|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as
HC 837-ix HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Mr Brian Binley Mr Philip Hollobone Mrs Siân C James Kelvin Hopkins Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger Dr John Pugh Sir Peter Soulsby
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in. The Petition of The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington. MR RICHARD HONEY appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. BIRCHAM DYSON BELL appeared as Agent
2427. CHAIRMAN: Today the Committee is hearing the petition of the London Borough of Islington. May I remind everyone when addressing the Committee today and placing documents before the Committee that they are allocated a reference number, and please refer to the document by its number in your statements to ensure that transcripts of the proceedings are as clear as possible? I will now ask Richard Honey to make the case for the London Borough of Islington, for whom he is acting as Agent. Just before I do that, Mr Honey, may I bring in Ms Lieven? 2428. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I think the agreement was - and I have cleared this with Mr Honey - that I would make a short factual opening statement explaining what the Promoters were proposing at Farringdon Station, so that the Committee would understand factually what the position was before we come to hear the Petitioner's arguments to the Committee. I am not doing it to gain advantage, I am doing it because I hoped it would hep the Committee to understand what is being proposed. 2429. CHAIRMAN: That is perfectly acceptable, Ms Lieven. Before you do, Mr Honey I understand that one of your witnesses, one of your experts today has been taken ill and has had to go to hospital. Would you please send him our regards for a speedy recovery? You are in a difficult position at the moment on that particular element, but I hope that you can rectify that situation during the day. 2430. MR HONEY: Thank you very much, sir. I hope it will not cause too much trouble for the Committee today because there are two issues which we propose to put before the Committee, and the first of those can be dealt with entirely today and we can go through the evidence and make closing submissions on that, and I understand that there will be no objection to that from the Promoters, and I am grateful for the Committee's indulgence in relation to that and I hope we can come back before too long to call Mr Woodburn and conclude the second part of the case. 2431. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven? 2432. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much, sir. Before I start the opening may I say on document numbers that today is the start of what I hope is a brave new world. 2433. CHAIRMAN: We actually hope that it is every single day! 2434. MS LIEVEN: I cannot achieve everything, sir, but we are hoping so on document numbers. The system from now on is that the Promoter's documents will have the prefix P and will simply be numbered sequentially as they appear before the Committee. It is not high tech but we hope it will work. The first document will be P24 and we will renumber the ones that you have already had; but we are starting today with P24. Documents put in by Islington will have an Islington code number, which is ISLNLB, Islington London Borough, and then the number of the document, so 1, 2, 3 and so on. 2435. Sir, if I can start with a brief introduction to what is being proposed at Farringdon and start with the plan that appears in the Environmental Statement mapping, which we will call P24? You can see in the middle of the plan the two platforms, the Crossrail platforms, very much the same way as at Liverpool Street. There are two ticket halls proposed at Farringdon, like Liverpool Street. At the western end is what is called the Cardinal House ticket hall, being marked with the arrow, and that lies on Farringdon Road, which is the main road running north-south, and the corner of Cowcross street, which runs west-east, and the Committee will remember that we walked along Cowcross Street on the site visit. Opposite, if I do it on this plan, Cardinal House ticket hall is the existing Farringdon LUL station - and we will come back to that in a minute. Then at the eastern end there is a second ticket hall which is known as the Lindsey Street ticket hall, which adjoins the eastern end of Smithfield Market. And just to the north of the Lindsey Street ticket hall is a small emergency shaft, with which you will become familiar today as the Fox and Knot Street emergency shaft. I will explain why it is a separate emergency shaft in a moment when I come to the axonometric, if I may? 2436. If we then move on to the aerial photo, to give the Committee a little context on this, again you can see Cardinal House ticket hall at the western end and Lindsey Street ticket hall at the eastern end. What comes out quite usefully out of this is that you can see the Hammersmith & City, Circle and Metropolitan Lines, coming down from the north, going to Farringdon Station and then bending east to go off to Barbican Underground Station, which is there, and then off to Moorgate and Liverpool Street, off to the east. So that is where it links in with what the Committee has already become familiar. It is important to note Barbican Station because certainly Crossrail's view is that most of the interchange between Crossrail and the Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith and City Lines will take place at the Barbican end and not the LUL Farringdon end. The other thing to note from this aerial photo - this is where it comes out most easily - is Thameslink. Thameslink is the cross London network rail line that runs from Bedford in the north through to Brighton and Gatwick in the south. The main Thameslink line runs north to south through this plan, through Farringdon Station and then disappears under the car parks to the south, to the City Thameslink Station, which you may remember that Mr Weiss referred to, and then on to Blackfriars and London Bridge. There is, however, a spur to Thameslink, which goes into the existing Farringdon Station and then turns off east to Moorgate - and we will come back to that spur because it is intimately related to issues around Thameslink 2000, because that spur will be closed under the Thameslink 2000 proposals, which I will come to in a moment. 2437. If we could then move on to the axonometric? This is an axonometric of the entire Crossrail infrastructure works at Farringdon Crossrail Station - and I am not going to spend a lot of time on this one because we have the more detailed ones - and you can see the ticket hall at the western and eastern end. If we could then move direct to the western ticket hall, please? What you can see there is if one comes into the ticket hall at Cardinal House, on the corner of Cowcross Street, the blue dots are the general passenger route and the red dots are the MIP route - and I will talk you through both, if I may, quite quickly. The blue dots, you come through the surface level ticket hall, so you do not have to drop down to the ticket hall, through the gateline and then through a very long set of escalators, one long drop down the escalators into the cross tunnel and on to the platforms; so a very straightforward movement there. You come through the gateline again and drop down in one long lift shaft down to platform level and then come out through a short passage into the cross passage and get on to the two platforms. So it is pretty straightforward at that end. And so that you can see what is going on on the axonometric, the blue is Thameslink and the pink and yellow is the Circle and Met Lines, for shorthand. So that end of the station is very straightforward. 2438. If we could then move to the eastern end of the station - a bit more complicated - and if we take the blue dots first you come into the Lindsey Street ticket hall, again a surface level ticket hall, through the gateline, down a short flight of escalators to a mid-level concourse, and if we go from there down to Crossrail you come down a long set of escalators, along a passage and then down another set of escalators on to the platforms. If you want to interchange with the Met or Circle Line then you go back to the mid-level concourse, so you come back up those escalators from Crossrail and you go to the mid-level concourse, and then if you are going eastbound you come to the northern part of the station and down the stairs - I think you go right there - that is on to the eastbound; and if you want to go westbound you come down the mid-level stairs back from that concourse that you have just seen. For mobility impaired persons you come to the gateline, follow the red dots, down a very short lift to the mid-level concourse and then cross that concourse and then down a much longer lift shaft down to Crossrail platform level. And if you go back to the mid-level concourse you can see that there is a lift next to the stairs which take you down to the eastbound platform for interchange; and there is another lift, which is quite difficult to see on the axonometric, that takes you down - it is marked, though, MIP lift - from Crossrail platform level to London Underground westbound platform. So there is MIP interchange on to both platforms. 2439. There is one complication at the eastern end, which is that this is a very constrained site. It is very constrained because of the presence of the Thameslink spur which goes across the site and that is the blue that you see on the plan. Because of that very constrained site it is not possible to get the emergency access shaft off the platforms, the eastern end of Crossrail, into the Lindsey Street ticket hall - the site is just too small - with the Moorgate line. Therefore, it has been necessary to construct a separate emergency shaft at the Fox and Knot Street site. The emergency shaft goes down to a mid-level chamber there, then it goes through two adits on to a short concourse level and then down a set of emergency stairs to platform level. All of that is designed to meet LUL's Station Planning Guidance on emergency access, and you can imagine the rules as to how big the shafts have to be and the stairs, and all those kind of things. 2440. So that is the basic layout of what we are proposing. There is a complication at Farringdon, which was going to come up today directly with Islington's case on Thameslink 2000. As the witness is not capable of being here today the case will not be presented, but I think it would still be most helpful if I explain what is being proposed at the western end with Thameslink 2000 so that the Committee sees it all at the same time. If we go back, this is now the western ticket hall with Thameslink 2000. As the Committee may know, Thameslink 2000 is a scheme promoted by Network Rail, through the Transport and Works Act procedure, which will increase the capacity on the Thameslink line. At Farringdon what that involves is significantly lengthening the Thameslink platforms in order to allow much longer trains. In order to do that lengthening two things have to happen: one is that they have to rebuild the platforms, which involves rebuilding Cowcross Street bridge and knocking down buildings in Cowcross Street, including a listed building; further, it involves closing the Moorgate spur because it is not possible to extend the platforms with the Moorgate spur of Thameslink continuing. 2441. As the Committee may know, or may indeed have picked up from the name, Thameslink 2000 has had considerable problems with its timing. The current situation is that it has recently gone through a second planning inquiry, the Inspector's report is awaited and following the Inspector's report there will have to be a Secretary of State decision, so that decision is expected some time this year, but it is not possible to pin down an exact date. 2442. Because of the difficulties that have arisen with the timing of Thameslink it has been considered necessary to plan Thameslink and Crossrail so that they are capable of being constructed separately, albeit there must be quality interchange between them. So the clear intent of the Promoter has been to have a Crossrail scheme which can be constructed without Thameslink but equally which provides interchange with Thameslink. What we have up now is the western ticket hall with Thameslink 2000 and the blue is the Thameslink scheme. What Thameslink will do is construct a new ticket hall on Cowcross Street, shown in blue, come through to a concourse, as has been shown there, and then drop down by stairs and lifts to the Thameslink level which is, as it were, subsurface level rather than deep level at that location. The interchange, assuming Thameslink goes ahead, which is part of the Crossrail scheme, is that one you can see if you go through the gateline in Crossrail, and you can then walk straight across, which involves the demolition of a wall, into the Thameslink ticket hall level and then drop down. So the interchange is simply that you come up to the Crossrail ticket hall, you do not go through the gate barrier but turn right, walk across the passive area between the two and then drop down to the Thameslink levels. We have a great deal more sketches on that but I do not think it is necessary to show them to you in any more detail at this stage. 2443. Can I then turn to what I understand is the issue that Islington will be promoting today, which is the Fox and Knot Street shaft, and I just want to show the Committee the visual image photo. The Fox and Knot Street emergency shaft involves demolishing the buildings at 38-42 Fox and Knox Street, which, if I can show you, is the entirety of that block - not the building behind but the block in front. (Indicating) 2444. There is a concern in Islington that the building makes a positive contribution - it is not listed - to the conservation area, and there is a dispute, which Mr Honey will take you through, as to the degree to which the entirety of the building, the façade of the building or the features of the building should be retained. I am not going to say any more about that because this is an un-contentious opening and I just wanted to show the Committee the picture. 2445. Before I finish could I explain to the Committee that the Promoter has offered to Islington an undertaking in respect of this building because there is a concern that the building may not be commercially viable if it is demolished and then a shaft is put back because a proportion of ground floor level would be removed. So if we could put up the undertaking that we have offered. I will read it out: "The Promoter is aware that concerns have been expressed that the proposed over-site development in the conservation area at 38-42 Charterhouse Street may be too constrained to be commercially viable. In the assessment of viability the relevant planning policies covering the site will be taken into account. Should this site not, in the nominated undertaker's opinion, turn out to be commercially viable, the nominated undertaker will be required to work with the local planning authority and English Heritage to seek an appropriate solution for the site (such as erecting an appropriate façade), taking into consideration the relevant planning policies for the conservation area concerned and the quality of the buildings that existed prior to demolition, and to meet the cost of any reasonable works associated with that solution that he agrees are necessary. In recognition of the special circumstances in respect of 38 Charterhouse Street, additional undertakings are offered in respect of this site as follows. 1. As soon as reasonably practicable and in any event no later than two years after the commencement of construction of the Crossrail works on the site, the nominated undertaker shall submit appropriate planning applications for an alternative solution. 2. The nominated undertaker shall ensure that the alternative appropriate solution is completed in accordance with planning consents granted as soon as reasonably practical and shall use reasonable endeavours to ensure that it is completed no later than four years after completion of the Crossrail works at the site. 3. The nominated undertaker shall meet all reasonable costs associated with completing the alternative appropriate solution and all reasonable costs associated with maintaining any such solution. Alternative appropriate solutions will not include the erection of a building unless proposed by the nominated undertaker." Can I explain that last rather elliptical sentence? There are other sites where there are similar arguments about over-site development not being viable, and one that springs to mind is in Bloomfield Street. In Bloomfield Street there is a very small façade and a very big building behind, and we are concerned that we would not be required to rebuild the entire building; we would only be required to rebuild the façade, which is the bit that is important in townscape purposes. That is why we have put that caveat in at the end, to make it clear that in all the circumstances we will not be required to rebuild an entire building. When we come to cross-examination and so on I will come to the degree to which that applies at Fox and Knot Street. 2446. That was all I was going to say in opening as I have very deliberately sought to keep it factual. I do not know if there is anything with which I can help the Committee at this stage? 2447. CHAIRMAN: Mr Honey. 2448. MR HONEY: Thank you, sir. Sir, the London Borough of Islington has responsibility for the control of development within the borough and the protection of the interests of all of those who live and work within the borough. Sir, as you have seen, the Crossrail line passes through the borough north of the City of London and in particular passes through the borough at Farringdon. The borough supports Crossrail but is concerned to see that it produces the best possible transport system available and indeed does the least environmental harm within the borough. 2449. The borough has petitioned this House about a number of matters. We anticipate satisfactory arrangements being in place with the Promoter in relation to a number of those and I do not propose to trouble the Committee about those matters, but for the sake of the record I do reserve the borough's position to petition in another place, if necessary. There are two matters of concern, however, remaining unresolved and it is about these that the borough petitions the Committee today. The first is in relation to the building you have seen at number 38 Charterhouse Street. The Bill seeks the power to demolish that building. It is a building in the Charterhouse Square conservation area, which the borough thinks is a very fine building which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The Bill includes the power to demolish the building without seeking the usual conservation area consent for demolition from the borough. It is important to note, sir, that this building is not to be demolished for any of the permanent works being built on the site but merely to provide additional working space for the construction of the escape shaft. Sir, the borough considers that because the building is so fine it should not be demolished unless absolutely necessary. The borough has appointed its own engineer to examine matters in some detail and his conclusion is that it is not necessary to demolish the building at all. Even if the Promoter is not willing to make the few slight amendments that are necessary to preserve the whole of the building the scheme can be built precisely as intended and safely whilst leaving number 38 substantially intact. The borough's concern about losing such a fine building is, as you have heard from Ms Lieven, exacerbated by the fact that the site of number 38 may not be viable for redevelopment for a high quality replacement building, and that is in particular because of the small size, awkward shape of the building and indeed the need for a high quality design in order to fit in with a conservation area. As I say, this exacerbates the borough's concerns because there is a real danger that if this building is demolished a gap will be left in the conservation, if not permanently at least for some considerable time to the real detriment of the area. 2450. Sir, the borough will call evidence today from two witnesses on this issue. The first is Mr Alec Forshaw, who is Conservation Manager for the borough; and secondly from Mr Brian Morton, who is the expert engineer, experienced in both civil engineering and heritage matters, retained to advise the borough. 2451. Sir, I will deal briefly, if I may, with the second issue about which the borough petitions the Committee, with which we will not deal today but just to put the issue before you. That is in relation to the western ticket hall at Farringdon. At the moment, as you will be aware, there is an existing London Underground Station, Farringdon Station, at Cowcross Street. Thameslink 2000, expected to be the subject of a decision by the Secretary of State later this year, is proposing a new separate station in Cowcross Street, and so is Crossrail. It is likely, therefore, that we are going to end up with three separate stations at Farringdon, in Cowcross Street, all with different entrances and in different locations. There is no reason, in our submission, why the two new stations for Thameslink 2000 and for Crossrail cannot be accommodated together. Sir, you have seen a proposed drawing this morning which shows the plan to integrate the two buildings for Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail if they go ahead, and in essence all that is required is that the wall between the two is knocked through. In the borough's view that is simply not good enough. If these two stations are not properly accommodated together then Crossrail is going to be an example of how London almost had a world-class transport system but how it fell at the last hurdle, and this is going to cause harm, we say, not just for London as a City but for those who live and work in the borough and who need to use these stations. In relation to this the borough proposes to call evidence from Mr Murray Woodburn, who is the Transport Leader for Partnerships and Projects for the council who is, as I have indicated, unfortunately unavailable today. 2452. Sir, in conclusion we do not think that the two points of principle we are putting forward in this case are contentious; they are merely calling for what we hope is commonsense and joined up thinking, and if the principles are accepted it is simply a matter of finding acceptable solutions which work. The borough has carried out considerable work of its own analysis and planning to be able to consider what is possible and believes that practical solutions are readily available, and the borough hopes that this Committee will provide the will to make those solutions happen. That was the opening I propose to make. If you are content I will move now to call the first witness, who is Mr Alec Forshaw.
