Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2640
- 2659)
2640. On the retention scheme, I think there
may be some confusion creeping in here. Islington asked us to
consider facade retention and we commissioned Mott MacDonald to
draw up a report. It is no part of Crossrail's scheme, is it,
to retain the façade?
(Mr Morton) It is no part
of Crossrail's scheme but if I was the engineer appointed by Crossrail
to look at a facade retention scheme I would say, "Hey, Mr
Client, there are other ways of doing this that can save you money
and make it easier for yourself."
2641. The conclusion of the Mott MacDonald report
was that Mott MacDonald would not recommend facade retention,
was it not?
(Mr Morton) That is right.
2642. As I understand it, you are not recommending
facade retention either.
(Mr Morton) Facade retention
could be done. It is not difficult. Storage could be arranged
offsite for various units. It is possible.
2643. On this criticism that Crossrail have
not done the balancing exercise and we have just blasted in with
a bunch of civil engineers and popped a shaft down, are you aware
that Crossrail have been advised throughout by Alan Baxter Associates
who are both well known civil engineers but also well known advisers
on historic buildings and conservation? Before you comment on
their bona fides, were you aware that Alan Baxter had been
advising Crossrail throughout?
(Mr Morton) I knew they
were involved but I did not know their total involvement. I know
them and have a great deal of respect for them.
2644. Can we look at the constraints on this
site? I am going to put one of our documents on the scanner. I
do not want to get into the detail of what bits of kit are needed
on the site. I want to use this as a drawing to show the constraints
around this site. To the north we have Charterhouse Street very
confusingly called the northern arm. On the Crossrail proposals
as they exist at the moment, we are already taking half of the
highway, are we not? There is no scope to go north on the work
site without closing Charterhouse Street?
(Mr Morton) No.
2645. To the south we have an equally confusingly
named Charterhouse Street, southern arm. Again, we impinge on
the pavement there. I do not know whether you are aware of this
but there is no scope to move the work site south into Charterhouse
Street, southern arm because that would begin to have implications
for the delivery vehicles going to the market. The City has made
it clear that that is unacceptable to it.
(Mr Morton) I just noted
that Crossrail's engineers' proposals showed the steel work supporting
it beyond that arm.
2646. But not, as I understand it, impinging
on the parts of the highway that would have any effect on deliveries
to the market. That is a no go area. Is that your understanding
as well?
(Mr Morton) If you look
at 5B, you will see that the facade retention projects out beyond
the site boundary.
2647. Effectively, that is the same plan, is
it not?
(Mr Morton) Yes.
2648. I cannot say it too often. That is not
Crossrail's proposal. That is in our view the only way that you
can retain the façade. Are you aware of the constraint
on the Charterhouse Street, southern arm, by which any taking
of the highway there would be opposed by the City because it would
constrain access to the market?
(Mr Morton) I accept that.
2649. Can we revert back to what we are proposing?
So far as moving east is concerned, the Crossrail proposal for
the work site takes the entirety of Fox and Knot Street. Do you
see that?
(Mr Morton) It does not,
does it, except in terms of the storage requirements.
2650. What I said was the Crossrail proposal
for the work site takes the entirety of Fox and Knot Street.
(Mr Morton) Right.
2651. We cannot move onto the pavement in Fox
and Knot Street—in other words, here—because this
very large building here has its emergency access onto that pavement.
(Mr Morton) I am talking
about two metres at the most and that would not take it that far,
based on that scale.
2652. We will come to the dimensions in a moment.
You are aware that we have to maintain an emergency access to
that building on Charterhouse Square? Were you aware of that constraint?
(Mr Morton) I am sorry to
say that if you are putting the storage, huts or whatever there
you do not get that access, do you?
2653. We do because this is pavement.
(Mr Morton) I am not intending
to go on to the pavement.
2654. I am trying to get the constraints straight
at this stage before we come to what you are and are not proposing.
Are you aware that we cannot take that pavement and block the
emergency access to 23 Charterhouse Square?
(Mr Morton) I accept that.
2655. Kelvin Hopkins: Where is the emergency
exit?
2656. Ms Lieven: I will speculate. I
think it is somewhere in the middle, about there, but not right
at one end or the other. Can we turn to what is being proposed
for this site before we look at the options? We know from earlier
that the shaft is an emergency access shaft and there are certain
dimensions which have to be met for that shaft in order to meet
Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Railways standards. The dimensions
are effectively fixed. You do not just have to have the stairs;
you have to have landings as well.
(Mr Morton) The volumetric
areas are fixed, not the plan areas.
2657. I am quite happy with that at this stage.
From the bottom of the shaft—this is all explained in the
Mott MacDonald Report—the chamber at the bottom, the cross
adits and the passages down to the platform for emergency access
all have to be built from this shaft, do they not?
(Mr Morton) Yes.
2658. You accept that?
(Mr Morton) Yes.
2659. Can we check exactly what is going on
with your plan by reference to the dimensions of the shaft at
the Fox and Knot Street point. On our proposal, the shaft comes
here, just crosses the pavement of Fox and Knot Street and the
outer rim impinges into Fox and Knot Street there. Do you see
that?
(Mr Morton) The outer rim
is only at ground level.
| 
