Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4100
- 4119)
4100. Mr Goodman: Indeed, I totally support
that. Some of these points may not be relevant, 38 may be retained,
it may not. All I would point to, to the Promoters' response,
we were saying, "Do not demolish buildings unless it is absolutely
necessary". They do say that although the shaft would just
abut the parting wall of 38, where it joins up to 40-42, it would
require some underpinning, not rocket science, underpinning, straightforward
engineering stuff, and then it goes on to say, "Anyway, it
needs more working area". It seems to me illustrative of
the fact that no matter what was said, the buildings may well
not survive and that I cannot understand.
4101. The second thing is to present these late
drawings, although they do, to a certain extent, bolster our scheme—it
is a doable scheme, it is not engineeringly outside the realms
of possibility, it can be done—but to send that with no
notification of why they were sending it, et cetera, I find strange.
4102. Chairman: You are not proposing
to call your witness? Are you going to call your witness?
4103. Mr Goodman: We thought beforehand
that if there are questions brought by the other side which we
might need to address particularly on the guesstimate, which it
can only be at this stage, of what the compensation cost to demolish
both buildings is, if that comes up or is relevant, then I would
like to call that witness at that time.
4104. Chairman: It is not exactly the
order which we normally prescribe to. Can I ask you just to give
me a moment or two because I want to hear Ms Lieven?
4105. Ms Lieven: Yes, certainly, sir.
Can I first of all give a genuinely heartfelt apology to Mr Goodman
that we did not put a covering note on the exhibits explaining
what they were for. That was a mistake and we will sort it out
in the future. I can only apologise to Mr Goodman. Can I then
explain, what we were trying to do was to follow the Committee's
instructions to give the documentary material, which we were going
to rely on, to the other side in advance. What we sought to do
in the exhibit pack was to explain in engineering terms what we
understood Mr Goodman to be proposing—although Mr Berryman
will give evidence that in engineering terms it is feasible, and
I have already said to the Committee in engineering terms it is
feasible—it is, in our view, highly undesirable for the
reasons Mr Berryman will go through. The attempts in the drawings
that have been put up on the screen were an attempt by Crossrail
to show how Mr Goodman's ideas could theoretically be put into
reality. That should have been explained in a covering note and
I can only apologise in clear terms that it was not.
4106. Chairman: The Committee are at
one in saying that this really is not good enough. The Promoters
have to do better in the future. It is not acceptable that such
material should be sent to a Petitioner at such short notice but
also with a lack of explanatory material. We do hope that it will
not occur in the future.
4107. Can I just put to you a point that the
Petitioner has made which you may deal with in the course of your
performance. Can we delay, or would you be agreeable to delay
their choice of whether they put their witness forward until slightly
later in this hearing because of the questions that he raised?
4108. Ms Lieven: I am perfectly happy
to be led by the Committee on that. As I indicated in opening,
I have Mr Smith here to deal with the compensation issues. If
it would help the Committee to hear Mr Berryman and Mr Smith first
and then hear Mr Goodman's witness, I am perfectly content with
that order.
4109. Chairman: I think that is the way
we will proceed.
4110. Ms Lieven: Certainly, sir. Can
I just come back on the issue of the exhibits for the moment.
So far as the explanation is concerned, I completely accept what
the Committee said and I will do my utmost to ensure that is done
in the future. Can I just say on timing that we were, to be frank,
late with Mr Goodman by a few hours. That was an administrative
failure and, again, I have to apologise but the Committee do have
to understand that the nature of this process, and this is no
fault of Mr Goodman's, is we only find out quite late in the day
what Mr Goodman is proposing as an alternative. We do our best
in the PRD, which the Committee will remember we are now giving
to the other side four weeks in advance to put forward the position,
but it is inevitable that after that there are further discussions
and there were telephone conversations with Mr Goodman. We then
understood that what he was suggesting was the alternative he
has presented this morning. We then put together, as it were,
a more detailed response to that. I am afraid the Committee will
have to accept that it does inevitably mean that things will be
going backwards and forwards quite close to the hearing. Having
said that, I am not seeking to justify the fact it only got to
Mr Goodman yesterday lunchtime/afternoon and it had no explanation.