MR ALEC FORSHAW, Sworn Examined by MR HONEY 2453. MR HONEY: Mr Forshaw, can you begin by giving the Committee details of your qualifications? (Mr Forshaw) I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. I hold an MA and a Diploma in Town Planning and Civic Design. I have worked at the London Borough of Islington for 30 years and I hold the post of Conservation and Design Manager, and my job is to advise the borough on building conservation and urban site matters. 2454. Could you identify by way of introduction what you are going to deal with in your evidence? (Mr Forshaw) I am giving evidence in support of the London Borough of Islington's objections to the proposal to demolish number 38 Charterhouse Street as part of the construction works of Crossrail. The borough does not consider that this building should be or needs to be demolished. 2455. On what is your evidence based? (Mr Forshaw) Based on the architectural and historic value of number 38 and the contribution it makes to the character and appearance of the Charterhouse Square conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings. 2456. Could you go on to explain briefly the historic background to the building at number 38? (Mr Forshaw) 38 Charterhouse Street was built in 1876-77, following the construction of the new Smithfield Meat Market by the City Corporation, which opened in 1868 and the consequent realignment of Charterhouse Street, and my map, which is figure 1, shows that. 2457. That is tab 1 in the bundle and I understand that that is document number 35. Please highlight on there the area we are talking about. (Mr Forshaw) It is outlined in red and that shows number 38 and 40-42 Charterhouse Street, at the junction of where Charterhouse Street splits. The other part of Charterhouse Street is the ancient, medieval street which ran into Charterhouse Square and towards the medieval Charterhouse. The Victorians provided a new east-west Charterhouse Street on the north side of the market, leading out of the south side of Charterhouse Square, and the site we are talking about sits at the apex of where the two bits of Charterhouse Street divide - quite a narrow and acute angle, as you can see. 2458. What is of particular interest as far as the building is concerned, given its position on the site there? (Mr Forshaw) It occupies a pivotal position on this triangular site; it has a very distinctive wedge shape and flat iron design. It might be worth putting up a photograph, which is exhibit 2 and 2A, which shows the corner. 2459. So starting with Islington numbering afresh these will be Islington documents 2, 3 and 4, and in sequence they will be tab 2, tab 3 and tab 4. Mr Forshaw, please briefly explain what we see in these photographs and what is of interest. (Mr Forshaw) What you are seeing is a sharply rounded corner which faces the market buildings, elaborately decorated and it includes the crest of the Corporation of London. If we look at some of the other photographs following, 2B, that is the elaborate corner, highly decorated stonework. That is the ground floor with the portico of granite columns and carved stonework balustrading. 2460. So overall what do you have to say about the detailing of the building? (Mr Forshaw) It is well decorated; it is a handsomely proportioned building; it is a very good example of commercial Victorian architecture of this period. 2461. Can you go on to explain how the building relates to its surroundings, referring to any photographs you have? (Mr Forshaw) If we move on to the next photographs, tab 3, A, B and C. 2462. They are, as I understand it, tab 3. Please explain what we can see there and what is of particular interest? (Mr Forshaw) It relates very strongly to an ensemble of nearby Victorian buildings, some listed some unlisted. If you look at the next one, this shows the prominent tower as one of the four corners of the Grade II style listed Horace Jones architect meat market building. We can see how close it is and it relates very, very strongly to this really very important ensemble of Victorian buildings. 2463. What contribution does it make overall to the character and appearance of the conservation area? (Mr Forshaw) It contributes very positively to the character of the area. We have views looking both ways and it sits on the other side of the street from the meat market, and it provides an enclosure to the historic street pattern and contributes very, very positively to the character of the area. If you imagine the area without that building it would be significantly worse. 2464. Can you explain to the Committee what the view of English Heritage is about this building? (Mr Forshaw) Number 38 Charterhouse Street was considered for statutory listing by English Heritage in June 2005 but it was not in the end listed. They considered in conclusion - and this is quoting from their letter, "This high Victorian commercial building falls just short of the standards required of listing. It should be noted here that the criteria of statutory listing of a building that is post-1840 is very onerous and highly selective. It would normally require a known architect or a particularly outstanding attribute. It was concluded by English Heritage's adviser that it is clearly of strong local interest, linked to the nearby Smithfield Market and forming a strong component of the local scene." 2465. So turning to the issues arising in this case, can you explain briefly to the Committee what is proposed for this site? (Mr Forshaw) The proposal is to demolish both 38 and 40-42 in order to construct the emergency escape shaft at Fox and Knot Street. But it is important to realise that number 38 itself is not needed for the construction of any operation of the building, it will simply act as a cleared site and workspace during construction. Mr Morton will explain that the escape shaft can be built without the need to demolish number 38. 2466. Is there a plan that shows the site as ultimately intended? (Mr Forshaw) Yes, my figure 4. 2467. Tab 4, and what do we see there? (Mr Forshaw) This is looking at the top of the triangular site. You can see where the emergency staircase is; it sits within the site of 40-42 and does not actually require number 38, which is just left and labelled as a cleared site. 2468. So what is the borough's view about the need to demolish number 38? (Mr Forshaw) We believe that the Promoter has not tried hard enough to find a solution which can achieve the construction of the shaft whilst retaining number 38. 2469. The Promoter deals with this building in its Environmental Statement. Can you please tell the Committee what the Promoter says about it in the Environmental Statement? (Mr Forshaw) It says in particular in paragraph 8.8.59 that the development of the eastern ticket hall shaft structures will create a significant void through to the frontage. This will be out of keeping with the original massing of buildings on the site and surrounding buildings. Together with a separate emergency escape shaft on Charterhouse Street it will result in a significant adverse impact on the character and quality of the local townscape, including the character of Charterhouse Square Gardens, which is a London protected square. There will be significant impacts on the Charterhouse Square conservation area and on the setting of the adjacent Smithfield conservation area resulting from the demolition of buildings currently making a positive contribution to the conservation area. 2470. Just for the record, that is Volume 2 of the Environmental Statement, page 195, paragraph 8.8.59. Thank you, Mr Forshaw. What is your response to that? (Mr Forshaw) They are acknowledging that it is a building that contributes positively and that is precisely why we think efforts should be made to retain the building and that it is not necessary to knock it down. 2471. The Promoter has considered in this case simply retaining the façade of the building. What is your view about façade retention in this case? (Mr Forshaw) It is a fall-back position if all other options have been considered and rejected. Because the building is not statutorily listed the retention of the interior is not of any great concern or indeed within any ability to control by the local authority, but the interior is perhaps important to the extent that it would assist in maintaining the structural integrity of the facades during the works. It is the facades of the building that are important and it is important if you are going to retain those facades that it is done in a sensible and safe manner. 2472. What are the implications as far as the Bill powers are concerned if the façade, or indeed the whole building, is to be retained? (Mr Forshaw) If the whole building is retained, or indeed the vast majority of the building, then you would not require conservation area consent to demolish it. Therefore, the Bill should not take away, or would not need to take away, the powers of conservation area consent which the local authority currently enjoys. 2473. What is your professional opinion as to whether façade retention, or indeed taking down the building and rebuilding it, is a feasible option? (Mr Forshaw) To take the building down and dismantle and rebuild it would pose very substantial risks, I think, and indeed the end result might be unsatisfactory, so all the more reason to find a solution where you do not need to take the thing down at all and that would allow then the historical and architectural integrity of the fabric to survive. 2474. You have told us how the Environmental Statement deals with demolition. What does it say about mitigation of the significant adverse impact arising from the demolition of this building? (Mr Forshaw) The Environmental Statement says that it is likely that impacts can be reduced or mitigated through the provision of replacement buildings. The borough, however, has very serious concerns as to whether a replacement building would be provided on the site of number 38 Charterhouse Street. A replacement building would only be provided under current proposals if it were financially viable for the nominated undertaker. Furthermore, the council would disagree with the Promoter's suggestion that a high quality replacement building would in itself be a satisfactory replacement for a Victorian building. Loss of a good Victorian building will cause harm to the historic character of the area. The intrinsic character of this conservation area is its surviving historic buildings and it is particularly the collection of good Victorian buildings. Replacing historic buildings with good modern buildings does not give you a conservation area. It might give you a good ensemble of modern buildings but it is not preserving the intrinsic character and appearance of the conservation area. 2475. So what would be the result of the demolition of number 38 Charterhouse Street either permanently, leaving a clear site, as we have seen, or even where the undertaking proposes some rebuilding but some period afterward? (Mr Forshaw) The worst scenario is a missing tooth, a gap, and even with the Promoter's undertakings one might have a gap of several years, perhaps up to four years. Even if a solution is found where you can get a new building that is built or some sort of structure going up there, that is still a loss to the character of the conservation area. You have lost a historic building unnecessarily. 2476. You are concerned about the viability of a replacement building here? (Mr Forshaw) As we have seen from photographs and the plan, it is a very unusual and tight triangular site, very awkward. It has got a very large amount of street frontage compared to floor space. In purely economic terms the construction costs are likely to be higher than for a conventional rectangular building with a single street frontage. Also, the awkward shape of floors gives you a very poor net to gross floor area with a lot of circulation space compared to the amount of floor space you then get, and that is likely to lead to lower than normal rental returns. Also, as we have seen, we are right next door to the meat market which operates at night and in the daytime, and that too would probably reduce the rental values that you might get further away from the market, and particularly for residential development which is likely to be highly unsuitable. 2477. What would be required in terms of the standard of design and what implications, if any, will that have for the viability of redevelopment? (Mr Forshaw) In terms of the bulk of the building that is there at the moment, which is four storeys plus a mansard roof, so a total of five storeys, the borough would be very unlikely to give planning permission for a higher or more bulky building than currently exists and that in itself might affect the viability. We think there is a substantial risk that if it is demolished it may remain as a gap site following completion of the railway works. 2478. We have seen what the Promoter has put forward in the undertaking in respect of over-site development here. Can you say what your view is of the position that would place the local authority in and whether that is acceptable to you, even if it were to be operated without any problems at all? (Mr Forshaw) I think it places the local authority in a very unacceptably weak position. Seeking a solution does not necessarily mean that one will be found. Even if a solution is found and planning permission is granted for a replacement building the nominated undertaker might not agree to the costs, in which case presumably there is going to be some arbitration. Who is the arbiter to say that the costs are reasonable or not? The local authority would lack the powers that it normally has. 2479. Are there any other concerns arising on the borough's part as to how any replacement building would be realised? (Mr Forshaw) It is the delay. We are talking about, say, four years after completion of the railway works that something has got to be done. Four years is quite a long time, during which time there may be just a gap there. 2480. Can I ask you please just to sum up the issue in this objection? (Mr Forshaw) The Bill provides provision for 38 Charterhouse Street to be demolished and the borough contends that it is not necessary for the construction of Crossrail. We believe that the building contributes very positively to the character of the conservation area and should not be demolished without very good reason. We do not think that reason is there. 2481. I would like to turn now to deal as briefly as we can with the procedures involved under the Bill and contrasting with the procedures as they occur in the real world just so that we can see precisely what is being lost in this case. Can you please explain what existing protection the building enjoys at the moment even though it is not listed? (Mr Forshaw) The building is in a conservation area and has been since 1994 when it came within the London Borough of Islington following transfer of the boundaries of the City Corporation and was immediately added into the Charterhouse Square conservation area. Following the designation of conservation area and after public consultation we added this building to the list of buildings which we considered to contribute positively to the character and appearance of the conservation area which, because of their merit, should in normal circumstances be kept. We have policies which state that conservation area consent would not be given for the demolition or part demolition of these buildings unless there were special reasons which overrode the normal requirement to preserve and enhance the character of the conservation area. We have also, because Charterhouse Square is part of the Clerkenwell/Smithfield special policy area, put it within our unitary development plan. These policies have been through additional public consultation and public inquiry which have been supported by the Secretary of State, so the policies for 38 Charterhouse Square and its retention carry particular and special weight in this circumstance. 2482. What overall degree of protection is given to this building from demolition in normal circumstances? (Mr Forshaw) We have very strong powers at the moment to resist demolition. Demolition would require conservation area consent from the local planning authority. When faced with an application for demolition we would consult widely on it in public and with special amenity societies like the Victorian Society and the Islington Society. If we were minded to grant conservation area consent we would also normally put conditions on where we would not allow demolition before we had agreed the design of a replacement building and also we would put a condition on requiring the contract to be let for the construction of that replacement building before the existing building is demolished. 2483. Looking at that normal planning regime can you briefly outline what statutory protection applies to buildings in conservation areas as far as demolition is concerned? (Mr Forshaw) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 contains provision for protection of unlisted buildings in conservation areas. Section 74 of that requires that a building in a conservation area should not be demolished without the consent of the local planning authority. The guidance for how you deal with that is set out by the Government in its Planning Policy Guidance Note number 15 on planning and the historic environment. That states that there is a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. 2484. Within that guidance are there particular criteria that the Secretary of State expects to be taken into account when deciding whether to demolish conservation area buildings? (Mr Forshaw) The Secretary of State sets down in PPG15 that he expects the proposals for demolition of unlisted buildings which make a positive contribution to be assessed against the same broad criteria as proposals for demolishing statutory listed buildings. There are basically three criteria set out that we need to consider. First is the condition of the building, the cost of repairing it. The second is whether there are adequate efforts made to find a use for the building. Those do not really apply in this situation. It is the third which does, which is the merits of alternative proposals for the site. That is the criterion that we would need to look at here. Again, on that, the Secretary of State gives clear guidance. He says that there may very exceptionally be cases where the development would bring substantial benefits for a community which have to be weighed against arguments in favour of preservation. However, even here he says that it will often be feasible to incorporate existing buildings within new development and that this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative design to accommodate them. Those are the Secretary of State's words. 2485. Assuming that conservation area consent for demolition were given, what safeguards would normally apply in the event of demolition? (Mr Forshaw) The Secretary of State recommends that the local authority will need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. Consent for demolition should not be given unless there are acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment. In a situation where the demolition is being carefully scrutinised, either in terms of its necessity or in terms of the desire to salvage for reuse, then it would be normal practice to require a detailed method statement for demolition as part of conservation area consent. 2486. You have mentioned there plans for redevelopment and a method statement. Do we have any of those in this case? (Mr Forshaw) No, we do not. 2487. In addition to those are there any other safeguards which would normally be put in place to ensure satisfactory replacement? (Mr Forshaw) Again, the Government's guidance is, as I have said before, that conditions should be imposed that conservation area consent should have a condition to provide that demolition should not take place until a contract for the redevelopment has been made and planning permission for those works has been granted. In the Secretary of State's words, this is to avoid ugly gaps which have sometimes appeared in conservation areas as a result of demolition far in advance of redevelopment. 2488. Moving on to look at the provisions of the Bill could you please explain for the Committee briefly what the position is under the Bill and what is being lost by comparison to the normal statutory regime? (Mr Forshaw) Under Schedule 8 of the Bill number 38 Charterhouse Street could be demolished without the need for conservation area consent. The only opportunity to consider that is here under the provisions of the Bill. No-one would consider the merits of the case after this stage. The nominated undertaker would simply be able to demolish 38 if it wished. This means that all the requirements sought by the Secretary of State in PPG15 are overruled as well. 2489. Having regard to the undertakings that have been put forward, both generally in relation to over-site development and also in particular in this case, what approach is the borough likely to take to planning permission for a replacement building? (Mr Forshaw) The borough would be able to refuse unsuitable proposals for a replacement building which it considered to be harmful, or it could grant planning permission for an appropriate replacement building, but the borough would not have the power at all to ensure that a replacement building was actually built or that we would fill the gap side. 2490. Is there anything else that you wanted to say in relation to the planning regime? (Mr Forshaw) In terms of the western ticket hall, there is some concern that the Bill, whilst it allows some scenes of the external appearance of the operation of the buildings to be considered by the local authority, does not give powers for the local authority to consider how the station is integrated with Thameslink 2000. The restrictions under Schedule 7 of the Bill place the borough in a weak position in that respect. 2491. On what grounds does the Bill allow a borough to object to a design in relation to a building? (Mr Forshaw) It is really the external appearance of the ticket hall. It is very limited in terms of how the plan actually works in terms of its integration with adjoining buildings or adjoining stations. 2492. What particular issues would give grounds for Islington to object to a design that was being put forward under Schedule 7? (Mr Forshaw) The borough is concerned that the scheme is not well integrated with Thameslink 2000. We feel that Schedule 7 does not give us enough powers to be able to influence that. 2493. Can I ask you please now to sum up in conclusion your concerns in relation to what is proposed at number 38 Charterhouse Street? (Mr Forshaw) We consider that the complete demolition of 38 Charterhouse Street would be a very great loss to the character of the area around Smithfield Market. We believe it is not necessary. In our view we feel that every effort should be made to retain 38 Charterhouse Street as part of the Crossrail proposals in order to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the nearby statutory listed buildings, particularly the Smithfield meat market. 2494. So what are you seeking from this Committee by way of relief? (Mr Forshaw) We say that the Bill should be amended to delete number 38 Charterhouse Street from the table in Schedule 8 of the Bill so that the existing and normal requirements of conservation area consent for demolition are not removed for number 38 Charterhouse Street. 2495. What, if any, effect would that have on the Promoter's ability to realise its scheme for the escape shaft there? (Mr Forshaw) We believe that the shaft can still be satisfactorily constructed safely and the escape shaft can operate subsequently with number 38 Charterhouse Street being retained in place. 2496. MR HONEY: Thank you, Mr Forshaw. I do not have any further questions for you.
Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN 2497. Mr Forshaw, on that last subject, whether or not the shaft can still be constructed, I am not going to ask you about that. You are not the engineer. The appropriate person is Mr Morton, is it not? (Mr Forshaw) Correct. 2498. As I understand it, your evidence goes to two concerns. One is that a void is left in the streetscape if 38-42 is demolished and the second is that the quality of 38 justifies its retention? (Mr Forshaw) Yes, and the second point is where I would start. 2499. If I can start with the first, because that is simpler to deal with in its totality, so far as the void being left is concerned, can we go back please to the undertaking that I referred the Committee to a few minutes ago? That is P31. If one goes to the second part of that, what it requires the Promoter to do is, in subsection (1), to require the nominated undertaker to submit an appropriate planning application for an alternative appropriate solution within two years? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2500. And under the Crossrail Bill the London Borough of Islington remain the planning authority for any proposed new development on the Crossrail sites, do they not? (Mr Forshaw) They do, yes. 2501. So Islington will retain all its existing powers in terms of what application is or is not acceptable under (1)? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2502. Then, (2), the nominated undertaker shall ensure that the appropriate solution - and that is the appropriate solution which, hopefully, has been negotiated and agreed with Islington - is completed in accordance with the planning consents as soon as reasonably practicable and should use reasonable endeavours to ensure that in any event is completed no later than four years after the Crossrail works; yes? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2503. I understand the words "use reasonable endeavours" but, subject to things going in a reasonably foreseeable course, a building will be replaced on that site at the longest four years after the Crossrail works are completed. That is what (2) requires us to do. (Mr Forshaw) It depends what the procedure is for arbitration if no agreement is reached. This is assuming that the nominated undertaker will come up with an acceptable design. What if they do not? Who is the arbiter in this? 2504. One thing that is clear is that if the nominated undertaker puts in an application which Islington considers is unacceptable then there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, yes? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2505. So that would go along absolutely the normal planning control routes, would it not? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2506. So far as fine-tuning arbitration, for example, is concerned, has Islington come back to the Promoter and said, "Yes; we like what we see in (2) but we are concerned about some arbitration procedure"? (Mr Forshaw) We have not, no. I am looking at this now but that would be my question: who is the arbiter? 2507. That is your concern about (2). Then when we move on to (3), the nominated undertaker shall meet all reasonable costs associated with completing the alternative solution and all reasonable costs associated with maintaining any alternative solution. Just assume, because one has to some degree to assume goodwill and co-operation in these things, a solution comes forward which has a modern building but with retained features at the apex, and I will come back to that in a moment. Islington think that is acceptable; yes? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2508. Permission is granted for that to happen. There is then an issue about whether or not it is viable, ie, whether the market alone would take that forward. What (3) requires is that the nominated undertaker would carry the cost of making sure that that solution went forward, was built, yes? (Mr Forshaw) Yes, and again what is reasonable. That might be challengeable, I suppose, because they may feel that the costs are so high that it is not reasonable. 2509. They may do but, obviously, reasonableness is something that we are all familiar with as a concept. It does not give 100 per cent security but this gives a high level of security, does it not, that Islington will (1) be able to control the form of the building that goes back and (2) that the building will go back within a time limited period? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. It is saying completed no later than in four years. Four years is still quite a long time. 2510. You make reference in your evidence in chief to PPG15 and the requirements in it in the normal non-Crossrail situation as set out there. First of all, can I just put up one page from PPG15? It is only a background point, and this should be P32. This is the introduction section of PPG15 and it is only a small point, Mr Forshaw, but if one looks at 1.4, "Conservation and Economic Prosperity", it says that though choices sometimes have to be made conservation and sustainable economic growth are complementary objectives and should not generally be seen as in opposition to one another. There is in issues like this a balance to be struck, is there not, between economic prosperity and conservation, and a balance has to be drawn between the two? Can we agree with that? (Mr Forshaw) Balances always have to be struck, yes. What we are saying here is that the Promoter has not tried hard enough to retain 38 and that the choice does not have to be made in this situation. 2511. You have referred in PPG15 to the normal requirement that when a building that makes a positive contribution to a conservation area is to be demolished then at the same time plans should come forward for the replacement building and indeed normally a contract should be let. That is the normal situation, is it not? (Mr Forshaw) That is good practice, yes. 2512. Can we just think what that would mean in the Crossrail context? If, on every site in a conservation area, the Promoter had to come forward in the Bill with a proposed new development because that would be necessary in order to undertake and let a contract, then that would enormously prolong the business of this Committee, would it not? This is not an issue that only arises in Islington. There are conservation areas all along the route, yes? (Mr Forshaw) Yes.
2513. I would suggest to you that the approach which the Promoter has taken, which is not to put forward in the Bill over-site development at every site in a conservation area where a building is to be demolished, must be a sensible one on the facts of the Bill as a whole, must it not? (Mr Forshaw) It may well be, I accept that, but what is not sensible here is the desire to take 38 at all. It is simply not necessary. 2514. I understand that point and I will come to that with Mr Morton in detail in a few minutes. Can we then move to the specifics of number 38? Set aside the issue of the void being left and turn to your second issue, that the building itself is of a quality to be saved. First of all, there is no dispute: it is not a listed building, is it? (Mr Forshaw) No. 2515. And, as you alluded to in evidence in chief, it was considered for listing, I think, at the behest of Islington in August 2005. (Mr Forshaw) Yes, in June 2005, actually. 2516. I think the report is in August but that does not matter at all. In terms of the criteria for listing you did make some reference to this in opening. I just want to clarify the position. I have got a document which is produced by the DCMS and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the principles of listing. Can I just put the relevant page up and see whether we can agree it, and I think this ought to be P33. This is the DCMS consultation document on listing but I think the relevant paragraph is one that is standards. Towards the bottom of the page, at 6.11 we have got the listing considerations. Age and rarity are relevant considerations, particularly where buildings are proposed for listing on the strength of their historic interest. Do you see that paragraph? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2517. If we pop down about six lines, it says that after about 1840, because of the greatly increased number of buildings erected and the much larger numbers that have survived, greater selection is necessary to identify the best examples of particular building times, and only buildings of definite quality and character are listed. Can we agree that that is the test that English Heritage would have been applying? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2518. Can I ask you then to look at the adviser's report which English Heritage produced in reaching the decision that this building was not to be listed? Hopefully that document is going to come up on the screen. I assume you have it. It is the document dated 4 August 2005. (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2519. I think the Committee probably have copies of this but we can see it on the screen, and that should be P34. It sets out something of the context, and then it goes through something of the history, which I think you have already touched upon. Then in "Description" it says, "The claims to interest here are the distinctive wedge shape of the building, and the façade decoration, which is concentrated at the sharply rounded corner of one window bay. The two side elevations are much plainer and, viewed head on from Charterhouse Street and without the benefit of the corner, they are fairly unremarkable. The side elevations are of red brick with a prominent moulded cornice above ground floor, at the top and between each storey. The ground floor is marked out with a pair of pilasters between each bay. There is a Corporation of London crest on the apex. The ground floor has been quite changed internally for what is now a bar. Most of the first floor was accessible, this being an open space for additional bar seating and less altered, with a door out to the corner balcony." Under "Assessment" it says, "The majority of the building is marked by the handsome, but unextraordinary elevations to each side. The decorative attention is all focused at the corner, where the carved stone heads and crest, as well as pilasters in decreasing orders and the Corinthian capped granite columns flanking the entrance are fine. The side elevations, each of seven window bays, are perfectly respectable Victorian commercial architecture, but without the finesse or decoration that we see at the single corner bay. The shape of the building is indeed quite striking and it represents nicely the development ramifications of the large scale improvements that took place in this period. However, in summary, the interest is limited to the corner, the side elevations are relatively plain, and the interior has been modernised at ground floor level." The report then refers to a comparable building in Hackney. In "Conclusion" it says, "On balance, the interest is primarily in how the building makes an important contribution to the streetscape here, with its distinctive shape and fine corner carved stonework. However, the interest lessens beyond this, and the return elevations and the interior are unremarkable." This is the view of English Heritage; neither Islington nor Crossrail. I want to pick a few points out of that. Can we agree that there is no historic or architectural interested accorded here in the interior of the building? (Mr Forshaw) Yes, we do not have control over the interior of the building because it is not listed. 2520. No, but it goes a bit beyond that, Mr Forshaw. This is the English Heritage report which makes it quite clear that there is no historic interest in the interior of this building. (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2521. Equally, there is no suggestion in this report that there is any interest in the building as part of an ensemble of Victorian architecture of that age. Just for the Committee's purpose, you can get listing because you are part of an interesting group, can you not? (Mr Forshaw) You can, but their conclusion is that "it is clearly of strong local interest, linked to the nearby Smithfield Market and forming a strong component of the local scene". The word "component" implies that it is part of a group. 2522. It is part of a group but there is no suggestion in this report that there is any historic or architectural particular interest in it as part of that group. (Mr Forshaw) Not for the justified listing. 2523. Next, what the interest in this building does come from, I would suggest to you, is two things in this report. One is its very shape at the apex of this corner, the gridiron shape, yes? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2524. And the second, and we might go back to the photograph to make this point good --- and I have to say our photograph perhaps rather than yours because it is rather better. (Mr Forshaw) On a sunny day! 2525. The other thing that this report highlights as being of particular interest in this building is that corner apex, the stonework, the pilasters coming down and the columns at ground floor level. (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2526. That is the second particular feature of interest. So far as the side elevations are concerned, the report is entirely clear that these are an unremarkable bit of architecture. (Mr Forshaw) "Perfectly respectable Victorian commercial architecture", it says. 2527. Respectable but unremarkable. In terms of those two features that we have agreed on, first of all, the gridiron shape at this prominent corner, a replacement building over which Islington would have the control over the shape could clearly maintain that interest, could it not? A quality modern building at this location could take full advantage of that location or position and shape? (Mr Forshaw) Subject to viability, you could provide something of the same footprint, yes. 2528. Yes, but not just of the same footprint, I suggest to you, Mr Forshaw. It is a bit more than that. You could provide something of real interest on that corner. (Mr Forshaw) Possibly, yes, a modern building. 2529. So far as the features at the apex are concerned, which English Heritage has said are of particular interest, this (indicating), I think, is the Corporation of London thing, is it not, and then the stonework and then the columns. If the building was demolished it would be relatively straightforward to retain those features, ie, take them down and put them away in packing cases or whatever is appropriate, and store them, and, where one is talking about plaster features such as the balcony, to do mouldings on them. (Mr Forshaw) There is a substantial risk involved in taking something down and putting it in packing cases and bringing it back again. The Promoter accepts that there are risks there. There is also a considerable cost involved. If you can come up with a solution so that you do not need to do it, why spend all that money? 2530. We will come to money and risk with Mr Morton. It is not by any means unusual with a building where particular features are considered to be important to retain to take them down as part of the demolition of the building, retain them and then incorporate them in a new building on the site. (Mr Forshaw) It could possibly be done. You could do anything with enough money but there is always a risk involved that something goes wrong when you are doing it. 2531. If those two things were done, a building was replaced that took advantage of the shape of the site to highlight the apex and features which Islington believed were important, such as the stonework and pilasters, were retained, then the two most important features of the building highlighted by English Heritage could be preserved, could they not? (Mr Forshaw) Possibly, but what I want to say here is you are focusing entirely on the listing report. What we have here is an unlisted building, the whole of which is of interest in terms of the conservation area. Conservation area legislation was brought in to protect this sort of unlisted building, that is what it is there for. We have got powers to protect listed buildings, we had that before the 1967 Civic Amenities Act. This building has qualities in its own right, maybe not up to the standards required for listing, I accept that, but as a perfectly respectable Victorian commercial building and we would seek to try and retain the whole of the building. 2532. Can I ask you a few questions about that as a general approach, if I may? Ultimately, I think it is trite engineering that you can find a solution to almost any problem if you throw enough money, time and engineering expertise at it. It is possible to retain almost any building with sufficient resources and so on, but those solutions may themselves have costs, not just costs in terms of finance but costs in terms of programming and costs in terms of safety implications, yes? (Mr Forshaw) They may or may not. Mr Morton will go into that in more detail. 2533. Assume they do, and how many is an assumption I will put to Mr Morton, then it is always going to be the case, is it not, that one is going to balance up the quality of the building, the alternative methods of preserving the interest of the building, such as the new building retaining certain features, and implications in terms of cost, programme and risk of maintaining the building. There is obviously going to be a balance. If you are talking about a Grade I listed building, a 13th Century barn, then the balance tips in one direction. If you are talking about, say, and I am not saying this applies here, an unremarkable Victorian building that is mildly positive in the conservation area then the balance tips the other way. There has to be that balancing exercise, does there not? (Mr Forshaw) If you are looking at costs you are putting some assumed value on to a 13th Century barn. If you look at the costs themselves it may be that you would save money by keeping this building and not having to knock it down, not having to put up what is possibly going to be an expensive and subsidised replacement, subsidised by the Promoter. 2534. Can we just come back to the question? Do you accept the premise that in deciding where the balance lies the Committee, or any decision maker in these circumstances, has to balance out the quality of the building with the various costs of retaining it? (Mr Forshaw) Yes, there is a balance to be taken. 2535. If we are talking about retaining Big Ben through the construction of the Jubilee Line then a very large amount of cost in terms of money, programming and so on would be appropriate to put into retaining the building, yes? (Mr Forshaw) Yes, but where are those costs. We have not got them. 2536. Have you carried out any assessment of the cost of removing the interesting features of this building, the features at the apex, and storing them? (Mr Forshaw) No. 2537. My instructions are - I have to say I do not know whether this figure has been put to Islington, we can find that out during the course of the day - the cost of doing that is something in the region of £200,000 to £300,000. Does that sound to be in the order of magnitude you would be used to? (Mr Forshaw) I would need to see confirmation from expertise on that. 2538. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much, Mr Forshaw.
