Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2620
- 2639)
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 10 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.
| 
