UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 837-xxxiii

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY THIRTY-THREE

Wednesday 17 May 2006

Before:

Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair

Mr Brian Binley

Kelvin Hopkins

John Pugh

 

 

Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.

MR DAVID ELVIN QC appeared on behalf of the Promoter.

The Petition of Ferrotec (UK) Limited.

MR ALASTAIR LEWIS appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

SHARPE PRITCHARD appeared as Agent.

8767. CHAIRMAN: Today we are going to listen to the Petitions for LA 21 Traffic and Transport Group, Iron Mountain (UK) Limited, Alternative Mail and Parcels Limited and Ferrotec (UK) Limited. We are going to start with Ferrotec (UK) Limited. Can I, first of all, as usual, inform the Committee that I will be suspending the Committee at 11.45 or thereabouts so that people can get some refreshments in the upper waiting hall down the corridor and for Members to leave the Committee so that they might get down for Question Time. We will then, this afternoon, resume in this Committee room at 2.30.

8768. Can I, first, before I call Ferrotec, ask whether LA 21 Traffic and Transport Group are here yet? No. Mr Elvin, could you give us an introduction.

8769. MR ELVIN: Thank you, sir. We have returned to Woolwich from Ebbsfleet yesterday. Ferrotec occupy premises close to the proposed intervention shaft for emergency and ventilation purposes at Arsenal Way, which is just to the east of the historic Arsenal site, part of the Arsenal regeneration area. Perhaps Mr Fry could focus in on the shaft in the Environmental Statement. That is required for health and safety reasons and will be explained to you by Mr Berryman in due course.

8770. The issue has been a difficult one because there are a number of firms that are located in the vicinity of the shaft and it appears that there is little option but to displace some business occupiers regardless of where the shaft goes; if it goes in one location it displaces Petitioner AMP and if it goes in another it displaces Ferrotec. The decision that has been made is that there are reasons, which Mr Berryman will explain, why it was thought preferable to try and accommodate AMP, who have a lot of HGV traffic and whose car park would be almost completely rendered inoperable by the shaft, and that Ferrotec, unfortunately, are displaced.

8771. If I can show you an aerial photograph of the site, which is at page 426 of volume 3 of the Environmental Statement, you can see Arsenal Way and the Plumstead Road, and that is the general location, just north of the Plumstead Road, where the shaft has to go for safety reasons. There is a limited scope for locating those shafts; they have to be at a certain spacing which, again, Mr Berryman will explain to you. The position with Ferrotec, as I say, is an unfortunate one. The location which has been selected for the shaft will block the access to Ferrotec's car park, but there seems little option but to block one of the occupiers. Ferrotec will therefore be in a position where it is likely to be able to claim compensation both for any land take from its site and, certainly, for disturbance from its premises. That is the position and Ferrotec are, understandably, unhappy. However, as I say, there seemed to be little option but to displace one of the occupiers.

8772. I ought to say, because there is an issue that may be in the Committee's minds, that if a station were to take place at Woolwich - and that, of course, was debated last week - there would still be the need for some form of shaft because this would be the eastern end of the station. So the issue does not go away completely even if the Committee recommend that a Woolwich station should be provided. If the Committee needs to see it I think I have got a plan somewhere and can show you that. Thank you.

8773. CHAIRMAN: Mr Lewis?

8774. MR LEWIS: First of all, could I just hand round bundles of exhibits. (Same handed) Sir, the Petition before you raises a number of detailed issues about the effect of the Crossrail works on Ferrotec's business, but the main issue, as Mr Elvin has just said, on which everything else hinges and on which Ferrotec wish to address you, is the location of the Arsenal Way intervention and access shaft. As mentioned by Mr Elvin, the Bill allows for the shaft to be constructed in the car park to the front of Ferrotec's building, and using the photograph which is there on display I just wondered if a laser pointer could just show where Ferrotec's building is. It is there (indicated).

8775. CHAIRMAN: Just for the record, could I list these documents as A102?

8776. MR LEWIS: Sir, I wonder if you could turn to page 2 in our bundle of exhibits, which shows a number of other photographs. I wonder if they could be put on the screen. Sir, there is another aerial photograph at the top left-hand corner, and you will see there there is a red spot. That indicates the intended location of the ventilation shaft as proposed originally in the Bill. As you will learn as we go on, sir, that is intended to be moved, to my client's detriment, in front of their premises and away from their neighbours.

8777. Sir, the original design presented difficulties for all four businesses fronting the car park area. In recognition of that Crossrail carried out some studies to try to see if there were other ways of designing the shaft so as to meet the concerns of the Petitioners. Various options were considered and, naturally, options which were good news for one Petitioner were bad news for the other. However, there were options which worked either way and the report concluded that they were feasible in engineering terms and did not add significantly to the expense of the original option. Once those options were put forward further work was done by Crossrail to explain which was preferred. It is clear from very recent correspondence, in the last two weeks, that Crossrail appear to have taken, at least, an in principle decision, as Mr Elvin says, that the shaft should be located to the advantage of Ferrotec's neighbours and to the disadvantage of Ferrotec, to the extent that Ferrotec would probably have to be displaced from their premises.

8778. Sir, in short, the reason that Ferrotec are here today is to try to persuade the Committee that there is no need for them to be relocated. Sir, if you could turn to the last page in the bundle of the exhibits, page 52, this explains the options which the Petitioner puts forward. Sir, given what Mr Elvin said in his opening, I was under the misapprehension that construction of the Woolwich station would actually obviate the need for a shaft here at all. I had been led to understand that simply by listening to the end of the case for Woolwich station. I think there was discussion about the costs and I am sure somebody said that the saving in not building the shaft had been taken into account in the overall discussion as to the costs of building Woolwich station. I was clearly wrong in my interpretation of what was said then, and that is something, perhaps, we might be able to investigate with Mr Berryman later.

8779. Clearly, Option 1 was certainly our preferred option, if my understanding had been correct, in that we would fully support the case for the Woolwich station. It may well be that the construction of the Woolwich station might result in the need for the shaft to be located somewhere else apart from where it is now We will learn later, sir, that there are requirements from Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate about the minimum distance between intervention shafts. It may well be that the construction of the Woolwich station could result in these shafts being able to be moved away from our client's car park.

8780. Sir, Option 2 is that the proposed Arsenal Way shaft be located to the west of Arsenal Way on another existing car park, with any necessary additional provision having to be promoted by the Promoters. Sir, if you go back to page 2 of the exhibits and look at that aerial photograph again, our clients are there (indicated), their next-door neighbours, AMP, are there, that road there is the Arsenal Way and, sir, this area here is a very large car park, I assume, servicing this area here. The idea we are putting to the Committee is that perhaps the shaft could be located a short distance from here to just here on the corner of this car park without the need to obviously demolish any buildings but in a very large car park which Mr Aukett can describe to you when he gives evidence.

8781. Sir, Option 3, going back to page 52 of the exhibits, "The proposed Arsenal Way shaft" (this is if neither Option 1 or 2 is taken) "to be relocated within the current limits, but further to the west so that Ferrotec's business can continue." I refer in that option to a drawing to which I shall take the Committee later. I will now introduce Mr Aukett to give evidence about Ferrotec and what they do.

 

MR BRYAN AUKETT, Sworn

Examined by MR LEWIS

 

8782. MR LEWIS: Firstly, Mr Aukett, could you introduce yourself to the Committee?

(Mr Aukett) Yes, certainly. My name is Bryan Aukett and I am the Finance Director of Ferrotec (UK) Limited. I have held that position for some seven years and I am a Chartered Accountant.

8783. Could you now explain to the Committee who Ferrotec are and what they do?

(Mr Aukett) Yes. Ferrotec is a small to medium-sized high-tech engineering company operating out of a factory warehouse unit number 3 IO Centre, Royal Arsenal Estate, Woolwich. Page 2, I think, is the aerial photograph. I think it has already been shown where we operate from. We own a leasehold interest in this property. Our principal business is the design, manufacture, testing, assembly and repair of specialist equipment used by customers to manufacture products in the vacuum environment. Vacuum chambers are specialised vessels that can maintain a suitable process environment in which thin film, micro-electronics, optics and other materials can be manufactured. Our main products include feedthroughs and drivethroughs and these units enable the camcord (?) rotation and power to be transmitted from outside the vacuum chamber to inside the vacuum chamber, using a variety of highly specialised magnetic fluid seals.