Examined by THE COMMITTEE 2539. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Can I ask a couple of questions. You may not be able to answer this. Has any work been done on moving the ticket hall out from the emergency exit underneath the market out through the basement? (Mr Forshaw) I do not know. 2540. The second question is the back of that building is just a brick building, is it not, it is not remarkable? It says "To Let" on those photographs. (Mr Forshaw) Yes. That is 40-42. 2541. Yes. The front bit is the wedge and behind there is a much later brick building. (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2542. It has got a "To Let" sign on it in the photograph. Is there anything remarkable about that bit at all? (Mr Forshaw) Nothing at all. 2543. It is just ---- (Mr Forshaw) It is just number 38. 40-42, which is the utilitarian building beyond, we have absolutely no objection to them pulling that down. 2544. Ms Lieven came up with a series of undertakings if the work has to be done. You have seen those, have you? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2545. Was that the first time you have seen them? (Mr Forshaw) It was the first time I have seen them in that form. 2546. Just as an initial response, did that allay your fears that they were trying to retain it or work round it or whatever? (Mr Forshaw) There is nothing there really about retaining the building or working round it. 2547. There was retaining the façade , was there not? (Mr Forshaw) Yes, but without a method statement and whatever I am very cautious about that. 2548. Last question. If the façade was retained as a shell façade with the work behind it, would that suffice? (Mr Forshaw) Possibly, yes. 2549. Is that a possibly yes or a possibly no? (Mr Forshaw) Possibly yes. 2550. We are the politicians! (Mr Forshaw) That is a fallback situation if there is no other way to do it. 2551. You would accept that? (Mr Forshaw) Façade retention would be an acceptable bottom line. 2552. MR BINLEY: I want to talk about façades because it is true to say that façades up and down the country and façade retention has a very variable quality about it, does it not? There are some good examples but there are also some appalling examples that simply look like an old building stuck on the front and dominated by a very modern one. (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2553. MR BINLEY: Is it right to say that you fear that the quality of façade retention might not be properly controlled if this clause stays in the Bill? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. There is always a problem with façades. Some of the poor façade retention schemes you have referred to are perhaps where developers try and cram in more floors than there are at the moment, so you get floors running across the windows and things like that and it looks a nonsense. Yes, there would be concerns about that. It is much better to try to keep the floors in place, or at least some of the floors in place, because that retains the stability of the façade as well. 2554. MS LIEVEN: Sir, can I just make one point clear? 2555. MR BINLEY: Can I finish my question, please? I would like to continue a train of questioning as you clearly did. 2556. MS LIEVEN: I am sorry, sir, but we are not proposing façade retention. 2557. MR BINLEY: I understand that, I am just asking a series of questions. 2558. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, sir. 2559. MR BINLEY: That is most kind. Let me go on to my next question which concerns the relationship between ---- Before I do, let me declare an interest. My interest is about the quality of planning over the last 50 years and its inability in many instances, to my mind, to take into account the import of local people's feeling of wellbeing and security in relation to the buildings around. I feel quite strongly about that so I give you that as a freebie, if you like. I am concerned that is not fully taken into account and I think this impacts upon your job quite deeply. I am concerned that is not fully taken into account when planners make decisions and sometimes people in your position find it difficult to relate the relevance of the two things together. Is that a fair comment to make in your experience bearing in mind all of the work you have done in this field? (Mr Forshaw) I think that is a very good point. There is quite a glib assumption that you can knock an old building down and put something else up in its place which will be adequate compensation for losing that old and cherished building. The familiar old buildings, even if they are not the most wonderful bit of architecture, are valuable things for local people: they help them relate to where they are, they give a sense of local place identity. That is what conservation areas are about, trying to retain that sense of local place. 2560. Thank you for that. One final question, and thank you, Chairman, for allowing me to ask these questions. We talked about the fact that it is okay because there is another building a bit like this in Hackney. That may be good from the perspective of an architectural buff who will travel distances to enjoy a given building but that does not relate to that concept of people living in an environment and relating to that building pretty much every day of their life, does it? (Mr Forshaw) No. 2561. That is a different perspective, is it not? (Mr Forshaw) Absolutely. 2562. We should also take that into account, should we not? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. That is precisely why the local borough had developed policies for this area which identified buildings of local importance which contribute positively to the character. The buildings are statutorily listed because of their national interest and they are looking for the best examples nationally. Indeed, there may be a better flatiron building in Hackney and they have listed that one rather than this but that is not really the point when it comes to the local scene. 2563. MR BINLEY: I am grateful to you. Thank you, Chairman. 2564. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I just wanted the Committee to be clear. This is a difficulty with the process by which we do not put our case at the beginning. Our evidence in the note that will be produced will clearly be that façade retention carries too many risks at this site and is not feasible. I have tried to be very careful to put to Mr Forshaw that it would be possible to take down and then put back the features at the apex but it is no part of our case that façade retention would be appropriate here for engineering reasons. I just want the Committee to understand that so we are not later accused of having misled anybody. 2565. KELVIN HOPKINS: I just wondered, according to your tab 7 drawing it seemed to imply that it is technically feasible to do the construction without demolishing the entire building, is that right? (Mr Forshaw) Yes. Mr Morton will speak to that. 2566. MRS JAMES: Are there any other designs by the gentleman, Benjamin Tabberer, in this area of the City? (Mr Forshaw) I do not know, I am afraid. I am not aware of any immediately adjacent to it. 2567. CHAIRMAN: Could you find out and let the Committee know? (Mr Forshaw) I could do, yes.
Re-examined by MR HONEY 2568. MR HONEY: Mr Forshaw, I was going to ask you about the undertaking, if that can be put back up on the screen. I understand that in this form this is the first time you have seen it this morning. If you can just take a moment to familiarise yourself with it, I want to ask you one or two questions arising out of what was put in cross-examination. First, does the undertaking have the Promoter doing anything to avoid demolition here or not? (Mr Forshaw) No, it is nothing to do with demolition; it is to do with a replacement building or other structure. 2569. If you could look at the paragraph numbered (2) and just take a moment to read that. (Mr Forshaw) Yes. 2570. In particular have a look at the actual obligation that the Promoter is taking on. Could you say does that require a building to be rebuilt within four years or at all? (Mr Forshaw) No, it is not talking about a building, it is talking about an AAS which is an alternative to a viable building. That might be some sort of hoarding or advert hoarding around the site. 2571. Is the obligation there saying that anything is going to be built or is it something less than that? (Mr Forshaw) It is in accordance with planning consents granted so the local authority would have the ability to refuse a planning consent for something it thought would not enhance the conservation area. I think it puts the local authority in a pretty weak position and if that is all we have recourse to then it is not a very strong position. 2572. You highlighted a moment ago that there is not an actual requirement for a building. What would it be if there was no building to be put there? What would occur under this undertaking, do you envisage? (Mr Forshaw) I guess some sort of hoarding or screening or something like that. Maybe a picture of what the building used to look like or something, I do not know. 2573. Would that be acceptable in your view? (Mr Forshaw) No, not compared to what we have there now. 2574. Perhaps if could have the picture of the building back up, I may refer to that in a moment. Questions were put to you about the normal situation with regard to PPG15, the Secretary of State's guidance, and what would be required usually under conditions there. Could you say for Crossrail to bring about the over-site development on the footprint of number 38, what would they have to do to realise that? (Mr Forshaw) They would need to apply for planning permission for a replacement building. That would go through the normal process. 2575. What would they have to put in place in addition to make sure the building was actually realised? (Mr Forshaw) They would have to provide us with a contract that the building would be built. 2576. So if it is necessary for over-site development to have planning permission and a contract in any event, if you were to require those things before demolition, what additional burden would you be putting on the Promoter in this case? (Mr Forshaw) We would be requiring them to come forward with a design and a developer who is prepared to build it. 2577. What more would it require than they were going to do anyway? (Mr Forshaw) It is a question of timing, is it not? 2578. You were taken to the English Heritage report which considered the building in the context of listing and it was put to you that there was fine façade decoration and I think it says there is fine corner carved stonework as well. Can you say what, if any, of that is proposed to be retained under Crossrail's current proposals, including the undertaking? (Mr Forshaw) None of it. There is no guarantee of keeping any of it. 2579. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that is going to happen and it will be rebuilt, that corner point, what limitations, if any, would that place on the viability of a replacement building? (Mr Forshaw) Quite a lot I would have thought. The building as it is at the moment, the other façades relate very well to the corner, they have still got the same rhythm of windows and whatever. Just to keep the façade and then put up goodness knows what either side of the apex, there would be quite a strong constraint on what you would get planning permission to have rebuilt there if you put in a new building and keep in the apex. That is likely to result in significant costs. 2580. Questions were put to you about retaining what were said to be the two most important features. Can you please just state for the Committee briefly what is the statutory and policy position in relation to demolition in conservation areas? What are we seeking? (Mr Forshaw) What is being sought here is conservation area consent to demolish the whole building. We believe that the building as a whole, all the façades are of a positive architectural and historic interest, it is not just the apex, the whole of the elevations are of interest here. They have a very good and strong rhythm and hierarchy to the floors. It is a very, very pleasing building to look at. 2581. How would what is proposed in terms of just retaining those two most important features measure up against the objectives for conservation areas? (Mr Forshaw) Very poorly. The objective of conservation areas is to retain buildings that contribute positively to their character. 2582. Thank you. Questions were put to you towards the end about it being necessary for there to be a balancing exercise taking into account the quality of the building, costs and so on. What evidence have you seen, if any, of that balancing exercise having been done by the Promoter? (Mr Forshaw) None. 2583. MR HONEY: Thank you very much. I have no further questions for the witness. 2584. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Forshaw. Mr Honey, would you like to call your next witness.
The witness withdrew 2585. MR HONEY: My next witness is Mr Brian Morton.
