Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4140
- 4159)
4140. Mr Goodman: I have no further questions.
Further re-examination by Ms Lieven
4141. Ms Lieven: Just on that last point
to make it absolutely clear, Mr Fry if you could put up Mr Goodman's
exhibit 02,[13]
the one which has got a whole platform on it, the entire platform
is 250 metres long, is that right?
(Mr Berryman) 240 metres long.
4142. If you are on the western half, the western
140 metres, could you explain how you would escape?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. You escape through this
end of the station. You can see the escape stairs here. What you
do is walk to the end of the platform through this cross passage
and you are immediately into a vertical staircase which takes
you to the surface. There is a relatively short distance from
the platform to the bottom of the stairs.
4143. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
Mr Berryman. I do not know if the Committee has any questions.
4144. Chairman: No. Thank you, Mr Berryman.
The witness withdrew
4145. Ms Lieven: Can I call Mr David
Anderson to deal with the environmental matters.
Mr David Anderson, Recalled
Further examination by Ms
Lieven
4146. Mr Anderson has given evidence to the
Committee before. I am assuming he has been sworn. That is right,
is it not, Mr Anderson?
(Mr Anderson) Correct.
4147. He has given his qualifications before.
Perhaps Mr Fry can put up the photograph of the building itself
which is number two in our exhibit pack.[14]
Can you just start by telling the Committee whether the Corporation
of London, who are the freeholders, or Islington, who are the
local planning authority, have raised any objection to the demolition
of this building?
(Mr Anderson) I am not aware
that they have.
4148. On your assessment this building clearly
falls within the conservation area. Does it make a positive, negative
or neutral contribution to that conservation area?
(Mr Anderson) The assessment that was recorded
in the Environmental Statement suggested that this building made
a negative contribution to the quality of the conservation area.
4149. Can I move on to Mr Goodman's proposed
alternative and Charterhouse Square. Perhaps Mr Fry could put
up the photograph of Charterhouse Square, which is number six.[15]
Can you describe to us the townscape of Charterhouse Square in
very rough terms because, as I recall, the Committee did not visit
it on the site visit.
(Mr Anderson) Charterhouse Square
is a protected London square located entirely within the conservation
area. It is regarded generally as a high quality townscape with
a high sensitivity to potential change. It might be helpful if
we could pull up the plan which is number five.[16]
4150. Yes.
(Mr Anderson) This is just focusing on the
square. You can see the pentagonal layout of the square and the
number of listed buildings that form the terraces around the square,
in particular the Grade I Charterhouse building which is at the
top. We have a photo of that.[17]
It is also worth pointing out a number of features of the square,
including the railings, the bollards and, indeed, a telephone
kiosk are also listed structures.
4151. That is a Grade I listed building, is
it not, Mr Anderson?
(Mr Anderson) Correct.
4152. While we are on the square, perhaps we
can go back to the photo of the gates of it, number six.[18]
Is it a private square or a public square? Is the road a public
road?
(Mr Anderson) I believe the square
and the road are privately owned.
4153. As far as the owners of the square are
concerned, at this stage have they any notice that there is a
suggestion that there might be a head shaft going into their square?
(Mr Anderson) Not that I am aware of.
4154. Could we go through impacts briefly. What
would the temporary construction impacts be in terms of townscape
and built heritage of putting the escape stairs into the square?
(Mr Anderson) Clearly there would be a work
site at this location in the square and that would add to the
work site impact that is going to be experienced in this area.
Although there is a worsening of the situation in this particular
location because of the volume of construction activity in the
area, it would not be a particularly significant addition in terms
of the temporary impact.
4155. What about the permanent impact?
(Mr Anderson) The permanent impact would be
significantly different because of the sensitivity to change of
this particular square on the townscape. We can expect the intrusion
of the shaft structure at this location to be regarded as a significant
adverse impact on the square itself.
4156. How easy do you think it would be to make
a headhouse structure fit into the square?
(Mr Anderson) I think it would be quite difficult.
I think Mr Berryman has given an indication of the scale of the
structure and, indeed, its location in the centre of the cobbled
highway there.
4157. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
Mr Anderson, I think that is all at this stage.
Cross-examined by Mr Goodman
4158. Mr Goodman: Just turning to the
statement bout the Corporation of London, in their petition, which
they kindly gave me a copy of, they do state in their paragraph
31 that: "As a local planning authority with statutory responsibility
as respect listed buildings and buildings, whether listed or not,
in conservation areas, your petitioners are concerned to be satisfied
that in respect of buildings that make an important contribution
to the streetscape; all alternatives to demolition, including
the retention of the façade, have been explored."
They go on to say: "The ES proceeds on the assumption that
following demolition of buildings and completion of works in conservation
areas within the City, it is extremely unlikely that the sites
will not be redeveloped". That is the ES statement. "The
Corporation as a petitioner would cite as an example of this numbers
38 and 40-42" and they question the assumption made by the
ES. I do not think they have entirely ruled out the question that
if at all possible 40-42, if at all practical, should remain.
(Mr Anderson) My understanding of their concern
was about the feasibility of providing a replacement following
demolition and that is a matter which we are discussing with them
and, indeed, the London Borough of Islington who are the planning
authority for this particular site. I think the extract you have
read out reflects the role of those buildings make a positive
contribution to the area and a presumption of their retention
there and it goes on to talk about the potential difficulty of
providing replacement development at this site should it be demolished.
4159. Mr Goodman: I have no further questions.
13 Committee Ref: A48, Diagram of alternative intervention
site location (ISLNLB-22505-002). Back
14
Crossrail Ref: P54, Photograph of 38-42 Charterhouse Street (ISLNLB-22504-002). Back
15
Crossrail Ref: P54, Photograph of 'Western Arm' of Charterhouse
Square (ISLNLB-22504-006). Back
16
Crossrail Ref: P54, Charterhouse Square-Key Environmental Features
(ISLNLB-22504-005). Back
17
Crossrail Ref: P54, Charterhouse Square (SCN20060309-001). Back
18
Crossrail Ref: P54, Photograph of 'Western Arm' of Charterhouse
Square (ISLNLB-22504-006). Back
| 