8784. Sir, we have put in as our first document a brochure from the company. Mr Aukett, perhaps, you can just show the Committee one or two of the items which are in that brochure which are manufactured in the UK. You need not read out the full description but just point to a couple of examples.

(Mr Aukett) In the brochure Making the Difference the fluids that we use are on the left - ferrofluids. It is a fluid that comprises magnetic particles which can either flow like water or, when you apply an electrical current to them, you can change the whole format of them and they can actually go solid so it becomes a solid metal. We use these types of fluid as a seal in the units that we use. The next thing is the rotary vacuum feedthrough. The photograph here is not really a very good indication, but we have got some photographs that actually show these units in better form. The feedthroughs do not have power; you attach a power unit to them - a motor or something like that; the drivethroughs actually have an electric motor attached to them. A product that we are developing at the moment and have just started marketing is the electron beam evaporator, and we have just designed one and it has just come into manufacture.

8785. It is up on the screen now.

(Mr Aukett) Yes, okay. These are just a few of the type of feedthroughs that we manufacture. Effectively, they are just for the transmission of either rotary power or ordinary power straight through to the vacuum chambers so that processes can actually be undertaken within a vacuum chamber. They can be very small units, as you can see at the bottom of the picture, or they can actually be very large, weighing up to several tonnes. Depending on their usage they either have a short life or they can have a very long life. The units are made to very high tolerances and they are assembled in a clean room. We produce both bespoke and stock units and solutions. Most of our products are exported, the main markets being Europe, the USA and the Far East.

8786. Could you just tell us what sort of industries use these types of drivethroughs?

(Mr Aukett) Certainly. It is mainly high-tech industries. The sort of things that they use them for is manufacturing silicon chips, so you would get one feedthrough which actually moves the platform with the chips on around - it rotates them - and then you will have another feedthrough in the chamber that actually allows either electron beams or other processes to be worked on those chips. Other things that they use them for are grinding high quality optical lenses and, basically, all sorts of high-tech industries - the nuclear industry, optical industry and micro-electronics industry use vacuum chambers for specialist processes. We provide the ability for them to work on these materials within the vacuum chambers.

8787. Sir, I think pages 4 and 5 of the exhibits show closer photographs of the feedthroughs. These, presumably, are the larger type.

(Mr Aukett) Yes. This would be quite a large unit, probably weighing more than a tonne. Most of the manufacture is done by local subcontractors and we test, assemble and then pack and export the units out of Unit 3.

8788. Can you give an indication to the Committee of the success of the business, please?

(Mr Aukett) It has been a number of years in development. As I say, I joined the company some eight years ago. It has been in existence for about 15 years, and we have only, for the last couple of years, become profitable. So, therefore, there has been many, many years of research, development, investment and hard work in bringing the company to the state it is in now. We employ some 15 people and a large number of those live locally. The rest, apart from myself, are within easy reach of Woolwich. Most of the employees have been with the company for many years, and because of their specialist skills they would be very difficult to locate. On the occasions that we have had a change of staff, we have had the utmost difficulty in recruiting the right sort of engineer or member of staff to join us.

8789. Do you have a high staff turnover?

(Mr Aukett) No, we have a very low staff turnover, and thank goodness because that would make our development, our growth and progress quite difficult.

8790. If we can move on to the premises themselves ----

8791. KELVIN HOPKINS: You say you use sub-contractors to do much of the manufacturing there, is that local?

(Mr Aukett) Yes, it is mainly local.

8792. How many other people would that employ?

(Mr Aukett) Probably 30 or more, I would have thought. We have just started using a Chinese company for manufacturing where there are very long runs involved but most of our work is bespoke work where we do not design a specific unit for a customer and we have that built locally.

8793. MR LEWIS: When did you move to the premises?

(Mr Aukett) We have three units in Battersea, that is where the business started and we vacated those because the area was not conducive to transport particularly. We vacated those in October 2002. We have a 15-year lease at the IO Centre of which there is currently ten and a half years remaining. Our current annual rent is approximately £55,000 and we are paying service and maintenance charges of around £4,300 a year, our lease benefits from the provisions of the Landlord and Tenants Act.

8794. That means you can renew it at the end of this time?

(Mr Aukett) That is right. That was a very important factor for us. Unit 3 is ideally suited for us, being the right size, there is room for growth, the cost, the set-up, the image, location and particularly the assess ability of transport - we get quite a few customers coming in through City Airport - and also for staff. When we moved from Battersea - and I think this is very relevant - we were well over a year trying to find suitable premises, and what we found was there were very, very few premises in the Greater London area that were ideally suited to us. Number 3 we have found to be absolutely ideal.

8795. Why did it take you over a year to move there?

(Mr Aukett) It was just finding the right location because obviously for a small company it was a very big step to take and we wanted just the right type of premises that we knew we could grow into over the next ten or 15 years or so.

8796. Connected to that, perhaps you can describe the requirements that you need both internally and externally for your premises?

(Mr Aukett) We determined that we needed a warehouse space of around 6,000 square feet in which we could carry out the manufacturing processes, assembly work, testing, stockholding, quality control, environmental issues and clean room facilities.

8797. Can you explain what clean room facilities are?

(Mr Aukett) They are areas where basically you have an air-conditioning unit that filters all the air going into the room. You go through a trapdoor arrangement, and operatives in there wear complete overalls so that all operations undertaken in the clean room are protected from dust and are totally clean. We find with a lot of the equipment we make, because of the high tolerances and so on, they have to be cleaned and then assembled in a totally dust-free quiet area, hence the need for a facility to accommodate this. It is a room within a room.

8798. Perhaps we can go back to the bundle and start with the photograph on page 7. Can you describe to the Committee what we see on numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10?

(Mr Aukett) This is a test unit which is just outside of the clean room. We use that for testing the operation of the smaller feedthroughs.

8799. Number 7?

(Mr Aukett) This is the clean room in which there are various test items and places for assembly of the equipment. There is a feedthrough which is being assembled, you can see it under the plastic to the left there.

8800. Number 9, please?

(Mr Aukett) This is a test area where right in front of us are a couple of feedthrough units which are undergoing long-term tests. The testing equipment is shown on the forefront in the right of the picture.

8801. If we can now bring up page 6 of the exhibits, please. Can you describe to the Committee your external requirements, which, of course, are very important in the context of the evidence today because I think if we look at page 6, we are not just looking at where your premises are but where the work site and ventilation shaft would be if the less favourable proposals were implemented.

(Mr Aukett) This is the front of unit 3. The main reception area is on the right, so that is the main entrance to the property. Just to the left of the main entrance, on the ground floor, is the design area. Above that, the large window area and just to the left of it, is the administration area. You have a mezzanine floor there, so there are two floors there, in fact. About where the drainpipe is, to the left of it, are all the warehouse, manufacturing and assembly areas. You can see here that there is a large door, that is where all the equipment, materials and units are delivered and where the finished units are shipped out. Because most of the units are shipped abroad, they are generally packed in wooden crates which are considerably bigger than the actual units are themselves. They can be from a few square feet in size up to units ten feet by six feet.

8802. What size lorries do you use?

(Mr Aukett) We have anything from small vans up to 20 tonne lorries which need access to these doors. Of course, if we do not have access to the warehouse, then effectively our business cannot operate because we can neither take deliveries nor can we deliver outwards to our customers.

8803. Your parking requirement?

(Mr Aukett) Generally there are staff cars of between eight to ten and customer cars may be one, two or three a day. We need an area certainly that will accommodate between ten and 12 cars, which we have at the moment.

8804. Moving on to the Crossrail proposals themselves, please, paragraph 18?

(Mr Aukett) We have considered the proposals in detail, and in principle we do support the Cross London Rail Link. I think it is a very important addition to London. We would not like to feel that we would interfere with this in anyway. Basically, we are very concerned at the potential impact of the proposed works on our business and we really fear that everything we have seen to date could close our business down. We have expressed our views to Crossrail, and as a result they commissioned a Mott MacDonald Report on alternative site arrangements. It is clear to us that there are alternatives to the Crossrail proposals, but I am not an engineer. I just feel that they have not fully explored the alternatives and they have not considered or evaluated those alternatives.

8805. Now we are going to move on to the alternative options. I should mention, as Mr Aukett has just said, he is not an engineer and neither am I. I, therefore, will need to lead, to some degree, Mr Aukett's evidence, and hopefully that will not raise too many objections from Mr Elvin. I am glad to hear that Mr Berryman is here to put us right if we get it wrong. Please bear in mind that we are not here as engineers, we are just here interpreting what we have seen. As I have already said, we thought the best option for us would have been a station at Woolwich but that may not be the case, and we are looking forward to hearing what Mr Berryman has to say on that. The next best option, as I have already said in my opening, would be for the shaft to be resited some 120 metres to the west. It will then be in a large car park area, which I believe Mr Aukett may be able to describe. Is it over-used, under-used?

(Mr Aukett) It is fairly well used. There are now a lot of people using the Royal Arsenal site and most days the car park is fairly full. I am sure there are alternative areas for parking should the Crossrail shaft be moved 120 yards to the west. The main benefit, as far as I see it, is that it would not disturb any businesses at all were it to be moved 120 metres to the west.

8806. If we can have number 2 back on the screen again to remind the Committee where it is we are contemplating. Again, Ferotec, A and B is here (indicating), Arsenal Way is there and this is the big car park which Mr Aukett has been describing. We are effectively asking the Committee if they could at least ask the Promoters to reconsider whether the shaft could be moved 120 metres to the west of its current intended location.

8807. CHAIRMAN: Can you tell us where that would be?

8808. MR LEWIS: Approximately here, sir (indicating). Ferrotec is here and this is the car park we are talking about. Obviously we are asking if it could not be moved as far to the east, which is in that direction, as possible, not interfering with the roads but being put in that car park somewhere. Ferrotec of course completely understands that safety must come first in the design of the railway. I am sure Mr Aukett will confirm that.

(Mr Aukett) Absolutely.

8809. It must take priority over the interests of property owners in many cases. Ferrotec does not dispute the need for a shaft in the general location, but it is not convinced at all by the explanation so far given about the way the western option, as I call it, in the car park is not achievable. Can I refer you to page 12 of the exhibit, which is an extract from the Promoter's response to Ferrotec's Petition. I would like to read out paragraph 6 which is under the heading 'Alternative Positions to Consider'. "The Promoter has undertaken a review into the feasibility of moving the shaft to the west of Arsenal Way. The current location of the shaft is a kilometre from the portal at Plumstead, so if the shaft was located on the area of land to the west side of Arsenal Way this distance would increase to about 1120 metres. Such an increase would require the approval of HMRI or LFEPA. The review therefore concluded that repositioning the shaft on the west side of Arsenal Way would not be advisable".

8810. Can I then take you to pages 23 to 29. You will see on page 23 - this is a document headed 'Crossrail Outline Proposals and Design Principles' - that this is a Crossrail document. My understanding of what it is in its whole - this is an extract from it - is this is an outline description of the proposed scheme which was produced back in February last year when the Bill was first submitted or relevant. It was sent to Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate for their general approval as to the system overall. I would like to take you to paragraph 7.3, which is on page 25, which deals with emergency and intervention shafts. That is what we are talking about at Arsenal. I will read out that paragraph for you: "Shafts will be provided along the route of the Central Area tunnels for ventilation and emergency access purpose. These are shown in figure 4 and 5". I am afraid I do not have those: "Intervention points, eg shafts, platform ends and tunnel portals will be provided such that in general the distance between them does not exceed 1km. An exception to this is Fisher Street located 1.17 km west of the west end of Farringdon platform. Entry points at street level will be signed, provided with plan boxes and secure doors with standard or Gerda keys." The point I wanted to raise here, which is in Crossrail's general description given to HMRI, was that in paragraph 7.32 they make it clear that the general idea is that there will be one-kilometre distances between the shafts, with one exception at Fisher Street, which I remember because I was on a minibus and we saw it when we did a tour around Camden and Westminster earlier on in the proceedings.

8811. I would like to go to pages 30 to 36 of the exhibits. On page 30 you will see the heading. This is a document produced by the Health and Safety Executive which is responsible for Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. I would like to take you to paragraph 51A. This, as I understand it to be, is a general document setting out guidance to railway operators about health safety requirements on the railways. Paragraph 51 deals with those with that general guidance in relation to access points. Paragraph 51 says: "Factors to consider about access point" and I am only going to read paragraph (a): "Emergency access points to a tunnel should be provided at distances determined by the ability of the fire brigade to penetrate effectively into the first zone. The emergency access points may be tunnel portal points, stations or intermediate shafts with stairways". Sir, crucially the note in italics says: "Current practice indicates that distance between access points should be in the order of 1 km where there are twin single-bore tunnels with adequate intermediate cross-passages. In other circumstances this distance may need to be reduced".

8812. Sir, I will then take you on to page 37 and refer you to that briefly. This is LFEPA's response to the first document which I brought to your attention, ie, Crossrail's outline description of the scheme, including the mention of the Fisher Street shaft. You will see from that letter that LFEPA are broadly happy. I have not seen any documents to confirm this, but my understanding, from correspondence with Crossrail, is that Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate were broadly content with Crossrail's outline description proposals, including Fisher Street shaft, no objection in principle to the outline proposals from HMRI. The reason I obviously draw this to your attention is that there obviously has been seen to be some scope for flexibility in the HMRI guidance relating to the one-kilometre distance between intervention points.

8813. If I could then take you to page 20 of the exhibits, which is a letter from Crossrail to me, dated 15 May, I will read out the first three paragraphs, which is a response to my query as to whether or not the one kilometre guidance is in any way fixed. "Crossrail has followed and adhered to the Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2A given by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) and guidance from London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) in a consistent manner along the route. The link to the HMRI guidance is copied below for your ease of reference. The only exception is at Fisher Street where the distance is 1.198km", which I think is a little further than was first intended in the Crossrail outline proposals, "and where the positioning is affected by central London land constraints. I attach a copy of the Crossrail Outline Proposals and Design Principles which was submitted to the HMRI and LFEPA", and that, sir, is the document I have just referred you to, "on the basis of which we received a letter of 'no objection to concept'. This effectively means that these bodies are satisfied with our outline design. Copies of the letters are also enclosed for your information. Please note that none of the 'items of detail' referred to in the HMRI letter relates to Arsenal Way shaft. As we have said previously and as noted in your email, the shaft cannot be located west of Arsenal Way because it would not be compliant with the 1 kilometre rule", and I would dispute that word as it seems to me that it is only guidance from HMRI, "but, most importantly, it would compromise the safety of passengers and the emergency services should an incident occur."

8814. Sir, if that is right and there is a requirement for intervention shafts exactly one kilometre apart from each other to ensure absolutely the safety and security of passengers, then I think Mr Aukett would hold up his hands and say, "Well, so be it", but we are not convinced at all that there is not any flexibility, particularly given the position as regards Fisher Street. Sir, that is the type of scepticism which we have and hopefully Mr Berryman will be able to explain to us why the same flexibility that we have at Fisher Street cannot be used here where the movement to the west would be 120 metres from the one kilometre distance, whereas at Fisher Street it is 198, so we are talking about a smaller variation than is proposed at Fisher Street. Sir, that deals with our Arsenal Way west direction. Mr Aukett, could you now just briefly tell the Committee about the other options which have also been considered by Crossrail and discussed very late with us?

(Mr Aukett) Sir, Crossrail have made, following that Mott MacDonald report, two suggestions. The first one was that the site was reorganised so that more of it was in front of AMP and that was, I think, proposal B which is more suitable for us. The other proposal was in fact that most of the site was in our car park which would completely prevent access to our premises and that was proposal A and obviously that proposal would be totally unacceptable to us because effectively it would close down our business.