MR BRIAN MORTON MBE, Sworn Examined by MR HONEY 2586. Thank you, Mr Morton. If you are comfortable there and have all the documents in front of you can I ask you, please, for the benefit of the Committee to state your qualifications and appointments? (Mr Morton) I am a consulting engineer who has specialised in work on historic buildings for the last 40 years. In the Honours List last year I was awarded an MBE for my services to conservation of historic buildings. I am a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I have a diploma in conservation at the Architectural Association, unusually because there are few engineers who go down that path. I am a member of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. I have been working on historic buildings for some 40 years. I have worked on almost every sort of building that is conceivable and through my office have passed some 9,800 projects since I formed the company, mainly in the conservation area. 2587. Thank you. What public appointments do you hold as an engineer? (Mr Morton) I am engineer to Canterbury Cathedral. I am on the committee for the fabric of Westminster Abbey. As engineers, we have just completed the new tower at Bury St Edmunds Cathedral. We work very closely with English Heritage and we are trusted by English Heritage. We have a worldwide reputation for our work in conserving historic buildings. 2588. What is your original professional background? Do you have any experience of buildings in this area of London? (Mr Morton) Yes. It is probably worthwhile starting a little way back. I started working in power stations with Sir William Halcrow. I then joined a small firm of consulting engineers, where I worked for 11 years, where they were involved in historic buildings and that initially started me looking at historic buildings. We were involved in looking at vibration effects on cathedrals throughout the UK. As my experience progressed I became engineer on one of the first early 20 storey buildings in the centre of London which was constructed using a secant pile system, one of the earlier buildings that was done using that system. I spent two years in the district surveyor's office in Fulham in London where I was responsible as an assistant district surveyor for supervising the foundation work to multi-storey buildings and minor buildings. I was responsible for preventing the demolition of Barlaston Hall in Staffordshire where three other engineers had failed to put forward proposals where the building was proposed to settle some three metres over the next ten years. I went out for a private client for expenses only to Tortola in the British Virgin Islands and in opposition to seven engineers was able to put forward proposals for saving a government building there. Most interestingly, with regard to deep foundation piling, I was brought in as an arbiter between the City of London and English Heritage when negotiations broke down for the construction of a car park in the front of the Guild Hall some 20 metres below ground. I was the sole arbiter. I put forward, in agreement with the two bodies, proposals which were then accepted by the contractor for the form of construction that was eventually adopted. Currently I am consultant to the practice I formed some 40 years ago which now has 20 people, all of whom are trained by ourselves to be engineers of historic buildings. 2589. You mentioned a 20 storey building in London. Can you identify which building that was? (Mr Morton) It is Northampton College of Advanced Technology in Bunbury Row. 2590. In which location? (Mr Morton) In the City. 2591. Can you please explain very briefly what you were asked to do by Islington in relation to this petition? (Mr Morton) I was asked to look at the proposals that were put forward and advise whether there was any way of preventing the demolition of this building. 2592. What were you provided with in order to allow that advice to be given? (Mr Morton) I was provided with the information that Islington made available to me. Latterly, in fact on Friday, I did receive Crossrail's Mott MacDonald Consulting Engineers' report on the façade retention. I had nothing else from Crossrail apart from the basic documents that all have had. 2593. Have you consulted with anyone else about the practicalities of realising your proposals? (Mr Morton) Yes, indeed. 2594. Who was that? (Mr Morton) We looked for contractors who have experience and are currently working on tunnelling on Underground construction. I went and met a company called Scanmooor who are currently working in Shepherd's Bush who at this moment are involved in the design of a secant pile shaft for the Underground in the Shepherd's Bush area. I do not know any details of that. They went to the site of their own volition and I met them after they and I had been on site. They indicated that the ideas I had were reasonable and were possible. 2595. Going on in the document you have as your proof of evidence to paragraph seven, can you please explain what is involved in the site by reference to any drawing? (Mr Morton) The overall site comprises two properties, 38 and 42 Charterhouse Street. The requirement is for the construction site to include half the width of Charterhouse Street and the short length of Fox and Knot Street. The proposed boundaries of the construction site are shown on 110 Farringdon which is amongst the bundle. 2596. It is tab 5 in the bundle. To what did you want to draw the Committee's attention on this drawing? (Mr Morton) The mere fact that the site of our building that it is proposed to demolish is not part of the permanent development, it is simply part of the construction site. 2597. What is your opinion, as someone engaged in historic building matters for some considerable time, as to the value of number 38 and its characteristics? (Mr Morton) As we heard from the Committee Member, I think that building is of significant importance in its position. I think we have to look at these sorts of buildings because we are losing our identity, we are losing what is our past which people so much rely on. 2598. You have included within the bundle at tab 7 some photographs. Were there particular aspects of those photographs you wished to draw to the Committee's attention? There are three photographs in tab 6. (Mr Morton) Basically this is a simple building. It shows no significant signs of structural movement. I have looked through the ground floor and the first floor of the building. It is certainly under normal conservation terms a building that would be there forever effectively if it is properly maintained. 2599. What in particular is the structure at the end of the building where number 38 adjoins the building at 40-42 next to it? (Mr Morton) The wall between this building and the adjacent building is described as a party wall but I do not believe it is. In fact, I think we have an enclosing wall which is part of our building. There is a further enclosing wall on the adjoining site, so effectively I believe we have two walls together. What we have is a building which is quite secure in its structure and able to hold itself together very satisfactorily. 2600. Thank you. Just so that we can have this clear before we move on to consider your evidence, can you briefly summarise the Promoter's position as to the demolition and construction works at number 38? (Mr Morton) Surprisingly, the Promoters have only looked at one situation, which is the retention of the façade of the building. I am quite amazed at that because certainly if a project like this was put before us, as a company of engineers, we would look at all aspects of it (a) to provide the best economic solution to the solution that had arisen and (b) to properly advise our clients as to the alternatives that might be available to them. The report that I have draws a conclusion that the only way of dealing with the site is the demolition of the building because they put up an enormous scaffold around the building itself and then say, "We have not got enough room to construct the shaft because we have not got anywhere to put things on the site, this enormous scaffold that is retaining the façade is in the way". 2601. I know that you have considered the Promoter's position. Can you please say what your response is in general terms to the Promoter's position? (Mr Morton) What I have tried to do is to look at this as a project that came to us. The way I see it at the moment as far as the Promoters are concerned is they have not been properly advised as to the possibilities for the use of this site. I think it should be further investigated down the path I have taken which is to put forward three alternative proposals which can be looked at individually and assessed and decisions made. 2602. Thank you. We are up to about paragraph 13 in your note. Can I ask you to outline what the position is as far as those three options you mentioned are concerned? (Mr Morton) The first option would avoid the need for any alteration to number 38 at all. The second and third would enable the building to be left substantially intact. All would involve only very minor changes to the Promoter's proposals being based largely upon changes to the construction methods. None of the methods I propose are unusual or would be unduly onerous or expensive. They are intelligent but straightforward solutions to enable Crossrail to be built as planned without demolishing 38 Charterhouse Street. They would provide sufficient working space on the Fox and Knot Street site and not require the works to be carried out other than in a wholly safe manner. 2603. I am going to ask you to explain what is involved in the first option that you put forward and in particular in relation to the construction techniques involved. (Mr Morton) I think probably rather than read this I ought to explain to you and perhaps I can get you to visually understand what is involved. We are digging a big round hole and in digging that hole as you dig it, you have to hold its sides in. There is a system of doing this by putting piles around the periphery of the hole. Initially you put pairs of piles ---- I am sorry, are you looking for something? 2604. MR BINLEY: Yes. I would find it easier if I saw the options in front of me, quite frankly. I am sorry, Chairman, but I am finding this slightly difficult. 2605. MR HONEY: There is one drawing which will help illustrate and that is at tab 7. Before describing what is shown here, can you just describe what the Promoter is promoting by way of construction techniques? (Mr Morton) There are several ways of constructing a big hole like this. The Promoter is proposing to construct this by effectively digging a ring around the area where they are going to need to construct the walls, in other words a circular ring, which is over width about a metre wider than the actual hole itself. They place concrete blocks at that sort of depth in segments all around the outside. They possibly put another row of these segment blocks around on top of those and, having got to that position, they put concrete around the periphery so it gives the wall at the top some stability and excavate underneath these segments to put further blocks underneath and go down that way. So you are building underneath what you have already constructed the whole time. The risks associated with that are that you loosen the earth behind the wall and thus you have to carry out grouting which is the pouring in of a cement-based mixture to solidify the ground around the outside of the hole. This has a risk of settlement on adjoining building associated with it because the ground almost certainly will consolidate during this period, but of course properly done the risks are quite small. They go on down with this system until they get the 22 metres down, which is about 75 feet. At the bottom of that they spray concrete on to the further digging that is taking place to hold the earth up beneath this secant pile system. They rely on that as the structural means of retaining the earth and they then construct from that the entrances to the adits that take the people down on to the railway track. 2606. You have an alternative proposal which is illustrated on the screen at the moment. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2607. Please can you explain what is involved in your alternative proposal? (Mr Morton) If you look at the plan you will see there are a series of piles, a series of tubes that are shown around the periphery, which is what is called a secant pile system. Initially you pile every second pile, you leave a gap between them. You then come along and put another pile down between them and on the inside face you build a block wall to consolidate the whole structure. You drive those piles down to the requirement that you have and excavate from inside the waste materials that you do not want any more. That would probably be done by having a small digger dropped into the hole doing the excavation and removing the earth. Again, when you get to the bottom you will have a different form of construction which would almost certainly be a sprayed concrete system. 2608. Comparing the need for working space on the site between the two methods, which would be better? (Mr Morton) The secant pile system needs a rather wider area for its construction overall because you have the block work lining it. I am not aware of the thickness of the segment system but there is a difference. Marginally the shaft would be of somewhat larger diameter. 2609. How about working space needed on the site in terms of the storage of materials and so on? (Mr Morton) In due course I would have to refer to the proposals to retain the façade because that significantly affects the construction overall related to storage on the site. In my view this system would not require any more storage space than the segment system. With the segment system it is suggested storage space on site for the segments that are going to be immediately used and in the case of the piling system you would not have those segments but you would have tubes and reinforcement on the site ready to go down into the various piles. 2610. To your knowledge, is this system for building shafts related to rail works being used elsewhere? (Mr Morton) Yes indeed. Scanmoor tell me they are working on such a shaft and putting forward proposals in Shepherd's Bush. 2611. Having regard to the options you are putting forward in order to avoid the complete demolition of this building, what is your first option? (Mr Morton) The first option is to move the shaft some two metres. That is something of a guess, but something of that order in the direction of Fox and Knot Street. This means that it impinges on Fox and Knot Street rather more. One of the arguments put up against this is possible services in Fox and Knot Street but the comparatively quick investigation that Scanmoor did suggests that there is a sewerage line on the far side of Fox and Knot Street, although there does not seem to be anything of significance on our site side. 2612. Are there any barriers to moving the shaft some little distance towards Fox and Knot Street? (Mr Morton) Not that I am aware of. 2613. Will it have any effect on any other buildings in terms of increasing the need for acquisition? (Mr Morton) No, it certainly will not. 2614. I understand that using this system there is also a second option. Can you please explain what that is? (Mr Morton) The second option is as shown on the drawing. That uses piles flattening out one side of the ring in the way that is shown on the drawing. If that is done, it is my opinion that we could get away without even taking down our enclosing wall to the building at 38. 2615. I understand that there is a third option where, even if you accept absolutely everything that the Promoter is proposing, you do not believe it is necessary to demolish the building. Can you please explain what would be involved in those circumstances? (Mr Morton) In working on historic buildings, one is always looking for a solution. You are prepared to go to any lengths to design a solution to save that building. What I have done here is say to myself, "Okay, the chips are down. We cannot do anything else. We have to accept some loss of this building. What can we do about that?" I looked at the photographs. 2616. The photographs are to be found in your tab six. Is it the last photograph in there? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2617. Please explain by reference to that photograph. (Mr Morton) If you look at that photograph, you will see at first floor level there are two windows. Alongside those windows in the retained part of the building there is a brick pier. You can simply remove that section of the building to the right of that pier. It is a structural line across the building. It has beams across the floor at the upper levels. You could take that section out and rebuild it afterwards. The only difficulties, if they are difficulties, are the slight complications of replicating the cornice and pilasters on the front elevation. Exactly the same situation applies on the elevation on the other street. If you simply take that off, it would give you an extra three metres of building site area to work in. It seems to me to be a much better alternative to total demolition of the whole building. 2618. Has Crossrail, the Promoter here, considered anything similar to that at all? (Mr Morton) They have indeed, in their report. 2619. The drawing is tab five, the last drawing. Can you explain first what this drawing is and where it comes from? (Mr Morton) This is related not to trying to save the whole building but to restraining the two long walls at their ends so that work could be carried out to build the shaft without taking the ends of those walls down. The odd thing is that what has been proposed - please understand this is totally related to facade retention - is only taking out the wall in the ground floor. Then they comment on that that it is not really practical because you still have the building above you and you cannot get at it. They have looked in a sort of way at one of these proposals but then dismissed it. 2620. Have they considered what you are putting forward as this third option at all? (Mr Morton) No, they have not. 2621. There is evidence in relation to the facade retention you mentioned earlier and the need for buttressing mentioned by the Promoter when you were to retain the façade. Can you please explain whether there would be any need for external buttressing in any of your three options? (Mr Morton) The building as it stands is restrained by the floors of the building. It stands there perfectly foursquare. It is a solid structure. It is not going to go anywhere. If you take out the end wall as I have suggested, removing the three metres, it will probably be necessary to put some ties across to restrain the open ends of those walls but, apart from that, no other work would be required to the building to restrain it. 2622. What if any use would the retained, existing building be capable of on the work site there? (Mr Morton) It could be used for the facilities one needs on site, the health and safety situation and the contractors' huts inside the building. It is interesting that Crossrail's engineer suggests, in talking about the retention of the facades, that the interior of the building has no value for their working abilities on the site. 2623. As far as your options are concerned, what if any of the problems that you would face with facade retention would be encountered with your three options? (Mr Morton) The problems simply are not there. You have the building; it is a solid structure. You have considerable advantages because you do not have the loss of the large amount of the overall contractual site that occurs because of the facade retention scaffold. Could I refer to tab five? 2624. It is the second page at 5B. Can you explain what this drawing is and what it shows? (Mr Morton) This is the construction site. It is based around the facade retention proposals. You can see to the left hand side of the site and to the bottom the facade retention areas that are necessary to restrain the walls. This proposal shows a situation where they are going to put a steel frame across these areas with access underneath it for lorries or storage materials. You can see it takes up an enormous space on the site. If you do not need those facade retention structures, you gain a great deal of space all round. You can see on that plan as well the area where segments of the precast concrete would be stored at the top of the drawing and then various fuel tanks, generators et cetera that are obviously a necessary part of this form of construction. I see it may be put forward that access around the site is going to be difficult but of course it will be quite possible to put these items that need to be stored on a scaffold or steel framework at first floor level, as you see on many construction sites. You could end up with a fairly clear area of ground on which you could work. 2625. Can you identify on this plan for the Committee please the location of the tower crane that is proposed? (Mr Morton) Yes. The tower crane is shown on that drawing in the centre of the retained building. It is marked in blue. 2626. At tab seven we can see your proposals which include organisation of the site. Can you please talk us through this drawing in terms of organisation and what working space would be available? (Mr Morton) You can see quite clearly on Charterhouse Street the space that is now available, where you do not have the retention proposals. You do not need to bring the lorries into the site at the end of that sloping area shown to the right. You can bring them in half-way down that boundary so you would gain space behind the lorries in open ground for storage of segments for other site huts or materials that you need to bring to site. You also gain space on the bottom of the drawing where you can see again there is the width of the pavement for further storage inside the site boundaries. I discussed with Scanmoor the arrangements for the crane. I cannot really repeat their comments but the thought was that it was crazy to put a crane in the middle of a building that had a steel framework all round it and anything you had to lift you had to lift over the top of that building. It would be much better and much more convenient to put the crane in the sort of position that is shown on this plan. 2627. As the borough understands it, the Promoter has concerns about limited working space there may be on site and health and safety issues which could arise from that. Could you please explain what, under your three proposals, would be available in broad terms for working space and whether it would be sufficient to give rise to any significant risks? (Mr Morton) You can see from this plan that you have a bare site which has a big hole at one end of it. You have the remains of that site, apart from the floor plan of that building, which can have the ancillary facilities inside it. Believe me, site huts are quite a problem. Toilet facilities and whatever could be put inside the building and it could be used as an adequate site office during the construction period, altogether a much better arrangement. You significantly reduce the health and safety risk associated with the construction. You are not endangering the building. You do not have the danger of the facades falling down. Okay, you require some protective measures and a risk assessment needs to be carried out so that the risks can be avoided. Any project is possible as long as a proper risk assessment is carried out. The risk assessment indicates the sort of risks that are associated with the construction and then you put forward proposals to avoid those risks. That is the normal way of doing it. I believe that the risks associated with each of the three proposals I have put forward are far fewer than they would be if we try and retain the facades, although it is perfectly possible to retain the facades. 2628. Having regard to what the Promoter proposed to do, which is to level the site essentially and knock everything down, taking into account all relevant factors, do you think the risks proposed by your options are acceptable or not? (Mr Morton) Absolutely acceptable. 2629. In respect of the time that the proposals would take to realise, what effect on the time taken for construction would your proposed options have? (Mr Morton) There would be a significant reduction in the time required for carrying out this construction. 2630. That is as against what? (Mr Morton) As against the proposals for erecting a massive structure to retain our building before you can carry out any work or construct the shaft. 2631. As against what the Promoter is proposing to do, which is not facade retention, would this significantly add to the period taken for construction or not? (Mr Morton) Not at all. The building is there; you do not have to demolish it. With the health and safety risks in demolition nowadays, there is a significant time associated with taking it down and getting that material off the site. 2632. Could you say briefly what, in your opinion, the likely cost implications are of your proposals both as against complete demolition and some form of facade retention? (Mr Morton) In the report by the engineers for Crossrail, they have a list of costs associated with their proposals. Most of those costs simply disappear. There must be an enormous cost saving in adopting these proposals and a consequent time saving as well. 2633. As against what the Promoter is proposing to do in terms of demolishing the building, what are the cost implications of your proposal, in broad terms? (Mr Morton) There is a significant cost attached to demolishing a building with the health and safety requirements that are now in place. It is a dangerous business and will require time and care to demolish the building. 2634. Overall, are the reasons the Promoter puts forward for wishing to demolish the building in terms of time, money and safety concerns at all when compared to your options? (Mr Morton) No, clearly not. 2635. What is your overall professional opinion in advising this Committee as to what ought to happen on this site? (Mr Morton) I believe that Crossrail's engineers have not looked properly at the proposal to build this shaft on this site. There are clearly other options. It seemed to me when I received the original information on this project just ten days ago that somebody had fairly arbitrarily drawn a ring on that site, keeping it off Fox and Knot Street and said, "That is the only place it can be." I do not believe that this is a well thought out position for the shaft. I do not believe that it has been properly thought out. 2636. Is there any other evidence that you want to give to the Committee today? (Mr Morton) No.
Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN 2637. When were you instructed by Islington? (Mr Morton) Two weeks ago. 2638. We have not seen any report from you or any plans from you at all until this morning at 9.30, have we? (Mr Morton) I am sorry; that is not my involvement. As far as I am concerned, a meeting was held with Crossrail engineers where we did have a document but I understand that was not sent. 2639. It is not a criticism of you, Mr Morton. It is just to try and explain where I am at now. We had no written document from you or plan of your proposals until 9.30 this morning. Is that your understanding of the position as well as mine? (Mr Morton) That may be so but I did not have anything from Crossrail with regard to the retention scheme until Friday morning last week, which has meant I have had to work over the weekend to put this all back together again. 2640. On the retention scheme, I think there may be some confusion creeping in here. Islington asked us to consider facade retention and we commissioned Mott MacDonald to draw up a report. It is no part of Crossrail's scheme, is it, to retain the façade? (Mr Morton) It is no part of Crossrail's scheme but if I was the engineer appointed by Crossrail to look at a facade retention scheme I would say, "Hey, Mr Client, there are other ways of doing this that can save you money and make it easier for yourself." 2641. The conclusion of the Mott MacDonald report was that Mott MacDonald would not recommend facade retention, was it not? (Mr Morton) That is right. 2642. As I understand it, you are not recommending facade retention either. (Mr Morton) Facade retention could be done. It is not difficult. Storage could be arranged offsite for various units. It is possible. 2643. On this criticism that Crossrail have not done the balancing exercise and we have just blasted in with a bunch of civil engineers and popped a shaft down, are you aware that Crossrail have been advised throughout by Alan Baxter Associates who are both well known civil engineers but also well known advisers on historic buildings and conservation? Before you comment on their bona fides, were you aware that Alan Baxter had been advising Crossrail throughout? (Mr Morton) I knew they were involved but I did not know their total involvement. I know them and have a great deal of respect for them. 2644. Can we look at the constraints on this site? I am going to put one of our documents on the scanner. I do not want to get into the detail of what bits of kit are needed on the site. I want to use this as a drawing to show the constraints around this site. To the north we have Charterhouse Street very confusingly called the northern arm. On the Crossrail proposals as they exist at the moment, we are already taking half of the highway, are we not? There is no scope to go north on the work site without closing Charterhouse Street? (Mr Morton) No. 2645. To the south we have an equally confusingly named Charterhouse Street, southern arm. Again, we impinge on the pavement there. I do not know whether you are aware of this but there is no scope to move the work site south into Charterhouse Street, southern arm because that would begin to have implications for the delivery vehicles going to the market. The City has made it clear that that is unacceptable to it. (Mr Morton) I just noted that Crossrail's engineers' proposals showed the steel work supporting it beyond that arm. 2646. But not, as I understand it, impinging on the parts of the highway that would have any effect on deliveries to the market. That is a no go area. Is that your understanding as well? (Mr Morton) If you look at 5B, you will see that the facade retention projects out beyond the site boundary. 2647. Effectively, that is the same plan, is it not? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2648. I cannot say it too often. That is not Crossrail's proposal. That is in our view the only way that you can retain the façade. Are you aware of the constraint on the Charterhouse Street, southern arm, by which any taking of the highway there would be opposed by the City because it would constrain access to the market? (Mr Morton) I accept that. 2649. Can we revert back to what we are proposing? So far as moving east is concerned, the Crossrail proposal for the work site takes the entirety of Fox and Knot Street. Do you see that? (Mr Morton) It does not, does it, except in terms of the storage requirements. 2650. What I said was the Crossrail proposal for the work site takes the entirety of Fox and Knot Street. (Mr Morton) Right. 2651. We cannot move onto the pavement in Fox and Knot Street - in other words, here - because this very large building here has its emergency access onto that pavement. (Mr Morton) I am talking about two metres at the most and that would not take it that far, based on that scale. 2652. We will come to the dimensions in a moment. You are aware that we have to maintain an emergency access to that building on Charterhouse Square? Were you aware of that constraint? (Mr Morton) I am sorry to say that if you are putting the storage, huts or whatever there you do not get that access, do you? 2653. We do because this is pavement. (Mr Morton) I am not intending to go on to the pavement. 2654. I am trying to get the constraints straight at this stage before we come to what you are and are not proposing. Are you aware that we cannot take that pavement and block the emergency access to 23 Charterhouse Square? (Mr Morton) I accept that. 2655. KELVIN HOPKINS: Where is the emergency exit? 2656. MS LIEVEN: I will speculate. I think it is somewhere in the middle, about there, but not right at one end or the other. Can we turn to what is being proposed for this site before we look at the options? We know from earlier that the shaft is an emergency access shaft and there are certain dimensions which have to be met for that shaft in order to meet Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Railways standards. The dimensions are effectively fixed. You do not just have to have the stairs; you have to have landings as well. (Mr Morton) The volumetric areas are fixed, not the plan areas. 2657. I am quite happy with that at this stage. From the bottom of the shaft - this is all explained in the Mott MacDonald Report - the chamber at the bottom, the cross adits and the passages down to the platform for emergency access all have to be built from this shaft, do they not? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2658. You accept that? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2659. Can we check exactly what is going on with your plan by reference to the dimensions of the shaft at the Fox and Knot Street point. On our proposal, the shaft comes here, just crosses the pavement of Fox and Knot Street and the outer rim impinges into Fox and Knot Street there. Do you see that? (Mr Morton) The outer rim is only at ground level. 2660. The hoarding line is there on the pavement of Fox and Knot Street? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2661. Can we put up your tab seven? Forget the bitten bit out of the biscuit on the west side. The position of the shaft is identical to the position of our shaft. Is that right? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2662. You have pushed the hoarding back onto the pavement on Fox and Knot Street. Our line is there and your line is there. (Mr Morton) I am sorry; that is a mistake. It should not be like that. 2663. Your hoarding line ought to be in exactly the same position as ours? (Mr Morton) That is right. 2664. Perhaps we can redraw that with the dotted line on the pavement. Can we look at your options? First of all, your option one, as I understood it, involved moving the shaft two metres further east, effectively moving the shaft to here. This is tab seven again. (Mr Morton) That is right. 2665. We do not have a drawing of your option one, do we? (Mr Morton) No. 2666. Your option two involves cutting out a chunk of the biscuit and bringing it across here. Is that right? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2667. Your option three is maintaining the circle of the shaft but chopping off the last ten feet, about three metres, of the building. Is that right? (Mr Morton) That is right. 2668. Can I get to the bottom of one change that you have brought in and try to understand whether it makes much difference? Your proposed construction method is a secant piled shaft? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2669. Ours is a segmented shaft. In terms of the site requirements, I do not understand your evidence to be that you are saying that the fact that you are using a piled method means that you need less space than us. (Mr Morton) I think it is probably about the same space. 2670. Why have you gone for the piled method rather than the segmented method? (Mr Morton) Because I believe it enables us to go closer to the wall of our building and also it enables us to virtually ignore the possibility of settlement of our building due to using the secant system. 2671. Can I work through the structural implications of option two? Option two is the one that takes the chunk out of the biscuit here? (Mr Morton) That is right. 2672. If you do that and you do not have a circular shaft, as I understand it, the shaft no longer has its own structural integrity. I am no physicist but the circle will keep the piles up. If you have a non-circular shaft, it is necessary to put things into the shaft to maintain the integrity of the piles. Is that right? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2673. Necessarily, option two involves that extra complication of having to prop the shaft internally. (Mr Morton) It is a matter of engineering calculation because, as you go down the shaft, you put in the floors and the stairs. The floors and stairs, configured as they are, will restrain the piles that are now straight rather than circular, so you maintain the integrity of the shaft and you provide the lateral restraint with the stairs and the various landings. 2674. KELVIN HOPKINS: In Westminster tube station, there are vast, horizontal concrete props holding the walls up. One could see something like that? (Mr Morton) No. Here, all you have in that shaft are the stairs and landing. My understanding is that where you have the dotted lines that run alongside the stairs the areas alongside the stairs are also concrete slabs, so you have your tube going down but every 15 feet or so you will have a deck. 2675. Of reinforced concrete props going across? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2676. MS LIEVEN: Option two involves piling right up against your party wall, does it not? (Mr Morton) Yes. If you look at the brochures related to secant piling, the one thing that they emphasise in selling the system is that that is exactly what you can do. When I was on site for the construction of the 20 storey building and they were building this BP building, they were piling at the back edge of pavement to get the maximum use of that site. It was one of the earliest uses of secant piling and that is one of the things that impressed me about it. 2677. Although piling very close to a building 150-odd years old is not going to be an altogether easy exercise, is it? (Mr Morton) It is not an easy exercise but you are putting tubes down. You are boring up the cave from the inside. As you do it, there is no great potential for damage in that sort of operation. 2678. The other issue about option two is that if you do not have a circular piled shaft but you have this biscuit bite shaft shape, at the bottom of the shaft my instructions are that the piles would have to be toed in at the bottom and they will insert into Crossrail tunnels. Option two creates further complications at the bottom of the shaft, does it not? (Mr Morton) I am not sure because the details are not available to me as to what happens at the bottom of the shaft. Clearly, at the bottom of the secant shaft or the segment shaft, you are going to have those problems to deal with. They are engineering problems but I am certain they are capable of being overcome. I am not party to how that would work. 2679. MS LIEVEN: Perhaps I can come back to how easily they are able to be overcome after lunch. Would that be acceptable, sir? 2680. CHAIRMAN: Can I ask that at some point in the future, Mr Morton, you can get us a revised drawing of this which rectifies the mistake? (Mr Morton) Of course. 2681. MR HONEY: That is a matter I will deal with in re-examination. For the avoidance of doubt, I will make it clear that we do not think there is a mistake. 2682. CHAIRMAN: I am just referring to the witness. 2683. MS LIEVEN: It is quite important, sir, that we know if there is a disagreement between counsel because we need to work on the drawings that are correct. 2684. CHAIRMAN: The reason I referred to it was because the witness gave evidence that it was a mistake. Therefore, I wanted the new plan showing no mistakes to be put in front of the Committee. If you have a different view on that, you can perhaps make it clear in your rejoinder this afternoon. We will return at 2.30.
After a short adjournment
2685. MS LIEVEN: Sir, before I return to cross-examining Mr Morton, the undertaking which I read out this morning is being passed round. (Same handed) Mr Morton, could we go back to your options and use your tab 7 as an aide memoir? All your options involve a pile shaft, do they not? (Mr Morton) No, the third option could be the segment system. What I am saying is that the third option could be exactly as shown on the drawing. 2686. The third option is the one that lops three metres off the end of the building. (Mr Morton) That is right. 2687. Let us take options 1 and 2 for a moment, the piled options. I just want to run through with you various problems associated with a site like this, a very constrained site, with piling. First of all, piles themselves are thicker than the segmented wall, are they not, so they take up more space? (Mr Morton) Yes, 1.2 metres diameter. 2688. Once you have put the piles in you then have to line the shaft as well. (Mr Morton) Yes, you do. 2689. So what that means is that the total diameter of a shaft has to be bigger with your options than it does with a segmented shaft. (Mr Morton) That is exactly right. 2690. Obviously that is a disadvantage on what I think we can all agree is a highly constrained site. (Mr Morton) It is certainly a disadvantage, but if it were possible to move the shaft as I have suggested then a particular amount of that would be taken up in that way. 2691. That is option 1? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2692. What it means by having a bigger shaft is that you are taking up more of what little extra space you gain. (Mr Morton) That is true enough, yes. 2693. In terms of the construction plant that you need for piling, you need the crane, which you need for a segmented shaft as well, but you also need a piling rig. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2694. And you need to have on the site not just all the piles but also the reinforcement cages. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2695. And piles and the reinforcement cages are pretty big bits of kit, something in the region of eight metres long, I am instructed. (Mr Morton) That sort of order. 2696. So you have to find space for all those sorts of things on the site. We will come to the space allowance in a minute. The other issue with piling, if you pile this shaft down 22 metres you then have to break through the piles at the bottom to get into the adits, do you not? (Mr Morton) Yes, you do but that was taken account of in the Crossrail engineers' proposals for a rectangular shaft, which they put into their report. 2697. It is not impossible but it will add time to the construction programme because it is more difficult to break through the piles than to go through and spray a concrete lining system, is it not? (Mr Morton) I do not think that is necessarily true. 2698. You do not think it will add time? (Mr Morton) I do not think necessarily, no. 2699. Then can we deal with a specific issue around piling on option 2, which is the one with the biscuit chunk taken out. We talked this morning briefly about how that option, because it had lost its circular structural stability, would require propping; do you remember we agreed that? One point I should have put to you and I did not, you suggested that the propping could be provided by building the floors and the stairs as you go down? A That is possible, yes. 2700. So that it would be self-supporting, as it were, self-propped. The difficulty with that is that you recall at the beginning of the cross-examination that it is necessary to construct the chamber, the adits and the passage, at underground level, to go down to the Crossrail platforms, from this shaft, is it not? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2701. So if you prop by constructing the floors as you go down you are then making it significantly more difficult to excavate and construct the underground parts of the station, are you not? (Mr Morton) I think what you would probably do is you would leave the final staircase out until you needed it. 2702. I assume, Mr Morton, you are like any engineer, in that ultimately you can always find a solution to something. If you do put the floors in and leave the staircase out you are making that underground construction a great deal more difficult, are you not, because you have to have your digger down at the bottom, getting the stuff into the middle and then get it up a relatively small central hatchway? (Mr Morton) But if you take your clients' proposals you have to erect those floors and that staircase within that shaft at some time. Presumably that would be done, I imagine, as you go down - I do not know if it will be or not. But you still have the same thing to do in a different way. 2703. I think, Mr Morton, you may have missed the point, with respect. You obviously have to put in the floors and the stairs otherwise it is not much use as an emergency shaft, but under our proposal you do that at the end when you had constructed the adits downstairs. Under your proposal, in order to maintain structural stability, you would have to put those in as you were constructing the shaft. (Mr Morton) As I have said, you would leave the central staircase up. 2704. Just to come back to the point, that would involve a difficult - not impossible - operation for excavating underground and then getting out the spoil. (Mr Morton) I do not think that is again necessarily so. This is an engineering matter and what you are doing is you have to put the floors in anyway and if you do not put any floors in as you go down you have to come back up and put in those floors. You have exactly the same situation; you have a great deal of work to do to achieve that. 2705. I will try one last time. It is not the same situation because under our proposal you do all the excavation and the construction from the whole width of the shaft. Under your proposal you put the full work of the floors in in order to brace the shaft. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2706. Thank you. Can we just look at what plant and material you need for all three options, and can we have up the plan that shows the construction plant that you need? Can we go through the elements on this that one would need, first of all for constructing by either method? This is our construction proposal with number 38 removed. There is no issue that you would need a crane on the site, is there? That should be document 37. (Mr Morton) Before you go on, could I go back one step to a question you just asked me about the use of secant piles and the difficulties of doing that. I see in the Mott MacDonald report that with the rectangular proposal, which they obviously thought was a possibility, they actually have secant piles shown. 2707. Mr Morton, have you read the Mott MacDonald report? (Mr Morton) Yes, I have. 2708. Do you remember it says, perfectly clearly at 6.22, "Construction of a rectangular pile shaft is not considered feasible for safety"? (Mr Morton) It is constructionally feasible. 2709. Are you proposing a rectangular pile shaft? (Mr Morton) No, but I am proposing to have a secant pile shaft, and they have shown it on their drawings. 2710. Can we revert back to the plant on this site, and what I hope you now have is P37. There is no dispute that there has to be a crane on the site. (Mr Morton) There does. 2711. Equally, there has to be space for a delivery lorry to bring stuff on. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2712. There has to be space to get the spoil off the site. (Mr Morton) Unless you put it straight into the lorries. 2713. You have to get it off the site somehow or other. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2714. You can put it straight into a hopper, as is shown here on the red hatching above the lorry. (Mr Morton) Certainly you could but it is certainly not unusual to load it directly onto the lorry. 