On that I am nothing but apologetic and we will sort that out
in the future.
4111. Chairman: There is no need to return
to what we have said.
4112. Ms Lieven: Can I just deal with
Mr Binley's other point, the number 38 point? As I hoped I had
made clear in opening, what we are discussing with Islington that
we will tell the Committee about next week will not in any terms
remove the need to demolish number 40-42. I do not have any difficulty
in just presaging next Tuesday to the Committee.
4113. We are talking about moving the shaft
by something like two metres using more of Fox and Knot Street.
40-42 will still have to be demolished. As far as Mr Goodman's
petition is concerned, it actually makes no difference whatsoever
to him what we are discussing with Islington. There is also the
point that those discussions have not, as it were, reached an
end point yet so it would be wrong in some ways to be discussing
them with another petitioner and could confuse the situation.
On the facts of this case it makes no difference to Mr Goodman,
his property will undoubtedly have to be demolished under any
alternative proposal put forward next Tuesday.
4114. You can see that on this slide.[7]
That is where the shaft is proposed at the moment. It is likely
that we will be showing you next Tuesday shifting that shaft two
metres across Fox and Knot Street, but you can see very simply
that the bulk of the shaft will remain on the Springdene property.
On some of the exhibits one can see the Springdene property outlined
in red. On the plan that is in front of you, you should be able
to see the Springdene property. It is easy to see if you move
the shaft two metres across Fox and Knot Street it does not have
any benefit, I am afraid, in retaining the Springdene property.
I hope that answers the question.
4115. I was not intending to ask Mr Goodman
any questions. I think the most efficient way to deal with this
petition is for me to proceed directly to call Mr Berryman and
then Mr Anderson the environmental side to deal with the points
raised, if that is acceptable to the Committee.
4116. Chairman: That is acceptable.
Mr Keith Berryman, Recalled
Further examination by Ms Lieven
4117. Ms Lieven: The Committee have already
met Mr Berryman on the Smithfield Traders' petition so I will
not reintroduce him to the Committee. First of all, can I ask
you to explain what the proposed shaft at 40-42 Charterhouse Street
is going to be used for?
(Mr Berryman) This is an escape
shaft to provide escape stairs from platform level of the Underground
station to be used only in a case of emergency.
4118. Can you then explain why it is, as Mr
Goodman quite rightly said, that this part of the scheme only
came forward quite late in the day?
(Mr Berryman) The original designs for the
station were carried out when it was assumed that the Thameslink
2000 scheme would proceed in advance of the Crossrail scheme.
What we had intended to do at that stage was make use of what
would have been the redundant track bed of the Moorgate branch
of the Thameslink line to provide for a shaft. That would have
been in a position around about here.[8]
It would have been within the ticket hall building. Unfortunately,
as Members will know, the Thameslink 2000 scheme has been significantly
delayed and, therefore, we had to come up with a scheme which
allowed Crossrail to go ahead while the Thameslink Moorgate branch
was still in place. That is why why we changed the scheme to a
different shaft location. I think Members will appreciate that
it has led to a rather complicated arrangement at this end.
4119. While we have got that plan up and you
are explaining that, could you just explain how you get from the
platforms to the emergency shaft under our proposal?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. These are the two platforms
here, there is a cross passage between them and from that cross
passage a staircase rises up so that the level of the escapees,
if you like, is above the level of the tracks, above the level
of the running tunnels. There is then a transverse shaft which
leads into the escape stairs and vertically up to the surface.
The point to make here is that the shaft location is on the opposite
side of the running tunnels to the platforms, therefore people
have to be taken over the top of the running tunnel to get to
the possible location of the staircase.
7 Crossrail Ref: P54, Axonometric of Farringdon station
/ 38-42 Charterhouse St (ISLNLB-22504-001). Back
8
Crossrail Ref: P54, Axonometric of Farringdon station / 38-42
Charterhouse St (ISLNLB-22504-001). Back
| 