8815. If I could take you, first of all, to page 48 of the exhibits, which is a plan showing what Mr Aukett referred to as 'proposal A', I believe, and that is the proposal which would be disadvantageous to Ferrotec. The shaded area to the right-hand side, I believe, is a potential worksite area and you see that it takes up the whole of the car park area right up to the very front of the Ferrotec building. Page 49 shows an option which I believe, Mr Aukett, would be acceptable to Ferrotec.

(Mr Aukett) Yes, that would be acceptable to us.

8816. It is tight, is it not, because of the worksite boundary, which is that line of dots? I think that is the worksite boundary which impinges into the roadway down into your premises, but vehicles could get through there, as is your understanding, if that option were taken?

(Mr Aukett) Yes.

8817. Sir, the proposals were relayed to Ferrotec in a report which begins at page 42 of the document commissioned for Crossrail and prepared by Mott MacDonald. I will just read, if I may, from page 43, an extract from the executive summary. "In response to Petitions from Alternative Mail and Parcels (AMP) & Daniel Albert...and Ferrotec UK Limited...this report was implemented to examine the impact on the above businesses who are adjacent to the proposed Arsenal Way shaft. This was achieved by: rearranging the worksite layout for the current design of Arsenal Way shaft; and investigating alternative shaft designs to accommodate AMP Worldwide. Exploration of the worksite layout options highlights the difficulty in achieving a satisfactory solution for all of the adjacent businesses. Therefore, two alternative worksite layouts have been developed: one which assumes that the tenants of Units 1 to 3 of the IO Centre are temporarily displaced; and one which assumes that AMP Worldwide are temporarily displaced. Two viable worksite layouts have been developed on this basis and are presented within this report. Both of these layouts have staged worksite boundaries in comparison with the present scheme which has a single worksite boundary for the entire duration of the works."

8818. I will now take you to page 45, the same reference in the same document. Sir, it concludes in simple terms that the two options or the options put forward in this document do not increase substantially or significantly programme and cost, project risk or health and safety. Sir, page 46 shows the conclusions in this first report and I will read out the relevant parts. It is the third paragraph down. "Whilst both worksite layouts require some minor modification to the construction programme, the overall impact on the programme, cost and risk for Arsenal Way shaft is not considered to be significant. The worksite layouts shown have been based on several assumptions about the operation of the units. Discussion with all of the affected tenants will confirm whether or not the assumptions are valid and, therefore, whether or not the alternative worksite layouts really improve the situation for these tenants."

8819. Sir, after this report was received, it then becomes apparent that Crossrail did some further detailed work into deciding whether or not either the Ferrotec side of the car park or the AMP side of the car park should be used in its totality, therefore, freeing up either of the two neighbours completely from any effects of Crossrail at all. Sir, on page 15, you will see an email which was sent by me to Crossrail asking whether any further options were being considered to assist Ferrotec. On page 18 is Crossrail's response. "Upon receipt of Petitions from your client and the other Petitioner in the area, Alternative Mail and Parcel, Cross London Rail Links Ltd reassessed the site with a view to limiting its impact on the businesses. It became evident that it would not be possible to develop a proposal that suited both petitioning parties. A solution which maintained the operation of one precluded the existence of the other. Further studies were then carried out which considered the implications of keeping one party and relocating the other. This was followed by further assessments that considered the engineering, property and architectural implications. The results from these assessments made it clear that it would be significantly more difficult, disruptive and costly for AMP to relocate due to the size, nature and operation of their business. By contrast, it would be a relatively more straightforward task to facilitate the relocation of the smaller businesses in the IO Centre, including Ferrotec. Based on the above, CLRL considers that it would be preferable to pursue a shaft and worksite design that would enable AMP to remain on site and are in negotiation with AMP for that purpose. In the event that we are unable to do so, we would then, as a fallback option, pursue an alternative shaft and worksite design which would enable your client and the other tenants of the IO Centre to remain on site. In that respect, I have enclosed a copy of the counterpart study that examined the option of keeping your client on site and relocating AMP for your consideration." First of all, Mr Aukett, was that the first that you had seen of this report mentioned in this letter?

(Mr Aukett) Yes, sir, it is the first time I had seen the report mentioned.

8820. What was your reaction to this letter?

(Mr Aukett) Extreme surprise because at no time had there been any detailed discussions with ourselves or any evaluation of the costs of our business closing and moving, so I was very surprised, yes.

8821. I expressed my surprise in the following letter on page 19 and the response to that letter is on pages 20 and 21 where Crossrail say that they had found it difficult contacting your company. Could you perhaps just explain your understanding of the position with regard to that?

(Mr Aukett) Yes, we have a December year end and obviously January and February are very difficult months for us for reporting requirements and so on. I believe there may have been some missed phone calls, but, by and large, I do not think any particular effort has been made to communicate with us. It is unfortunate that we were using the same professional advisers as AMP because we thought that a combined effort would be in both companies' favour. At a late date those professional advisers were not prepared to continue to act for us due to the conflict of interest, so we had to ask Sharpe Pritchard to represent us in this situation, so I can see that there is some reason for a breakdown in communication over a period of time. However, what I do find very difficult to understand is that a decision had been made, if you like, a done deal behind our backs without actually contacting us and explaining what is going on. It was made very clear at the meeting that we had with the Crossrail representatives, which is minuted, that the first point of call would be myself co-ordinating the Ferrotec Petition. I note that no correspondence has actually been specifically addressed to me and it is to Dr Doug Brooks, who is the Managing Director. The other aspect of it is that we were passing all papers that we received to our professional advisers at the time and we were of course relying on their response and their guidance as to how to deal with this situation.

8822. The report which considered the option which would have assisted Ferrotec, I think, was dated March 2006, yet Ferrotec never received it until I asked whether there had been any studies done this month.

(Mr Aukett) Yes, that is right.

8823. Mr Aukett, could you now just explain to the Committee why the operational reasons, particularly vehicular access, for not taking option A are pretty much the same as they might be for AMP in terms of your vehicular access requirements?

(Mr Aukett) Yes, it is basically that, without access to the premises, we would not be able to carry on our business and it seems that option A would completely close down the business.

8824. Could you give an idea to the Committee of how you would estimate this? Again you are not a valuer, but can you give an idea, based on your experience of your move from Battersea, of the sort of costs you think would be involved in having to relocate the business?

(Mr Aukett) We would estimate that it would probably be in the region of £1/2 million to move because we have obviously moved forward since our move from Battersea. The business has expanded and I think, as we stand at the moment, the total costs of such a relocation would be in the region of £1/2 million, but I think, most importantly, because of the problems that we had in finding suitable premises previously, we would need at least a year's notice to enable us to facilitate such a move, and we cannot guarantee even then that we would be successful.

8825. So you would need at least one year's notice, you think?

(Mr Aukett) Yes, I would have thought so, sir.

8826. Sir, that is all the evidence I was going to ask from Mr Aukett.

 

Cross-examined by MR ELVIN

8827. MR ELVIN: Mr Aukett, I hear what you say about your concerns. Who is Dr Brooks?

(Mr Aukett) He is the Managing Director of Ferrotec UK Limited.

8828. Just so the Committee do not get the wrong idea, can you turn up page 22 of your bundle of exhibits, that is, A102. It is an email. This was originally sent on 23 March and it was corrected on 24 March, sent to Dr Brooks and to you, saying that the study was complete and that Crossrail "would like to share the outcome with you as agreed at our meeting on 22 December", and asking you to contact them. No response was received to that. Why not?

(Mr Aukett) Dr Brooks was actually away at the time and the email address that was used for me was not one that I had given to them, it is not my usual email address, and regrettably I had not been able to access that email address.

8829. When did Dr Brooks return?

(Mr Aukett) Without having my diary, I am not aware.

8830. Before the end of March?

(Mr Aukett) I am sorry, I am not able to answer that.

8831. Was he in the premises in April?

(Mr Aukett) Yes.

8832. So you could at least have responded in April, could you not?

(Mr Aukett) As I have already said, we were referring all matters to our professional advisers and we were relying on them to advise us how to deal with the situation.

8833. Well, Mr Aukett, it is only right that the Committee should see that Crossrail was not simply sitting back and not attempting to contact you.

(Mr Aukett) Well, I do not think, with due respect, sir, that one email would be sufficient in a situation like this. We are extremely busy, we run a very tight, lean ship and I apologise that this may have been overlooked.

8834. Well, Ms Akinyemi, who is the Petition Negotiator for Crossrail, is sitting behind me and she tells me that both you and Dr Brooks were phoned on multiple occasions and did not return calls.

(Mr Aukett) I would dispute that, sir. I have not received any calls from Yemi.

8835. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, I think you have made your point.

8836. MR ELVIN: I am moving on, sir. Mr Aukett, the difficulty, so far as Ferrotec is concerned, with the solution which has been finally put forward by Crossrail is not a permanent difficulty, although it is a difficulty which arises for a substantial period of time. The fact is that it is the construction works which prevent access to your car park, is it not? It is not a permanent loss of the car park.

(Mr Aukett) Yes, that is correct, sir. As far as I understand it, we would be prevented from using our premises for possibly a three-year period, maybe more.

8837. What we have on the screen is from the report that you received and part of it is in your bundle. This would be the final configuration of the intervention shaft and, in the final form, it would allow access back into the car park, would it not?

(Mr Aukett) I believe so, but, as I say, I am not a technical expert on this. I can only be guided by our professional advisers.

8838. Have you had meetings with your landlord recently because you are seeking to renew your lease? Is that right?

(Mr Aukett) It is only the normal rollover of the lease, yes.

8839. Have you asked the landlord whether it is possible to make temporary arrangements to allow you to have your delivery vehicles visiting some other part of the site which would enable you to remain in operation?

(Mr Aukett) That point was mentioned, but it would be extremely difficult to facilitate that. There are no other available sites on the Royal Arsenal estate, as far as we are advised, and effectively, if the site is right up to our front door, we cannot access the building.

8840. The car park we can see with the yellow line going through it at the bottom of the photograph, the yellow line being the line of the Crossrail tunnels. That, as I understand it, is a general car park which is available for a number of organisations and individuals and indeed some people park there and cross the road to the town centre. Is that right?

(Mr Aukett) As far as I am aware, sir, yes, that is correct.

8841. Would any of that be available to you on the short-term basis of two to three years while construction works are in operation?

(Mr Aukett) I am not aware as to whether that would be possible. Obviously for staff parking that would be perhaps possible, but, as far as access for lorries for deliveries, supplies and for sales is concerned, it would be totally inappropriate, in my opinion.

8842. How many lorries visit the premises during the week?

(Mr Aukett) We have, on average, two to three lorries a day.

8843. And vehicles smaller than lorries, but larger than cars, ie, vans?

(Mr Aukett) Yes, it is a combination of vans and lorries, sir.

8844. I just want to be absolutely clear. You have investigated the possibility of using dropping-off points close to the premises even if not in the car park?

(Mr Aukett) We have thought about the position and we have made some enquiries, but our understanding is that we would still be unable to access our premises, and some of the items being delivered and some being taken away from the warehouse would be of such a size that it would be impossible to facilitate their movement.

8845. How much of the premises that have the arrow pointed at them are actually occupied by Ferrotec?

(Mr Aukett) Just Unit 3. That is at the far end.

8846. It is about a quarter of that building, is it?

(Mr Aukett) It is probably half of the building. The other two units are relatively small.

8847. Does it extend all the way across to the rear car park?

(Mr Aukett) No, it does not. If it did, there may be a possibility of having access there, but that is another company that operates from the back of the building.

8848. Have you investigated that possibility?

(Mr Aukett) The company concerned, I am almost certain, would not be in the slightest bit interested, but no, we have not.

8849. Can we then come on to the question of relocation. Your company moved here about seven years ago. It would be possible, would it, therefore, with sufficient time to relocate elsewhere without disrupting the business to the extent that it would close?

(Mr Aukett) Sir, we moved here just over four years ago. There was considerable disruption at that time. We were unprofitable. We have worked very hard to turn that round and we are now just profitable. I think it would be disastrous if we were to relocate again in the near future.

8850. Is there anything specific to your business which requires a location here?

(Mr Aukett) It is very central for both staff and the professional team of engineers, but it is also a very convenient location for transport.

8851. But have you at this stage looked at the availability of alternative premises? Have you instructed property agents to see how feasible a move would be?

(Mr Aukett) Not at this time, sir, because we obviously need to see whether it is possible for Crossrail to facilitate or to accommodate our requirements. Under these schemes there could be a possibility that we can stay where we are which is infinitely preferable for us.

8852. Can I ask you just to confirm the number of those that you employ who are local to Woolwich?

(Mr Aukett) It is approximately half of the 15, I would think.

8853. If I can put to you what I understand to be the position at AMP, that compares with some 80 out of 100 employees using the AMP premises.

(Mr Aukett) The difference between ourselves and AMP is, I believe, that they are mainly unskilled workers, whereas ours are skilled technicians, highly trained people.

8854. Thank you very much.

8855. MR LEWIS: I have no further questions.

8856. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Aukett.

(Mr Aukett) Thank you for letting me present the Petition, sir.

 

The witness withdrew

8857. MR ELVIN: Sir, if it is convenient, I recall Mr Berryman.

 

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled

Examined by MR ELVIN

8858. MR ELVIN: Mr Berryman, I do not need to introduce you. Can I go straight to the issue of the emergency intervention shafts and can we firstly look at the likely configuration of such a shaft and can you explain very briefly to the Committee, perhaps it is a statement of the obvious, as to how the shafts function and their primary use. Perhaps we can put up please our Exhibit 33104B-50.

(Mr Berryman) Well, there are two uses for shafts in emergency situations. The first is to allow access for the fire brigade and other emergency services to the tunnel. The idea is that firemen or ambulance people would run down the stairs and then have access along the tunnel, using one of the two walkways which are there. In addition to that, in some of the areas where stations are wide apart, the shaft would also be used for evacuation. Clearly using a shaft like this for evacuation is not something that the fire brigade would undertake lightly because making people walk up 30 metres of stairs is a big job, but where the stations are far apart, and this is more common in the East End of London, some of the shafts are used for evacuation. The rule that we followed is that intervention shafts should be at maximum centres of one kilometre and evacuation shafts should be at maximum centres of two kilometres. This particular shaft at Arsenal Way combines both functions. In addition, the shafts are used as ventilation shafts. This is to prevent the necessity of digging additional shafts just for ventilation, so we combine, in this particular one, all three functions of ventilation, intervention and evacuation.

8859. The one-kilometre spacing, and Mr Lewis referred the Committee to the HSE guidelines, why is it one kilometre? What is the rationale behind it?

(Mr Berryman) The rationale is that it is the distance which a fireman wearing breathing apparatus can safely enter into a tunnel of about half a kilometre without risk to his life and having the ability to get out again when an incident occurs. It is mentioned, as the Petitioner said, in the railway guidance notes from HMRI. It is also a requirement in the emerging specification for the European interoperability specification which we will be complying with in this case.

8860. We can see from the diagram that has been put up that the shaft is linked, at the basement level, to the tunnels.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct.

8861. How important is it that the shaft is located in close proximity to the tunnels?

(Mr Berryman) It is very important and the reason is that the distance that a fireman has to travel is added to the distance between the shafts. For example, if you have a shaft which is 30 metres off line, the total distance which would then be allowed between the locations of the shafts would be reduced from one kilometre to 970 metres, so it has the impact of reducing the length between shafts. It is also very much not preferred by the fire brigade because of what one could call the 'discontinuity of the route' to get down to the tunnels. In addition, we provide lifts at these locations for the movement of equipment and, in an emergency, the movement of casualties. These are obviously more difficult to do if you have got an offset and you have to provide two lifts at different levels.

8862. I have put up a plan which is a slightly easier-to-read version of the plan on page 13 of Exhibit A102 from the Petitioner. Can you just explain what the constraints are on the movement of the Arsenal Way shaft by reference to this plan please?

(Mr Berryman) Indeed. The spacing between the shafts, as I said, needs to be one kilometre from shaft to shaft or from shaft to portal and this shaft lies between the Warren Lane shaft and the Plumstead portal. The Warren Lane shaft itself is fixed by the distance across the River Thames and is pretty inflexible, it cannot be moved very much. What that means is that we have a window which is one kilometre from Plumstead and one kilometre from Warren Lane and that window is shown on the plan there. The location of the shaft which is shown immediately to the west of the western boundary of that site was one of the earlier iterations of where the shaft should be and we have moved it slightly from there, but that shows you the distance from the Plumstead portal and we really cannot go very much further to the west without it falling foul of our own standards.

8863. The suggestion, I think, from Mr Lewis was that the shaft could in fact move further into the Arsenal Way site, moving towards the top left-hand side of the west of the picture, and he drew attention to the public car park that is facing the town centre of Woolwich closer to the historic Arsenal site.

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

8864. What is your position on that, please?

(Mr Berryman) That would make the distance from the intervention shaft to the Plumstead portal up to 1.12, 120 metres roughly, so it would be outside our own guidelines. In fact it is stronger than guidelines; it is a standard.

8865. Comparison was made with reference to there being some flexibility with Fisher Street.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right. Fisher Street is the exception to this.

8866. And the distance to Fisher Street, I think in the letter of 15 May that was shown, was said to be 1.198 kilometres.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is about right.

8867. Can we just look at Fisher Street, please. It is in the Environmental Statement, volume 2 and it is page 138.

(Mr Berryman) 139, I think.

8868. Can we go to 138, first?

(Mr Berryman) While we are waiting for that, can I make some comments about the Fisher Street shaft?

8869. Yes.

(Mr Berryman) The Fisher Street shaft, as you will be aware, is actually inside a listed building and that might give you an idea of how difficult we found it to find an appropriate site in the area of Fisher Street. It really is very difficult.

8870. We can see from the plan, at the top of that page, that it is sandwiched between Kingsway, Red Lion Street and Red Lion Square, which is just to the right - to the east. What are the constraints on Fisher Street if you moved to the one-kilometre location?

(Mr Berryman) If you moved to the one-kilometre location you would be on the southern boundary of Red Lion Square, which of course contains quite a number of listed buildings and, I think, from memory, is a conservation area as well, and it would be extremely difficult to locate a potential site in that area. We spent a considerable time looking for sites in that area and it was only with great difficulty and, really, by taking the Fire Brigade to show them the problem that we were able to get them to understand the difficulty of finding shafts in that area. That is why, after a long period of discussion - the letter of no objection rather states it as if it is a casual thing but it is obviously the result of a very long series of meetings - they agreed to the relaxation of the standard in this area.

8871. Therefore, to confirm the situation of Fisher Street with the situation of Arsenal Way?

(Mr Berryman) It is not really a valid comparison because the built-up nature of the area around Fisher Street and the heritage nature of the buildings in that area would make the position of a shaft there very difficult. As I said, the only way we could do it is actually to knock a little out of a listed building and put it there, and we do not undertake that kind of thing casually.

8872. Can I then just ask you to clarify the position on what would happen if a Woolwich station were required and constructed? Reference was made last week to there not being a need for an intervention shaft. What is actually required if a station is built at Woolwich?

(Mr Berryman) If a station was to be built at Woolwich the eastern end of the station would be shown in the plan there just outside the AMP premises. It would not be an intervention shaft as such; in fact, it would be a significantly more elaborate structure; it would be the escape stairs and ventilation structure for the station, which would be probably twice as big as an ordinary intervention shaft. So there would still be a shaft in the area irrespective of whether Woolwich station is built or not.

8873. But that would be part of the station structure rather than a free-standing shaft?

(Mr Berryman) That is correct.

8874. I suppose, from Ferrotec's point of view, that would present them with an option because it would not impinge on their car park.

(Mr Berryman) That is correct. It would, on the other hand, severely impinge on the AMP premises next door.

8875. Can I just ask about AMP and why the selection, therefore, was made between the various potential locations that were shown in the options report?

(Mr Berryman) There were, basically, three main options, with a number of sub-options that were looked at. One is the one which is selected, which is shown here, which severely affects the Ferrotec car park - indeed, more or less takes it away. The other option would have the same impact on AMP, the premises next door. There was a third option we looked at, which is kind of halfway between but that closes both of them down so we did not think that was a very good one. So we are really faced with a choice between which is the least bad: taking the AMP car park or taking the Ferrotec car park?

8876. CHAIRMAN: What goods do AMP ----

(Mr Berryman) AMP is a courier and mail service. I think it stands for Alternative Mail Provider.

8877. Do they have a lot of lorry movements?

(Mr Berryman) They do have a lot of lorry movements - articulated lorries.

8878. MR ELVIN: What is the nature of the building? What is its status so far as that company is concerned?

(Mr Berryman) I understand they have a 99-year lease on it. It is a building which has been significantly modified, as I understand it. I have to say I have not actually seen inside it myself but I understand it has been significantly modified to accommodate their particular operation. They allegedly employ some 140 people working there.

8879. Do they operate a courier or mail service from there? Is it one of many buildings or is it an important building to them?

(Mr Berryman) I think it is their headquarters, as far as I am aware. It certainly serves the whole of south London.

8880. I have been passed a note. I am not sure if Mr Lewis minds, but it suggests to me that they have a 999-year lease, not a 99-year lease.

(Mr Berryman) When it gets beyond 20 I kind of lose interest!

8881. So the selection was made, therefore, on the basis of a view about comparative impacts between the two businesses.

(Mr Berryman) Yes. It is unfortunate, but one of the businesses is going to suffer significant impact. The decision was made on the grounds that I have just described: the length of the lease and the number of people there.

8882. We have heard from Ferrotec about the construction period. What is your understanding of the period for disruption of the car park and access to Ferrotec?

(Mr Berryman) It would be about two-and-a-half years. We cannot say, at this stage, exactly when because, obviously, there will be issues about when the project starts, but it would be about two-and-a-half years, as suggested by the Petitioner.

8883. MR ELVIN: Thank you, Mr Berryman. Would you wait there, please?

 

Cross-examined by MR LEWIS

 

8884. MR LEWIS: Mr Berryman, beginning with the last point first, the two-and-a-half year disruption, can you confirm that effectively during those two-and-a-half years, in your view, Ferrotec really would not be able to continue at the premises simply because you need to take the whole of the front of the car park right up to the front of their premises?

(Mr Berryman) They certainly would not be able to use the car park in front of their premises. Whether it would be possible to make deliveries by other routes, providing some sort of walkway into the building, I am not sure, but certainly a substantial part of the car park would need to be taken - the overwhelming majority of it.

8885. Can I just bring back up on the screen, please, page 12 from our exhibits, which is the extract from the Promoter's response to the Petition. I will just read out again what it says, Mr Berryman. It says, and you can confirm, that moving the shaft to the west of the Arsenal Way would increase the distance to 1120 metres, and then it says: "Such an increase would require the approval of HMRI or the LFEPA. The review therefore concluded that repositioning the shaft on the west side of Arsenal Way would not be advisable." HMRI final approval to the whole Crossrail scheme is required for all, or nearly all, parts of the railway at the design stage.

(Mr Berryman) If only it were so. The HMRI is very reluctant to give positive approval to things. What they do is they issue what they call letters of no objection, which indicates that they are reasonably content with the design work that they have seen. They do not actually positively approve things.

8886. The HMRI guidance document, which we have put up earlier, is merely that; it is guidance. You mentioned the word "standards" for, I think, Crossrail's own documentation, but the HMRI guidance is just that, is it not?

(Mr Berryman) When I say that HMRI do not approve things, they do not approve things at the design stage. What they do do is approve the railway before it is opened. In fact, you cannot open a railway without HMRI approval. Failure to follow their guidelines is something which would lead to extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, in opening a railway, so we would not fail to follow their guidelines unless we really negotiated with them and made sure they were absolutely comfortable.

8887. So the guidance, therefore, assists the Promoter in the initial outline design, which is in the plans before this Committee.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, I think that is a fair comment. It is not mandatory, as has been evidenced by the negotiations we have had with them on Fisher Street, but you have to have a very, very good reason for not complying with it.

8888. There would be no point in putting in the Bill something which would never get the approval of HMRI. Is that fair?

(Mr Berryman) I think that would be a fair comment, yes.

8889. That does not preclude including provision for matters which may be marginal.

(Mr Berryman) I think with anything which goes against the guidelines issued by HMRI, one would have to be very confident that they understood the reasons for that and they would not be minded to disapprove it later. It is not something that we would lightly do. The reason for the guidelines being issued by HMRI is entirely to prevent that kind of thing happening.

8890. I would like to go back to the HMRI guidance, if we can. It is on page 32 of our documents. I will just read again: "Note: Current practice indicates that distances between access points should be in the order of 1 km where there are twin single-bore tunnels with adequate intermediate cross-passages. In other circumstances this distance may need to be reduced." First (this is an obvious point but can you confirm), there are indeed twin single-bore tunnels at this location?

(Mr Berryman) There are.

8891. Help me on this because I am not sure: are there adequate intermediate cross-passages as well?

(Mr Berryman) There are.

8892. Do you agree that this note does not say that every single intervention tunnel must be exactly one kilometre from the nearest access point?

(Mr Berryman) That does not say that exactly. The indication to me, on reading that note, is that you can reduce it if you like but one kilometre ought to be what you should be aiming for.

8893. It does not say that you need to be exact, and that is borne out by the location of the Fisher Street shaft.

(Mr Berryman) That is true, but of course, as I have explained already, the agreement of the location of the Fisher Street shaft was something which took a long time to negotiate and agree with the Fire Brigade, in particular.

8894. I understand the property constraints in that area but it is a different sort of area from where we are discussing. Have LFEPA or the HMRI been asked at all about the possibility of locating the shaft here to the west of Arsenal Way?

(Mr Berryman) No, they have not been specifically asked, but we have raised the same issue at a number of other locations. There is another location on which evidence will be given later to the Committee at Hanbury Street in the Whitechapel area, where issues of shaft location were critical. We have had many negotiations with the Fire Brigade and HMRI about this point of distance and it is something that they are very strong on and will only contemplate relaxation if there are very, very good reasons for doing so.

8895. As we know, we are not claiming at all to be engineering experts and, importantly, we are in no way trying to lighten the importance of the safety of the railway, but we are interested to know why one kilometre is the magic figure. You mentioned it was because it is the distance that the firemen have to walk to get to particular incidents, but it is a conveniently round figure and I am just wondering if you knew if there had been any investigation background. Where did that figure actually come from? Is it from experience?

(Mr Berryman) It is an empirical figure that has been used for many years. I think it was based on tests done with breathing apparatus. It is a round figure, as you say, and round figures are always suspicious in engineering terms, but I guess it is one of those things on which it is difficult to be absolutely scientific about. It is, to some extent, a judgment, heavily influenced by the Fire Brigade. They often try and suggest in schemes (and a good example is the Jubilee Line Extension) that the shafts should be closer together - in fact on the Jubilee Line they are I think their position since the events of 7 July last year has hardened on the necessity to have shafts no further apart than they would like.

8896. CHAIRMAN: So it is a standard rather than just guidelines?

(Mr Berryman) It is treated as a standard. There is another standard which is not quoted here which has not actually come into play yet. There is a thing called the European Interoperability Directive, which we have some knowledge of because a member of my team is on the drafting committee for it. That, also, has got the same requirement in it of one-kilometre spacing for access tunnels.

8897. The reason I ask is I remember on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link they adapted some kind of standard for strengthening (?) inside the tunnel. Is that correct?

(Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes. Of course, that is a slightly different situation to this railway. The Fire Brigade take the view, from the beginning of this project, that that would not be appropriate for this scheme.

8898. MR LEWIS: Finally on the western option, Mr Berryman, just taking you back to the Promoter's Response (if we can put up page 12, please), you might understand why Ferrotec saw that rather brief response as being an indication of Crossrail saying: "Well, it is outside the guidance/standards, whichever it is to be called; therefore we are just not going to bother asking HMRI or LFEPA to look into this further."

(Mr Berryman) Yes, I agree the wording is a bit unfortunate but, as I say, this is almost our number one issue with HMRI and the Fire Brigade - the location and specific details of the shafts. Although I am not aware that this has specifically been made an issue of, we know that very well.

8899. Can I just remind you of an earlier case which I was involved in, involving Maryland station? Newham's case, you will remember, (and it was a very short statement because most things were agreed satisfactorily) was that in effect Crossrail agreed that at Maryland station, where the problem was that trains were not intending to stop there at all because the platforms were too short, both parties agreed that the platforms could not be lengthened because of physical constraints in the area, and an undertaken was given by Crossrail that, despite that, they would take further the matter with HMRI, despite, I assume, guidance being placed on selective door opening, which is the solution to that problem. It is probably not something which, in principle, you would expect HMRI necessarily to approve but maybe they could be convinced to do so, which is effectively what we are asking here.

(Mr Berryman) I think what happened there is that in the period between doing the design work and getting to the point we got to a couple of weeks ago, HMRI have actually changed their minds on selective door opening because of some experience on southern region's new trains project where a sophisticated system of GIS satellite location and making sure the right door was open at the right stations has been proved to be effective. So HMRI, irrespective of any action by us, had already changed their view on that point. That was why we were able to give that undertaking that we would investigate and if possible carry that option out.

8900. But would Crossrail be prepared to investigate further with HMRI the possibility of moving to the west of Arsenal Way?

(Mr Berryman) I really do not think there would be any point. As I say, the guidance is quite clear. There are no extenuating circumstances which I can think of which are to the same scale as the problems which resulted in the Fisher Street decision. If anything, since the events of 7 July last year, the position of the state authorities has hardened significantly on giving relaxation to the standards. I really do not think there would be any future in further investigation.

8901. I have just four remaining questions on the AMP versus Ferrotec issue. Mr Berryman, has a detailed survey of the business requirements of Ferrotec been carried out or has just the survey of AMP's requirements been carried out or neither.

(Mr Berryman) I would say a superficial survey of AMP's requirements were carried out, but I would not call them detailed. It is basically just about the numbers of people there and so on.

8902. Mr Elvin asked Mr Aukett this question and I am going to ask it of you. Has any work gone into investigating the availability of alternative properties, meeting the different needs of Ferrotec and even AMP as well?

(Mr Berryman) We have not done any work on that, no.

8903. Can you understand why Ferrotec might be unconvinced of AMP's needs, which may amount to a large warehouse and large turning area and it might be easier to be met than Ferrotec's who need clean, dust-free and quiet premises to ensure that they can carry out their product development and test it?

(Mr Berryman) At the risk of shooting myself in the foot for future cases, being next to a construction site for a shaft is not going to be a clean, quiet, dust-free environment to the standards that they are talking about. It will be dust free, of course, but it probably will not be as quiet as it would be if we were there.

8904. Finally on this subject, would Ferrotec's suspicions be correct in that it is the comparative costs of moving AMP, borne out by the fact that you said they have a 999-year lease as opposed to our much shorter lease, that may well have been the deciding factor rather than the actual convenience of the party in principle deciding that Ferrotec should be the unlucky party?

(Mr Berryman) Cost is always an issue and of course that is a big factor.

8905. One final point on Woolwich. Can you confirm that, in fact, if Woolwich were constructed, Ferrotec would presumably be contained?

(Mr Berryman) Ferrotec would be in a similar position as they are now.

8906. There are no worksite implications as far as that structure outside the AMP premises? Would the worksite need to spill into Ferrotec's car park?

(Mr Berryman) It depends on how much of the other car park we take. I do not think we are at a sufficiently detailed design stage to say about one way or the other, but I think the very strong likelihood is that Ferrotec would not be affected.

 

Re-examined by MR ELVIN

8907. MR ELVIN: Can I put up the constraints map, please. Does it follow - we have got the one-kilometre window that you described to the Committee earlier - that the location for an intervention shaft, were it moved to the west, would necessarily be closer than at Fisher Street?

(Mr Berryman) Can you repeat the question?

8908. It was suggested at an earlier stage that it might be only 1.12 kilometres, whereas Fisher Street is 1.9, I think.

(Mr Berryman) It is 1.19.

8909. Does it necessarily follow, however, that it will only be 1.12 kilometres?

(Mr Berryman) It would depend on the detailed design and the exact position of the shaft and where you could put it in. It may also depend on what is in the ground just there. That would certainly be the closest it could be.

8910. In terms of the fact that it would still come up in the middle of a car park, would it avoid disruption to other users and occupiers in the locality?

(Mr Berryman) No, it would not avoid disruption, it would still need to be a worksite and there would still need to be some space taken.

8911. Do you know what the function of the car park is to the west?

(Mr Berryman) I understand it is a multi-user car park and it is used by industrial units. I do not know the name of the building, but it is the old Woolwich Arsenal buildings. There is also an element of it used by people who just park over across the road.

8912. In terms of those, it would disrupt more than a single user?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, it would.

8913. This is the last question. A comparison was made between the change in approach to selected door opening at Maryland and the possible relaxation of standards here. To what extent are the two comparable in terms of the safety issues they arose?

(Mr Berryman) They are not directly comparable because the rules about selective door opening were not about selective door opening, they were about the length of platforms. The rules were that the platform had to be longer than the train that pulled into it. This goes back to the days of slam doors where people could just open a door and step out into space if there was no platform there. It had taken some time for the regulations to catch up with modern technology. The use of sliding doors, GPS train positioning and other things of that nature gave a technological safe answer to the problem of not having a platform outside the door when you get off the train. It was that change which led to the acceptance by HMRI that selective door opening was a feasible and safe thing to do. It was a change in technology rather than any relaxation of safety rules or anything which led to that change. There is nothing comparable in the area of tunnel safety.

8914. Thank you very much, Mr Berryman. I do not know if the Committee have questions.

 

The witness withdrew

8915. CHAIRMAN: Do you have any other witnesses?

8916. MR ELVIN: No

8917. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to make your closing statement?

8918. MR ELVIN: I will. Sir, the position on Ferrotec is very straightforward. Mr Berryman has explained to you the nature of the standard which is applicable and why it narrows the options. The suggestion by Ferrotec that the standard could be relaxed to the extent of moving away from both AMP and Ferrotec does not have Mr Berryman's support. He explained to you the difficulty and the amount of effort it took to persuade the fire brigade before 7 July last year to agree to the Fisher Street shaft being outside the normal standard. He has also explained to you that the location of Fisher Street is particularly constrained and is not really comparable with the current situation. His clear view is that the sort of relaxation which Mr Lewis was suggesting, which would benefit Ferrotec, would not be likely to be granted. The comparison that was being drawn in safety terms between relaxation of SDO at Maryland and on the safety requirements for firemen getting to and from fires simply is not a valid comparison.

8919. It is quite clear that changes in technology are not going to alter the fact that firemen have to get down shafts and go along tunnels and they have to have a reasonable distance so that both vertically and horizontally they are not going too far in order to both assist and then find safety afterwards. The difficulties, of course, of 7 July last year have rather underlined these issues so far as the fire brigade are concerned. Therefore, the issue is a difficult one. Do we disrupt one business or another? AMP is a more substantial business, it employs more people, quite clearly, and it employs more local people. I do not think the fact that they may be unskilled has got anything to do with the fact. There are unfortunate consequences whichever course of action is taken and we suggest that although it has been a difficult decision, the decision that has been taken is a sensible one.

8920. We do not adopt the view that this will all be solved by the station of Woolwich because, as you know, we do not support the station of Woolwich, and we have made our position clear on that. That would itself involve a significant impact on AMP. For the reasons I have suggested, based fundamentally on safety requirements and on making a different decision between the impacts on two businesses, we respectfully suggest that the Ferrotec Petition should not be supported by the Committee.

8921. MR LEWIS: Ferrotec believe that Crossrail should reconsider their options for the Arsenal shaft. They do not believe that Crossrail have taken anywhere near enough care to consider viable alternatives to protect the continuity of their business, the requirements of which have been spelled out by Mr Aukett and which I do not need to describe again.

8922. I need not say much about the Woolwich Station option as I am sure you have heard enough already last week. However, the Arsenal shaft issue was understandably not dwelt on much by Greenwich when they presented their case. All I would say is if the Committee needs another reason to say "yes" to Woolwich then this case provides one.

8923. I deal next with the western option, and I would stress once more that Ferrotec recognise that safety must be paramount. Sir, the Promoter's response to the Petition on this issue, which I will not read again, is, to put it at its highest, inadequate. Sir, every bit of this new railway will require the approval of HMRI, as Mr Berryman said, before it comes into operation. The response simply did not make sense, and Mr Berryman confirmed the drafting was rather unfortunate. Sir, my guess is that what the Promoters meant to say in their response was that the approval of HMRI will be required and their guidance says that the access points should be at one-kilometre intervals and no more. I would suggest that such a response is not good enough either for two reasons. First, we have the example of Fisher Street where Crossrail are planning a shaft which is actually further from the magic one-kilometre mark than the western Arsenal shaft would be. That must suggest that HMRI's guidance is not always followed rigidly. Indeed, when you read the guidance on page 32 of our documents, it does not say that all access points must be exactly one kilometre apart, there is flexibility.

8924. Secondly, the response seems to suggest that the Promoter simply could not be bothered even to ask HMRI whether the western shaft is acceptable. Sir, you have seen nothing to suggest that the question has been put specifically, and there is nothing to suggest that HMRI would definitely say "no". I am referring you to the example of Maryland Station again where an entirely different approach has been taken and Crossrail have agreed to take reasonable steps to obtain HMRI's agreement to selective door opening.

8925. Sir, for all those reasons, if the Committee does not accept Greenwich's case for Woolwich Station, Ferrotec would ask that the Promoter be required to include the necessary powers for the western alternative in the Bill and implement it subject to HMRI and LFEPA approval, which the Promoter should make all reasonable efforts to obtain. If it does not, then there is always the current fallback in the Bill.

8926. Turning briefly to the situation as between Crossrail's choice of whether to use a Ferrotec-friendly or an AMP-friendly option, I would urge you to consider Ferrotec's real concerns about the disruption that a move would have on their business. You have heard how it took a year to find the current premises. There has been no hard evidence put to you about the relevant inconvenience to be suffered by the neighbours, and Ferrotec's suspicion is that in the end the decision boils down to cost.

8927. Ferrotec would urge that at least the Promoters be required to rethink their preliminary decision and, in that respect, Ferrotec would be quite prepared to discuss with the Promoters what their concerns are in greater detail so that perhaps a more reasonable decision could be made in the event that Crossrail do actually have to choose between the two Petitioners. That is all I wanted to say.

8928. CHAIRMAN: That concludes the case for the Petition for Ferrotec UK Limited. Can I now ask again if the LA21 Traffic and Transport Group is present? Can it be noted that we have called for them twice and they have not appeared. Therefore it can be viewed as heard by the Committee. We have one other Petition, Alternative Mail and Parcels Limited. Are they present and do they wish to make a presentation?

8929. MR ELVIN: Sir, there is a gentleman here from AMP, but the situation with AMP has been resolved by agreement.

8930. CHAIRMAN: Can I say, that concludes all of today's hearing. There is just one announcement. Next Tuesday we will be making a visit to the site between Whitechapel and Hanbury Street. With all cases in the past, if there are any Petitioners connected to those Petitioners, they may join us on route. If they wish to find out the details they should contact the clerks about that. Finally, for all those people who have long journeys home or whatever there are refreshments at the end of the corridor if you would like to partake. Thank you.