2715. There would not be in any benefit in space terms in loading it straight into the lorry, would there, because the hopper is above the lorry. (Mr Morton) All right. 2716. I am not sure why it is necessary to argue about that. So you have to have that space. Then it is necessary, moving around the site, just taking the stuff for the construction of the shaft, to have space for the lorry that is taking the spoil, but you also need space for a lorry that is bringing in deliveries, do you not? (Mr Morton) Yes, you do. 2717. You then need to have some space, red hatched here, for what is called materials lay down. You have to have some space to put things that you are going to need in the construction of the shaft. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2718. Green here, you have to have some space for welfare and stores, do you not? We are trying to make the best use of the site so we have welfare above and stores below? (Mr Morton) I am suggesting both can go into the building if the building is left on site. 2719. First of all, you have to find somewhere on a site for those two uses, do you not? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2720. I will come back to whether you can use the building, if I may, when we go through the options. Then moving around the site you have relatively small things like the fan and the ladder bay, but we probably do not need to worry about those too much. But you need to have a generator, fuel for the generator and a compressor, do you not? (Mr Morton) Yes, you do. 2721. None of those, as it were, are optional extras. Then up here we come to the cement silo and the washout skip. Because of the adit, the chamber and the shaft downstairs - I will call it downstairs - in the underground part of the station, there is a very considerable amount of concrete that needs to be poured via this shaft to construct those underground works, is there not? (Mr Morton) Right. 2722. So we have to have space for the cement silo and washout skip for that part of the construction. (Mr Morton) That is the most economic way of doing it but it could be done with pumped concrete being delivered to the site. 2723. What would be the cost implications of that? (Mr Morton) Significant. 2724. I am also instructed by Mr Berryman that to do a pumped concrete solution with spray concrete lining is technically extremely difficult; I do not know whether that falls within your expertise? (Mr Morton) It is horses for courses; some systems work in some instances and others work in others. You could use either system. 2725. If you were going to construct this by methods of piling rather than segmented shaft then also on that site we would need the piling rig and the reinforcement cage and the piles themselves; yes? They are not shown on this plan because we were not proposing to do it that way, but you would need to find space for those as well, would you not? (Mr Morton) Unless they are delivered as required, and I see that you have space for storing the segments, which could be part of that system. 2726. You could take up some of the segment space but the reinforcement cages and the piles would take up considerably more space that that, would they not, because they are so big? (Mr Morton) Not necessarily so, no; as I said, you could have these delivered to the site as work progressed, as you wanted them. 2727. There is a phrase for it, "just in time" delivery, which has the necessary risk and cost consequences, does it not, because if the just in time lorry gets stuck in a traffic jam on Farringdon Road then you are in real trouble with your construction programme. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2728. So there are risk and cost consequences of not having space on site for those items, is that right? (Mr Morton) One is working on a constricted site and one has to take account of those in considering the solutions to the problem. 2729. But there is a balance to be struck: yes, we are working on a constricted site, but if you make it even more constricted then that has risk and cost consequences, does it not? (Mr Morton) But you have saved a devil of a lot of money by leaving the building there. 2730. Can we just stick to what we need? The other thing that is not on here is that, going back to the underground works, it would be necessary to store on the site the tunnel segments that will be used underground to construct the adits. (Mr Morton) They will come at a later date when the shaft is constructed and the system is to move over the shaft and use that for storage space at that time, and there is space for dropping materials down through it. 2731. So that is the solution you propose to that, is it? (Mr Morton) No, that is actually suggested in the Mott MacDonald report. 2732. Can we turn to your plan, tab 7? You have not shown on this plan a number of the items that we have just been through, have you? So you do not, for instance, have anywhere to put the spoil that is thrown out by the piling? You do not have anywhere to load lorries, you do not have the delivery space. You simply have not done it on this plan, have you? (Mr Morton) We have not shown it on the plan because taking Scanmoor to the site and then looking at the site and considering the proposals, they thought that they had worked on much more constricted sites than this. 2733. But they are not here to give evidence, are they? (Mr Morton) No, they are not. 2734. And they have not produced any plan of how they would do it, have they? (Mr Morton) No. It is the first time I have seen the previous plan presented. 2735. You have seen the Mott MacDonald report since last Friday, have you not? (Mr Morton) Yes, I have. 2736. And we have not seen a single thing of yours since 9.30 this morning, so let us put that in context. Can I ask you to have a look at another plan we have prepared, which is P38? This is our best stab at what would happen if you retained the building. The grey is number 38. The shaft has been moved to the east on this to take advantage of the Fox and Knot Street two metres. (Mr Morton) Right. 2737. So we are, as it were, maximising our use of the site, and what we have done is laid out the things from the previous plan that we have agreed we need on the site, and on the right hand side you can see those items which we have not been able to fit on. Cross out, if you would, the segments because that is a mistake there, and if I can ask the Committee to cross it out - it was an oversight. But the other items, the crane, the waste skip, the fuel generator and the washout skip, we simply have not been able to fit on to that site. (Mr Morton) Suddenly mysteriously at first floor level a storage structure comes out of it, stores at first floor level, and on the previous plan that you showed there was no suggestion of stores at first floor level, and you seem to have a lot more items going on to site on the second plan than you do on the first. 2738. I do not think that is right, Mr Morton. What we have tried to do is to make the best possible use of the site in the second plan, retaining the building, so we have put the stores at the first floor level because that makes the most efficient use of the site. We have done it that way so that we can bring the lorries in underneath. I do not think we have put lots of extra bits of plant on to the second plan, but what we have shown is that there is simply nowhere to put those other items. That makes it very difficult to construct the shaft from this location, does it not? (Mr Morton) I think the way you have shown this on the two plans is confusing, because if you take all the coloured items on the first plan that you showed and impose those on this site again and you have the first floor stores, they all seem to go in. 2739. No, that is not right, with respect Mr Morton. If you look in the top right hand corner we have the crane, the waste skip, the fuel tank, the generator and washout skip that we simply cannot get on the site. (Mr Morton) Where you have the green shaded area it says stores at first floor level, where are those stores shown on the previous plan? 2740. They are the materials lay down on the previous plan and any part of the segments that we could not fit on site. (Mr Morton) Why can you not increase the size of those and increase it in length? It would be jolly difficult just to assess this, but it looks to me as if you have much more now you have put that green blob on the plan, and it seems to me trying to get much more on to a site than you do on the previous plan. 2741. Let us focus on one issue on this plan, Mr Morton. You cannot fit a crane on and the crane, I think we can agree, is an absolute prerequisite to building this shaft. (Mr Morton) But if you put the crane on to the previous plan and you revert back to your second plan with the green first floor structure put into it, then it does start to work. 2742. Where do you put the crane on that plan, Mr Morton? (Mr Morton) You have to look at your previous plan and put the crane in the corner of that. By producing these drawings today it has really produced an unreasonable situation, asking me to decide whether items can go on the site in this way. 2743. Let us not get into an argument about who is more unreasonable with timing, Mr Morton. On the second plan can you see anywhere to put a crane? (Mr Morton) The way it has been put on that plan, no, I cannot, but I believe that the crane can go on to the same site by just moving things around on the first plan that you presented. 2744. MRS JAMES: I know they say that women are no good at this, but the stores on the original plan, 002, look significantly smaller than the stores that you have on the second plan because on the second set of plans the stores have got longer and wider. Even if it is to scale they do not look ... Welfare above and stores below on the first one and then you have the spaces for lorry parking and deliveries. It has got extremely large there, has it not? 2745. MS LIEVEN: Can I try to explain, that the dark green is the structure holding the thing up, so it is the light green which is used for space. (Mr Morton) Why do you need that structure to hold it up? 2746. MS LIEVEN: The light green is the welfare area and if you go back ... I am not asking Mr Fry to do it, but if everyone does it mentally, that light green is an identical size. Here light green is the stores and that is comparable to the red hatched on the previous plan, which is the materials lay down. In fact it is a good deal smaller than the material lay down. Then there is some additional space to the north here for an additional lorry for the concreting, so that we can minimise the amount of space we need for concreting. 2747. MRS JAMES: So the light blue squares correspond to the original squares, and the dark green space? 2748. MS LIEVEN: As it were the bits around it. I will just check with Mr Berryman because I do not want to mislead you. The dark green is the structure which is holding up the Portakabins above. So the dark green is not useable space, it is holding up the Portakabins. 2749. MRS JAMES: You did not need that on the original plan? 2750. MS LIEVEN: No, because on the original plan we just have the one smaller Portakabin down here, so we did not need to have so much space for holding up. 2751. MRS JAMES: It does give the impression of a double-decker building there. 2752. CHAIRMAN: I really do think that this is going the wrong way. We have a witness here to be questioned for the Petitioner and what we are doing is listening to evidence - or we are not listening to evidence - from somebody is not going to be able to be cross-examined and that is not appropriate. If Mr Berryman is to enlighten the Committee perhaps at some point you might bring him in front here so that the Petitioner's representative might be able to cross-examine Mr Berryman. This is the problem, we have moved away from the witness and we are now receiving evidence from the Promoters and you are supposed to be cross-examining the witness. 2753. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I am sorry. I was trying to be helpful, to explain the plan, and I am sorry if I went too far. What we are proposing to do, because Mr Morton's proposal has come very late to us for reasons that I do not want to bore the Committee with, is that Mr Berryman and the engineer who has actually worked on this site will draw up a note for you setting out exactly what space is required and the various constraints, and I was proposing to hand that in tomorrow morning. I had hoped to be able to do it today but it is simply not possible when you get quite a technical issue like this where I do not want to mislead the Committee. 2754. CHAIRMAN: And counsel for the Petitioners? 2755. MS LIEVEN: Of, course, sir, yes. 2756. CHAIRMAN: You are happy keeping the same stance as you had this morning? 2757. MS LIEVEN: Yes. 2758. MR HONEY: Sir, in relation to that, we had been intending to finish the case today and not to have to come back tomorrow morning and, sir, as you have rightly identified, there are problems with information being put in when witnesses are not available to question for our part, so if a note is going to be put in containing points, these ought to be put to Mr Morton today in cross-examination so that he can comment on them, and if that is done, sir, there is no need for any further note and no need for us to come back tomorrow morning. We can simply press on and finish the case. 2759. CHAIRMAN: If that is possible it is the most practical route to take, but if it is not then I realise that you are coming back anyway with another witness at some point in the future, and if that is not to be tomorrow then perhaps Mr Morton may have to return if you wish to cross-examine that particular piece of evidence. 2760. MR HONEY: Yes, sir, certainly if there is new evidence being put in the note I will want to recall Mr Morton so that he can respond to that. 2761. CHAIRMAN: If that is necessary, yes. 2762. MS LIEVEN: Sir, to some degree we went through this with the City and Liverpool Street, the same type of issue. Our chosen course, unless the Committee indicates strongly that it wants us to do otherwise, is not to call oral evidence at this stage. I was going to propose that I would close when Mr Honey came back on the entirety of the Islington case. We will undertake to produce a note on these issues by tomorrow morning which will give Islington plenty of time to go away and consider it and deal with it either in writing or by calling Mr Morton again when Islington return. In that way both sides have an opportunity to consider the matter fully. In my submission it is not appropriate to deal with quite a technical matter like this that has quite significant implications very much on the hoof. It would be better to have a bit of time for Mr Berryman and the other engineers to work up a note overnight. 2763. CHAIRMAN: I have a couple of things to say further. First of all, when we receive the note and we have seen it then we will take a decision. It would be inappropriate before then to do so because we may want to call evidence from your adviser. Let me go back to where I started from. We have spent quite a lot of time on technicalities and we have moved away from the witness, so perhaps we could get back to the witness. 2764. MS LIEVEN: Mr Morton, I have got very few more questions, but I just want to go back to option three for a moment on your plan. Option three is the one that retains the circular shaft so has the structural advantages of that but takes off the three metres at the back of number 38. Can I suggest to you that that is the least good of your options both in townscape terms and engineering terms? It is the least good in townscape terms because it obviously partially compromises the building, so you have got a problem not just that you have lopped off the back of it but also that you have then got to integrate a new building into what you have retained. Can we agree that of your three options that is the least good in townscape terms? (Mr Morton) Absolutely. 2765. It is also the least good in engineering terms because it jeopardises the structural integrity of the rest of the building. I am not saying it is not do-able but by taking off the back wall and part of the internal floors the rest of that building then becomes more difficult to maintain, does it not? (Mr Morton) I do not think that is necessarily so. 2766. It necessarily becomes more difficult? (Mr Morton) I do not think there is a difficulty of degree in it. I think it is work that is straightforward and can be done. 2767. So you do not think it any more difficult to keep that building as it is when you have taken off the back three metres than if you retain the entirety of the building? (Mr Morton) One has to realise that Crossrail in their report were proposing to take that wall down on the ground storey alone and had obviously thought in terms of cost that that was worthwhile doing. Yes, okay, some work is necessary if you take that wall out but much less than would be involved if you just took the ground floor out in my opinion. 2768. A final point on the options. Option one, which is not shown on this plan but which we have a closely similar plan to in P38 (it is the same location but it is without piles), would involve underpinning the back wall of number 38, would it not? (Mr Morton) If you use the secant pile system yes. 2769. Let us use this plan as we have got it up. There is no doubt that this is a highly constrained site. There are a lot of things going on in a small area. As a general proposition it would be right to say that the more constrained you make the site the more difficult it is to work within it and the greater the safety concerns for working within it. That is not to say that they are insuperable, but the more constrained, the more difficult in those terms? (Mr Morton) I do not think that is necessarily so. 2770. Do you not? (Mr Morton) No. 2771. So it does not make any difference in terms of safety as to whether you have a great big site that goes all the way over here with bits of plant scattered around it or whether you have a very constrained site building right next to an existing Victorian building? (Mr Morton) You can make it more difficult but if you do a proper risk assessment on it then you can overcome all the risks associated with it. 2772. So it does not make it any more difficult? (Mr Morton) I do not think it does. Examined by THE COMMITTEE 2773. CHAIRMAN: Mr Morton, just before I call Mr Honey back there are one or two questions I want to raise out of your evidence. One of the things you talked about was that you had not chosen to put a rectangular shaft in there. Could you tell us why? (Mr Morton) A rectangular shaft requires bracing, as counsel have indicated, and so you get a fairly thick structure. Whereas a circular structure would hold itself together a square structure needs restraint, which you do not have. 2774. CHAIRMAN: My other two questions are inter-related. They are about time and cost. I listened to all your evidence and you kept saying why there would be time savings and why there would be cost savings but you did not actually give us the cost variations or time variations. (Mr Morton) We have not worked out any particular cost calculations but there are various fairly obvious things that are money-saving. The cost of the restraining structure for the enclosing walls would be enormous. You would almost certainly have to pile that system in the road. There is an awful lot of money involved in that situation. You have to take down the existing building and we have talked a lot about health and safety. To take down that building, believe me, the health and safety risks are posed that are apparent with demolition are much greater than any other thing you do on a site. It has to be done extremely carefully. It is an expensive operation and it is time-consuming. 2775. CHAIRMAN: I understand that. One cost saving usually means costs on another side. Can you give us a guesstimate? Is it five per cent, ten per cent, 15 per cent, 50 per cent? (Mr Morton) Based on a retaining gantry structure we did on a building in Warwick Street in Westminster for a comparatively simple façade which was piled, we are talking about in the order of £120,000. In my view, to restrain the external walls of this building we are probably talking of the order of £200,000 or £250,000 to build that structure. You have got to build it, you throw away the steel at the end, you have got to pile it. There are significant costs associated with it. 2776. What about time? (Mr Morton) Time is the other factor, of course, that they cannot start work on the site until they have done that and so there is going to be, I do not know, six months' delay in starting. 2777. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I have three things to ask you. The first is on option three, which is to take the three metres from the back of the building. You see that as the lesser of all evils presumably, if you have got to go that way. (Mr Morton) It is a situation where I always ask, is there a way of retaining all of this building or part of it? I could see the possible objections that were going to come forward with regard to the other proposals, and I felt there must be a way of saving a substantial part of this building. It seemed to me to be a fairly straightforward method of doing that. I do not want to do it but if the chips are down this is a way it could be done. 2778. If you take away three metres, and these are not to scale but if you use your fingernail, you have not got much of a building left. It is rather a like a piece of Swiss cheese. What are you going to do with it? (Mr Morton) No, I am sorry. You rebuild it afterwards. 2779. The point I am making is that you are going to take away more of the building. Is it going to be a viable building after you have finished or is it just going to be a sort of edifice to some interesting local Victorian building? (Mr Morton) No. You would take it down, keep the elements as much as you could and rebuild it afterwards, so the building would end up the same as it is now. 2780. As a usable building. On all the drawings you have submitted and counsel have submitted there seems to be some form of tracked crane. Could you not use a tower crane above the level of the buildings to be able to move the stuff the stuff in and out? (Mr Morton) It has been shown diagrammatically as a crane. In fact, the Crossrail report on façade retention talks of a tower crane which would have a piled foundation and would be fixed in one spot. 2781. And that would be above the level of the existing buildings on either side? (Mr Morton) Yes, that is right. 2782. So that would be quite feasible? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2783. And it would resolve the problem of where the crane goes? (Mr Morton) Yes. Also, on the same subject, Crossrail's engineers' report talks of all sorts of different ways of servicing the shaft by having a small crane at a very high capacity. It talks about having a gantry across the shaft. There are all sorts of ways of doing it. That leads me back into the discussions that have taken place about storage on this site. Quite honestly, we are going to argue for ever as to whether there is sufficient space on this site to perform this operation because I will say one thing and my supporting contractors will say one thing, and Crossrail will say another. I do not think it is an easily resolvable situation. I accept what you are saying about if another engineer gives evidence and can be cross-examined and so on, but I think it is a very difficult situation to resolve. I can immediately say with regard to this proposal, which is the one with the green gantry, "Goodness me, you do not need that size structure to support those doors. You could extend that first floor level gantry along and so the lorry goes underneath it and only half the lorry is exposed to being tipped into. You could create again storage space over that area. You would double it up. Yes, by all means, we can have another discussion and further evidence can be given about this but I do not think you will get anywhere, to be honest. 2784. KELVIN HOPKINS: I want to clarify certain assumptions. One thing which I assume is fixed is the diameter of the shaft. (Mr Morton) Yes. 2785. It looks rather large to me. I would have thought that for egress of this kind a smaller shaft would be sufficient, but is that a requirement? (Mr Morton) One of the proposals that I put up to Scanmoor, the specialist contractor, was to build a rectangular stair structure and that was all it was, but the safety rules require that people coming into the shaft and out of the shaft have to have sufficient space to be stationary on landings coming up the stairs, and you just need all that space. It is a standard that one has to adopt to comply with the safety regulations. 2786. I assumed that; I just wanted to make sure that was the case. On your suggestion that where the three-metre rear part of the building would be dismantled and then rebuilt after the shaft was built, presumably the outer perimeter of the shaft would encroach over the building line inside the building to an extent, it would overlap the building line, but on the outside you would still have the façade? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2787. So some would say that it is reinstated but there would be some encroachment over the building line of the shaft? (Mr Morton) Yes. I understand that there is proposed to be a building on the site which is the entry or exit from the shaft and that it can be in that position. 2788. And the access would be going north-eastern-wards, so to speak? (Mr Morton) That is right. 2789. A question I asked earlier on, and I think it is quite significant, was about the location of the emergency exits from the building to the north east. Even if it was in the middle of Fox and Knot Street, particularly if it was towards one end, one would have the pavement going from there to one road or the other but not all the way through, and the rest of the pavement could be used as part of the site? Is that reasonable? (Mr Morton) Absolutely. 2790. And you could gain quite a considerable area for the building site if you had egress from that exit to one road or the other, particularly if it was closer to one end of the road than the other. (Mr Morton) I am advised that the entrance is actually in the middle and so you could do that. 2791. It still means that you could have egress along one pavement and the other pavement could be used for access. (Mr Morton) That is absolutely right. 2792. I have my concerns about the biscuit with the section bitten out of it on one side, as it has been described. Given that that is right next to the wall I just worry slightly about the strength of that. I am basically very sympathetic but it looks like a less preferred solution to one with a circular ----- (Mr Morton) Oh, yes, absolutely. Of course, one would try and do it as the circle, there is no question about that, but what one is looking at as an engineer who is asked: is there a means of doing this, is that one puts forward propositions which are ultimately, if one was going to carry anything forward, costed and then you would make your decision as to which one you used. 2793. Given the enthusiasm of Islington Council for what you are proposing it is possible that they would be very co-operative in trying to make as much space as possible to enable your solution to be used rather than the Promoter's. (Mr Morton) That is the way I would look at it, sir, yes. It was mentioned that Alan Baxter's company are involved in this. I am jolly sure that if Alan Baxter had been given the brief to save that building and I wanted to put the shaft here, they would find a solution. 2794. MR BINLEY: I perfectly understand what you are telling us. Without going into the detail of how it is going to be done, you are telling us, I think, that in your considerable experience of working on difficult engineering projects on constrained sites that there are creative ways of using the space such that the difficulties that the Promoter has put to us can be overcome and that the elements that they suggest cannot be fitted on the site can in fact in some way or other be accommodated and that there is nothing uniquely difficult about this site or the job that it represents. Am I right in that? (Mr Morton) You are absolutely right. You quite often see construction sites with three and four storey buildings built up against the face for storage, for offices, for whatever. It is a question of just how you look at it and how you come up with a solution. There is not a contractor in the world who, given this job and this site, would say, "We cannot do it". 2795. I did understand correctly? (Mr Morton) Yes. 2796. CHAIRMAN: Mr Honey, did you want to re-examine?
Re-examined by MR HONEY 2797. I do have a number of questions to ask Mr Morton. I will try and be as brief as I can. First, there have been references to Alan Baxter Associates. Can I ask please whether you have seen any document produced by Alan Baxter Associates considering number 38 and whether there is a need to demolish it? (Mr Morton) No, I have not seen anything at all. 2798. There was some debate about drawings earlier. Can I ask you to take up the bundle of drawings and go first to tab seven where we see your drawing? You were particularly asked about the Fox and Knot Street edge. Do you recall that? (Mr Morton) Yes, I do. 2799. Can I ask you to go now please, holding that one open, to tab five where there is a drawing at 5A? First, can you tell us what this drawing is at 5A? (Mr Morton) This is the worksite layout phase one. 2800. What is shown as the boundary on this drawing for the worksite layout on Fox and Knot Street? (Mr Morton) It certainly appears that my technician has drawn it on our drawing, which is tab seven, correctly. 2801. Did he produce this drawing in 5A? (Mr Morton) That was produced by Crossrail's engineers presumably. 2802. So now that you have been able to compare the two, is there any need to change your plan at tab seven at all? (Mr Morton) No, there is not. 2803. You were asked a series of questions about site constraints and maybe if we keep the drawing at 5A open, can you say please what, if any, clash there would be between your options and the site constraints identified by Crossrail to you in cross-examination? (Mr Morton) If you look at plan 5A, clearly the storage of the rings and the ----- 2804. Forgive me: I put the question wrongly. I am going to go on to materials in a moment but you were asked first about the site constraints like location of buildings, and the location of the emergency access I think arose at this point. Having regard to those things what, if any, clash is there between those site constraints and your options? (Mr Morton) There is none at all as far as I can see. 2805. Just after lunch you were asked a number of questions about piling and what that would involve. Can you say practically what, if any, real hurdles are presented by a secant pile approach here? (Mr Morton) I do not think there are any significant problems other than the fact that the thickness of the shaft wall is going to be greater. You have all the engineering problems at the base of the shaft that are the same as for the segment system. You have got to link that in with the exits at the base. You have got to construct your floors. It is a different way of doing it but I do not see any particularly onerous problems associated with it. 2806. Comparing the two in terms of the Promoter's proposals, segment against secant pile approach, is your approach significantly more expensive or time-consuming so as to make this other than an option? (Mr Morton) I do not believe it is any more expensive but also you have to look at the fact that it is accepted that the segment system can generate settlement of adjoining buildings and thus it can generate settlement of the building we are trying to hold up. I accept that there is within the Crossrail general documents provision for measuring settlement and when the settlement gets to more than ten millimetres warning bells start to ring, but if you can avoid that situation by using the secant pile system it seems logical to do it. 2807. You were asked some questions about arranging the site and a drawing was produced which I think has the reference P38. It is the second one of the two that were stapled together. Do you have that? (Mr Morton) Yes, I do. 2808. You told us in your evidence in chief that you would be able to use the building if it was retained in storage. Looking at this drawing, what elements could be transferred to within the building to free up further space? (Mr Morton) Certainly office facilities could be accommodated within the building. Toilet facilities could be accommodated within the building and generally any other accommodation that is required on the site for people to use. 2809. What, if any, space could be used for storage of certain items? (Mr Morton) It would be possible to use the ground floor internally for storing items but, of course, unless you are going to take the gable wall out there is not going to be easy access to that ground floor. 2810. Keeping that plan open can I ask you to go back to the one at 5A and compare the areas of the site proposed, particularly at the apex end between what we have at 5A and what has just been put in today? What extra space would be available if the hoardings were as shown on the proper Crossrail plan? (Mr Morton) What comes out of that question is that you look at the plan given to us today, which showed the green storage area at first floor, and you look at the storage shown on 5A and you see that there is significantly more on the plan given to us today than there was on the drawing 5A which was produced some while back. 2811. Looking at the hoarding line, which I think is shown in red on both drawings, particularly at the apex, can you see any difference between the two? (Mr Morton) The line is different, is it not? It is a diagonal line which on one drawing is a fairly flat diagonal and on the other drawing is much more acute. 2812. So, having regard to the position of the building, for example, what extra space would be available if the hoarding was put where it was originally proposed on 5A? (Mr Morton) There is rather more space to be able to think of putting the crane in that corner. 2813. Do you think you would be able to accommodate the crane on the site if it were to be as originally proposed at 5A? (Mr Morton) I do indeed. Indeed, Scanmoor felt that that was a very sensible place to put the crane. They absolutely dismissed the idea of putting it in the position shown on drawing 5A. 2814. You were asked about option three and what was involved in taking down the end three metres. Can you please compare the difference between total demolition of the building and taking down the three metres in terms of the risks and the time and the cost involved? (Mr Morton) It is a comparatively easy matter to scaffold up that small section of the building and literally having it taken down by hand. One would be much happier doing that. There is the likelihood of, if you like, a hammer demolition of the whole building which is undoubtedly the way the way it would go if you were going to demolish the whole of the structure. 2815. So if you were simply trying to allocate enough space to do the works which would you recommend: taking down just the end of the building or knocking the whole thing down? (Mr Morton) Oh, taking down the end without a doubt. 2816. There is one question I wanted to ask for the sake of clarification. You were asked a question about your option one and the need for underpinning number 38. Can you please clarify whether any underpinning would be required to number 38 if you were using secant piling in option one? (Mr Morton) There would not be. 2817. The Committee asked you a question in relation to the length of the building that could be taken down in option three, three metres, and what that would leave of the building. Could you say roughly perhaps, if we have a look at the drawing on the screen at the moment, what proportion of the length of the building would be left intact compared with what would be taken down? (Mr Morton) It must be 80 per cent, 85 per cent perhaps that would be retained. 2818. Thank you very much. Sir, I have no further questions for Mr Morton so that ends our evidence in relation to this first of the two matters that we have. I understand the Promoter proposes to call no evidence in relation to this issue. There was a debate earlier about whether a note should go in. What I would like to propose the Committee to consider is that we go on to close this issue today while it is fresh in our minds. Sir, you said you would consider whether a note would be allowed in. What I would propose is that if a note is allowed in and it raises any issues we can deal with those later by submissions but the best thing is simply to press on, have closings today while it is fresh and then have this issue resolved. Sir, that is what I would propose. 2819. MS LIEVEN: Sir, can I say I would be most unhappy about closing this issue today. These are very technical issues and we only received Mr Morton's plan after 9.30 this morning and that was the first time he had put options to us. I have done my best to put the problems to him in cross-examination but surely the position that the Committee is in is that it has to weigh what the problems and the pros and cons of this are but it really cannot do that until it has seen a note as to our view of the options. It is unrealistic to suggest that I in cross-examination can genuinely put all the engineering problems with the proper weight. As you yourself said, although it could have been Sir Peter, when chairing an earlier session, it is not my function to give evidence, it is my function to ask questions and the Committee needs to see the evidence in the form of a note. I would suggest given that Mr Honey is returning in the very near future, at least I assume it will be in the very near future as we are moving down the line, to deal with the rest of Islington's case, the best way forward is for Crossrail to put in a note and I can undertake to do that by tomorrow morning so that you have got our position on the engineering difficulties and when Islington come back we can close on the entirety of Islington's petition in one go. After all, the Committee has indicated it is not going to make decisions on these matters until right at the end of the process, so the fact that it is not fresh in your mind, as my learned friend puts it, really is not here nor there, what is important is that on the record is the clearest possible exposition of both sides' case so that when the Committee does come at the end of the day, whenever that may be, to appraise all these petitions it has got the full statements from both sides. (Mr Morton) Can I just say a word because I am rather irritated by what counsel is saying. We had a meeting with Crossrail, with the particular station manager there, I think it was Thursday last week, about ten days ago, when I went through all our proposals in a note, they knew what we were proposing and they talked to me about it, there were questions across the floor. This is not the first they knew of it. 2820. CHAIRMAN: I am minded to accept the Promoter's view on this for two reasons. On the matter which we have to have presented back to us we need a note or something from the Promoters themselves there are two items. Whilst I am very sympathetic to moving this case on, I think it is fair and just if we delay and come back at some later date. I am sorry, Mr Honey, but we cannot do very much more today. 2821. MR HONEY: The other alternative, if you are minded to take that course, is for us to come back tomorrow morning and do it having had the benefit of this note being provided to us later this evening. Mr Morton is correct when he says that there was a meeting on 31 January, I think it was, when this was discussed so there is nothing new arising. 2822. MS LIEVEN: Can I just say on tomorrow that we have got two days for Camden who are only raising ground borne noise. They said they needed two to three days but we are finding it difficult on our side to see how one can talk about ground borne noise for more than two days, so there would be time tomorrow morning. If that was the most convenient to the Committee I would be quite happy to go down that course. 2823. CHAIRMAN: That will give us continuity, so I agree that is what we will try and do. 2824. MS LIEVEN: Sir, before we rise, I do not want to get into the whys and wherefores of what went wrong with the documents on this case, it is history now, but could I ask you to say something further, as you did before on Liverpool Street, about asking Petitioners to give the Promoters documents at least 24 hours in advance. We will undertake to do the same. We will undertake to give whatever material we have at that stage which is relevant to that Petitioner and which we intend to present to the Committee to the Petitioners in advance. If we do not see their material, and I do not want to get into the rights and wrongs of Islington, in documentary form at least 24 hours in advance then we will keep coming up against this problem where we are producing plans that we have drawn up the night before. I cannot believe it is helping the Committee. More words from the Committee on this issue would allow Winckworth's, our agents, to pass that back to the Petitioners and I would hope to help the Committee more in the future. 2825. CHAIRMAN: I think it is a fair point that even though, as you said, Mr Morton, you had met with Crossrail it was not very much time before the hearing. I take that point and I will say something about that tomorrow morning. 2826. MS LIEVEN: I am very grateful, sir. 2827. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is now closed. We will reconvene at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The witness withdrew
Adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning |