be subject to their control in this respect are the routeing of lorries and other vehicles,

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentvvood\Petition final.doc -7 access to work sites, hours of operation, number of vehicle movements and size of vehicles and miscellaneous related matters. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should be required to use every endeavour to utilise rail for transport purposes. The nominated undertaker should also be required to minimise the cumulative impact of lorry movements by properly managing lorry movements, keeping the number of movements to a minimum, using the strategic road network and confining movements to normal worksite hours. Furthermore, it is not made clear how the Bill will interact with the Traffic Management Act 2004, and your petitioners seek clarification or consultation on that issue.

Highways

23. Your petitioners are anxious about the consequences of surface road working and temporary and permanent stopping up and alteration of highways. Your petitioners' anxieties relate to the impact on pedestrian and vehicular traffic flows, safety aspects, damage to the highway and loss of parking. Your petitioners are particularly concerned for the mobility impaired. Your petitioners submit that the nominated undertaker should be required to carry out such reasonable measures as your petitioners may specify, to allay their anxieties.

24. In particular, your petitioners require that they must be fully consulted on all proposals to make temporary or permanent road closures and traffic diversions and changes to traffic flow and about any physical alterations to the highway.

25. The powers under the Bill to close highways temporarily are very wide. The nominated undertaker would be able to close any street in your petitioners' area for the purpose of the works. The closure of most highways would require the consent of the highway authority, but for a number of highways only consultation with the highway authority is required. Your petitioners wish to secure that consultation is carried out properly, with a minimum period agreed between the highway authority, your petitioners and the promoter for notification of intended closures (with exceptions for emergencies).

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petition final.doc 26. Similar arrangements should be put in place for proposed diversions, changes to traffic flow and physical alterations to highways. Overall, procedures should be put in place to ensure proper highway management throughout the Borough. All such measures should take proper account of the safety of the public and ensuring adequate access and egress to and from premises.

27. Your petitioners submit that the promoter should be required to carry out detailed condition surveys before and after the construction period on land in their ownership which is to be and is affected by the proposals, particularly on highways which are to be used as worksites or which will be heavily used by construction traffic.

28. A significant number of car-parking places, some of which your petitioners are responsible for, will be lost temporarily during the construction period. The nominated undertaker should ensure that alternative spaces should be made available nearby to replace lost spaces and should be required to compensate your petitioners for lost revenue.

Acquisition of Council Land

29. Some land in the ownership of your petitioners is liable to compulsory acquisition under clause 6 of the Bill. Your petitioners may seek undertakings from the promoter that the extent of compulsory purchase should be limited either geographically or so that acquisition and use of your petitioners' land is on a temporary basis only. Your petitioners also wish to ensure that they are properly compensated as respects the acquisition and use of their land.

Vibration/Track Design

30. There are a number of buildings in your petitioners' Borough which are at or nearby the proposed works at the railway line and the stations, and which are likely to be sensitive to noise and vibration during the construction period and when the railway comes into operation. These

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petition flnal.doc Q buildings include residential and commercial properties. Your petitioners respectfully submit that the promoter should be required to ensure that vibration during the construction period is kept to an absolute minimum by the use of the most advanced technology and machinery. Your petitioners are concerned that noise and vibration, while meeting design standards put forward by the promoter, may still be radiated into buildings to an unacceptable extent. In your petitioners' submission, the nominated undertaker should be subjected to stringent design standards and, where the railway passes near to noise sensitive buildings, the nominated undertaker should be required to install additional appropriate procedures and design methods to inhibit the transmission of noise and vibration into such buildings. Those standards should adopt your petitioners' own best practice approach in relation to these matters. In your petitioners' submission, the Bill should also provide that the nominated undertaker should put in place a comprehensive consultation and noise monitoring scheme and be subjected to a compensation code where agreed noise and vibration standards are breached.

31. Your petitioners have already mentioned in paragraph 30 that the promoter should be required to use the best possible methods and equipment to minimise noise and vibration during operation of the railway. Your petitioners are also concerned to ensure that high standards are met in terms of the lifespan and maintenance of the running tracks. Appropriate standards should be incorporated in the contracts between the Secretary of State and the nominated undertaker to ensure that the nominated undertaker meets those standards.

Operational Railways

32. Your petitioners are also concerned about the impact of the construction of the railway on existing rail services at Shenfield station and the operation of the station itself. Shenfield is an important mainline station for commuters travelling into London. It provides a fast non-stop route into , and Shenfield station is therefore used by many commuters across your petitioners' Borough and beyond. As mentioned at the beginning of this petition, your petitioners have serious

P:\CROSSRAlL\Brentwood\Petition final.doc 10 doubts about whether Crossrail will provide any benefits at all to residents and businesses in their Borough. They cannot see any advantage in the proposed extension of Crossrail to their Borough. They submit that the railway should terminate either at Stratford or , where there would be benefits to those using the line to access London, Heathrow Airport, or the west of , and that it should not be extended to your petitioners' Borough. If your Honourable House is of the view that that Crossrail should extend, as proposed, to Shenfield, then your petitioners seek assurances and undertakings from the promoter about the effect of construction operations on Shenfield station, and in particular wish to ensure that service patterns are guaranteed.

33. Your petitioners have more general concerns about the modelling and capacity of Shenfield and Brentwood stations within their Borough. Your petitioners are particularly concerned to ensure that the promoter takes the opportunity to make the best possible provisions for interchange between Crossrail and other existing lines and that the stations are designed to cater for projected passenger growth in the future. They are also concerned about the impact of pedestrian movements of passengers entering and exiting the stations. Your petitioners require that the station designs should ensure that sufficient provision is made in relation to footway widths, pedestrian crossings and other pedestrian amenities.

34. Your petitioners request that the promoter should provide full access and interchange capability for people with disabilities at both stations within their Borough, and that the Bill in its current form should not proceed without such provision being made.

35. Your petitioners wish better to understand the way in which Crossrail will link with other railways, including those of Network Rail, particularly where existing track layouts require alteration.

36. Your petitioners are concerned about the impact which the construction works will have on railway services in your petitioners' Borough. Your petitioners note that, understandably, there will be times when the nominated undertaker will need to take possession of the existing tracks. This will inevitably cause disruption to passengers coming in and out of your petitioners' Borough and they therefore seek assurances and

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petition final.doc 11 guarantees that such track possessions will be kept to a minimum and suitable compensatory measures employed in conjunction with your petitioners' relevant responsibilities.

Archaeology

37. Your petitioners are concerned that the proposals relating to the protection of archaeological heritage should be sufficient, and reflect the importance of their Borough's archaeological resources. Your petitioners have perceived a need for the nominated undertaker to provide adequate opportunity and funding for archaeological investigation in respect of each of the construction and work sites. In your petitioners' submission the appropriate authority should be required to agree a programme of such work with your petitioners, and English Heritage. Your petitioners also submit that the funding of this should be borne by the nominated undertaker.

38. Your petitioners are particularly concerned about the impact of the proposed Crossrail project on Brentwood station, especially with reference to the remains of the original Eastern Counties Railway station. Your petitioners therefore request that the promoter should carry out a heritage appraisal on the impacts of the Crossrail scheme on Brentwood station prior to the commencement of the works, and to make arrangements where possible for the conservation and recording of historic remains at the site.

Authorisation procedures

39. In line with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, the Bill contains provisions which provide outline planning permission for the development authorised by the Bill and disapply a number of other statutory regulation regimes which would normally apply in relation to the construction of works, including the listed buildings and conservation area controls in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Your petitioners wish to ensure that if

P:\CROSSRAlL\Brentwood\Petitionfinal.doc 12 those controls are to be removed or suspended then in their place there is a robust alternative approval mechanism in each case, in which your petitioners play a full part. Your petitioners will, in conjunction with other local authorities affected by the Bill, be seeking to ensure that such arrangements are put in place, but if that is not achieved then your petitioners would respectfully request that the promoter be required to accept satisfactory arrangements including realistic timescales for the consideration of applications.

40. As part of the alternative consent regimes mentioned above, your petitioners must be able to recover from the promoter or the nominated undertaker their full costs of processing applications of all types. Your petitioners note that the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to make an order relating to the payment of fees to the local planning authority in respect of requests for detailed planning consent. Your petitioners are pleased to note this, but seek assurances from the promoter about the level of those fees and the ability of the promoter to cover their costs in all respects, not just planning.

Contaminated Land

41. The promoter states in the Environmental Statement that, due to Shenfield station having been in use for a period of approximately 150 years, there is potential for contamination to be present at the site. There is also likely to be some contamination at the Brentwood station site. Your petitioners require the nominated undertaker to carry out, at their own expense, full and careful monitoring of the sites prior to, during, and after completion of the construction works to ensure that no contamination occurs. The nominated undertaker should take all appropriate precautionary measures to ensure that any contaminated material is identified and disposed of properly and is not allowed to contaminate the surrounding area, and should clean and decontaminate the sites thoroughly prior to the commencement of rail services at the worksites.

P:\CROSSRAIl\Brentwood\Petitionfinal.doc 13 42. As part of the authorisation process for the works, your petitioners will be required to follow Government guidance on contamination, such as that contained in CLR11 and PPS23, as well as generally under Part HA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Your petitioners note that there is no undertaking currently in the Environmental Statement or any accompanying documents for the promoter to provide to your petitioners all necessary information to enable your petitioners properly to check compliance with statutory reporting requirements, statutory investigation, and remediation requirements, and request that the promoter should be required to give such an undertaking.

Social. Economic and Community Impact

43. Your petitioners recognise and warmly welcome the fact that the Crossrail proposals will provide a large number of employment opportunities during both the construction and operation phase. Your petitioners are keen to ensure that the nominated undertaker takes steps to seek to promote employment of local residents both temporarily and permanently. They would also wish to advocate and promote contact with local businesses to provide goods and services. More information and assistance needs to be given to affected businesses to help them understand the impact of constructing and operating Crossrail, both through the process of obtaining consent, and its construction and operation.

44. Your petitioners have been concerned that the consultation so far carried out by the promoter of the Bill with local residents and businesses has not met the standards which your petitioners would expect. They respectfully submit that the promoter should be required to ensure that the nominated undertaker will put in place a comprehensive public relations strategy ensuring that information about the construction and operation of Crossrail is disseminated to those residents and businesses who will be most affected. This should include the setting up of local information centres during the construction period to be staffed at reasonable and accessible hours.

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petition final.doc 14 Noise Impact of Static Sources

45. The promoter is proposing to carry out extensive station improvements at both Brentwood and Shenfield, which in all probability will involve the installation of fixed plant and machinery which may have a noise impact. The promoter has chosen to use a criterion for assessing the noise impact static sources will have on residents that is less stringent than that normally employed by your petitioners from other commercial or industrial developments. By doing so, the noise impact from this 24-hour operational facility has been underestimated. Adoption of the criterion proposed by the promoter would seriously undermine your petitioners' position with future commercial and industrial developments, resulting in increasing noise levels. Your petitioners require the nominated undertaker to reassess the noise impact in accordance with good practice adopted in your petitioners' Borough. Your petitioners further require that the nominated undertaker carries out additional mitigation measures to ensure that the noise impacts identified in the Environmental Statement are not worse when assessed against the revised criterion.

Noise impact of operation of the railways

46. No mention is made in the Environmental Statement of whether there will be any tannoy system at either Brentwood or Shenfield stations, and your petitioners seek reassurance from the promoter that none will be in operation except in cases of emergency or for genuine health and safety reasons. If a tannoy system is to operate at the stations, your petitioners request that measures should be taken to ensure minimum disruption due to noise, and that it will operate only within set hours to be agreed between your petitioners and the nominated undertaker.

47. Your petitioners understand that, when trains are moving off at the beginning of a journey, part of the safety checks undertaken by the train driver includes the sounding of the train's horn. Your petitioners submit that this could cause disturbance to those residents near to the stations, particularly in the early mornings and late at night, and seek reassurances that such practices will not be permitted in the stations

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentvvood\Petitionflnal.doc 15 within their Borough. If it is not possible to prevent such practices, your petitioners request that the nominated undertaker should be required to take all necessary measures to reduce the impact of the noise as much as possible.

Site Specific Concerns

48. Your petitioners have specific concerns about the proposals suggested by the promoter relating to the two station sites, Shenfield and Brentwood, within your petitioners' Borough.

Shenfield Station.

Loss of car-park space

49. It is proposed that the car-park on Friars Avenue belonging to your petitioners will be used as a worksite for the platform and siding works at Shenfield station. The works are anticipated to take up to a year. A total of 54 car parking spaces will be lost (not 52, as stated by the promoter), which the promoter assesses will have a significant impact upon those who use the station. Your petitioners draw to your Honourable House's attention the fact that the 54 car-parking spaces amount to half of the off- street car-parking facilities which your petitioners provide in the centre of Shenfield. Your petitioners raise significant revenue from the pay and display machines at this site, and your petitioners are concerned that the Bill should provide compensation for this loss.

50. Your petitioners are concerned that the reduction in car-parking facilities will affect local businesses. The Friar's Avenue car-park serves the Hutton Road shopping area, and its loss will deter customers from using shops and businesses in the areas. This will impact upon the businesses within the Hutton Road shopping area, leading to loss of revenue to those businesses. Your petitioners are also concerned about the effect that the closure of the car-park will have on disabled and elderly drivers and those with young children. There are also 85 season ticket holders who would, if the promoter's proposals be adopted unchanged, have to compete for a

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petitionfinal.doc 16 reduced number of car parking space. Your petitioners note that the promoter has not taken such an impact into consideration in the Environmental Statement, and has not provided any proposals to mitigate against such loss of spaces. Your petitioners therefore request that the Bill should not proceed until the promoter has provided to your petitioners satisfactory proposals of the measures the promoter will take to compensate local businesses for lost business and lost spaces.

51. The promoter also intends to use the long-stay car-park at Hunters Avenue as a worksite for the construction of the sidings. This car-park is owned by Network Rail, and has a total of 225 spaces. According to the Environmental Statement, the car-park would be used over a period of a year and a half. The promoter concedes that the loss of this car-parking space will have a significant impact, as there are no alternative car- parking sites in the vicinity.

52. Commuters will undoubtedly resort to on-street parking, which will cause increased congestion and inconvenience to other traffic and pedestrians within your petitioners' Borough. Your petitioners do not consider that there has been sufficient investigation by the promoter of the necessity to use the Friar's Avenue car-park at all, or why only part of the car-park should be used, allowing for some places to be retained. Your petitioners request that the promoter should reconsider such plans, and that the Bill should not proceed further unless amended to leave a good number of spaces available for cars to park within Friar's Avenue and Hunters Avenue car-parks. The promoter should investigate alternative locations for a car-park if the worksites cannot be located elsewhere. If necessary, the promoter should secure the necessary rights to alternative land and provide a park and ride service if the alternative is a significant distance from Hunter's Avenue and the station.

Movement of worksite traffic

53. Your petitioners are concerned about the accuracy of the figures given regarding lorry movements to and from Shenfield and Brentwood stations and that they may not be sufficiently robust. Estimates have changed greatly since initial indications were given. Your petitioners are concerned that the levels of works traffic to and from the construction

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petitlon final.doc 17 sites are going to be higher than the promoter anticipates, leading to greater noise and pollution than has been predicted. Your petitioners request that the promoter should give further details as to how the estimates of lorry traffic to these sites have been reached, that further studies be undertaken into the issue, and that assurances should be given that every effort will be made by the promoter to ensure that noise, traffic and pollution are kept to a minimum.

Environmental impacts

54. Your petitioners are concerned at the environmental impact of the work, particularly the visual impacts upon residents and businesses, such at those in Friars Avenue, Mutton Road and Talbot House, all in Shenfield. A number of trees may be lost due to construction activity, particularly at Friars Avenue and Mutton Road, and your petitioners request that tree loss should be kept to a minimum, and that any trees lost should be replaced. They request that a full survey should be carried out before, during and after completion of the works, to measure the impact of the works upon all vegetation at the station and sidings worksites, and that all steps to mitigate loss of common land, scrub-land and woods, and habitat for wildlife should be taken. Your petitioners note that the promoter is committed to offering supplementary planting to residents adjacent to or facing the railway at the station and sidings, and would request that this should be formalised in an agreement or undertaking by the promoter.

55. Your petitioners note the measures which are to be taken in the eventuality that populations of newts are found in the vicinity of the works in Mutton Mount. They request that further details of these measures should be agreed with your petitioners prior to commencement of the works.

Construction impacts

56. Your petitioners are concerned about the impact of fixed plant at Shenfield station. They note that cranes, ground-breaking equipment, excavators, piling rigs and mechanical breakers will be used at the site. Your petitioners are concerned that noise, vibration, dust, and pollution from construction of the station and sidings will have a very significant

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petitionfmal.doc 18 impact on residents of the area. The promoter estimates that there will be some 252 residential properties which will be affected by noise from construction of the works, with 144 expected to require noise insulation. Of these 144, some 35 are expected to require temporary re-housing. Your petitioners are gravely concerned that the criterion used by the promoter in assessing noise pollution are more relaxed than that applied to all planning applications for commercial and industrial activities in your petitioners' Borough, or any other local authority along the Crossrail route, and request that the promoter should be required to carry out further assessments using the criterion normally used by your petitioners. Furthermore, your petitioners wish to ensure that the promoter will take the very best measures to ensure that mitigation is sufficient so as to obviate the need for any re-housing.

Brentwood Station

Loss of car-park space

57. It is proposed that the car park at Brentwood station will be used as a worksite for operations at the station. This will result in the loss of 18 spaces for those using the station for the duration of the works. The promoter suggests that the forecourt of the station should be used as a replacement parking area, but, as the promoter concedes, this area is a public highway and your petitioners are concerned that it would not be possible to use it for parking cars. In that event, the promoter should come forward with alternative measures to replace the lost car parking spaces.

Access to the worksite

58. Your petitioners are also concerned about the possible congestion which will be caused when lorries are trying to access the worksite at Brentwood station. The promoter envisages that lorries will have to manoeuvre in and out of the station forecourt, and that such operations would require consultation with the highway authority. As stated above, the forecourt of the station is a public highway, and your petitioners are concerned about the impact of lorries using the forecourt to manoeuvre in

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petitionfinal.doc 19 and out of the station, particularly if there are passengers and other vehicular traffic also trying to use the forecourt to access the station. Your petitioners request that the promoter should provide an alternative access site to the worksite at Brentwood station.

GENERAL

59. There are other clauses and provisions in the Bill which, if passed into law as they now stand, will prejudicially affect the rights and interest of your petitioners and other clauses and provisions necessary for their protection and benefit are omitted therefrom.

YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAY your Honourable House that the Bill may not pass into law as it now stands and that they be heard by themselves, their counsel, agents and witnesses in support of the allegations of this petition, against so much of the Bill as affects the property, rights, and interests of your petitioners and in support of such other clauses and amendments as may be necessary and proper for their protection and benefit. AND YOUR PETITIONERS will ever pray, &c.

SHARPE PRITCHARD

Agents for Brentwood Borough Council

P:\CROSSRAIL\Brentwood\Petitionfinal.doc 20 HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 2005-06

CROSSRAIL

PETITION

of

BRENTWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL

AGAINST,

BY COUNSEL, &c.

SHARPE PRITCHARD Elizabeth House Fulwood Place London WC1V6HG Parliamentary Agents