Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7360
- 7379)
7360. Can we then please put up HAV26, the proposed
undertakings.[42]
The undertaking that the Petitioners propose in relation to Romford
station is shown on this page. What it effectively anticipates
is that there be further work undertaken by the Promoter in order
to review the possibility of a southern access being provided
at the station as part of the Crossrail works. Yes?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
7361. In the light of your understanding of
the engineering situation and of the possessions and so forth
that would be required, can you comment on the degree to which
you think there is any practicable purpose in any further work
being undertaken?
(Mr Berryman) I think we have pretty well exhausted
the options that we have looked at for this, apart from the very
substantial works that I talked about before, looking at a more
modest solution. Our starting point was that we should have the
entrance on the south side. That would be, in transport terms,
a much better solution and I do not think anybody would argue
with that, but we just have not been able to develop a way of
effectively doing that and, frankly, I cannot see that there is
much else we could do other than what we have done already.
7362. Mr Berryman, can we think about other
ways of improving access from the south side of the station to
the proposed Crossrail station ticket hall. Have we made any suggestions
to the London Borough as to how the existing street access might
be enhanced or improved in the absence of a southern entrance
to the station itself?
(Mr Berryman) We have. We have suggested that
we should work with them to improve the urban area outside the
station to improve the flow of pedestrians in front of what will
be the closed existing station. It is worth noting that one of
the reasons that the footpath outside the existing station is
very congested is that people are coming from the north and the
south and there is a considerable mixing up of the pedestrian
flows in that area. This will be ameliorated to some extent by
our proposed station construction which has the entrance further
to the north closer to the town centre, but it can be improved
considerably even beyond that by making the footpaths wider and
perhaps improving the general layout of the area, and we would
be happy to work with them towards that.
7363. Finally, so far as making our position
clear to the Petitioners in relation to the issue that we have
raised for the Committee to consider today is concerned, are you
satisfied that we have explained our position to the Petitioners
as is summarised in our letter of 18 April?
(Mr Berryman) Certainly. We sent the design
report to them, from recollection, I think it was in early 2005
and I know that we have had several discussions with them since
then.
7364. Mr Mould: Those are all my questions
in chief.
7365. Chairman: Mr Straker, how long
will your cross-examination be?
7366. Mr Straker: It is not going to
be very long, say, quarter of an hour.
7367. Chairman: Then I think we had better
break now for coffee for ten minutes.
After a short break
Cross-examined by Mr Straker
7368. Mr Straker: Mr Berryman, can I
ask you first please to look at your drawing number 59, I think
it is, which shows the existing structure.[43]
If we look at that which is called the `existing Victorian structure',
over that you have put a red line to signify that it runs from
an element which is pink over some light grey, darker grey and
then to the pink into which the doors are set.
(Mr Berryman) Which doors would
those be?
7369. I am sorry, it is the doors that we can
see on the photographs, the timber doors.
(Mr Berryman) Do you meant what Mr Thomas described
as `the arches'?
7370. Yes, that is right.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
7371. That is the early Victorian structure
and within the pink or just to the right of the pink where `existing
Victorian structure' is written, there is the continuous grey
which is shown and it is that area which is the area, is it, of
uncertainty in the sense that that has not been recently explored?
(Mr Berryman) No. This drawing is an obviously
unsuccessful attempt to demonstrate this in 3D, so the different
coloured greys are intended to show where the vertical faces of
the brick structures are and the pink surfaces are intended to
show where the horizontal surfaces will be, assuming a cut was
taken immediately below the railway lines, so the pink outline,
if you like, represents the brick structure. Inside that brick
structure we know there is material of some description. We do
not know whether it is compacted earth or brick rubble, but there
is something there.
7372. With that in mind, would you go next please
to photograph HAV23.[44]
There we see what have been described as `arches' set into what
you have called the `Victorian structure'.
(Mr Berryman) Yes. They are not
arches of course, they are buttresses.
7373. Plainly one can get into them because
there are little internal doors with padlocks, it can be seen.
(Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes.
7374. So plainly one can get into them and go
a little way back no doubt?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, indeed.
7375. The Victorian structure can be seen in
this photograph continuously, can it not, from the right-hand
side where the photograph ends running all the way across, represented
effectively by that sort of greyish brick?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
7376. So the Victorian structure runs back almost
out of sight in effect in the photograph because one gets cut
off from the corner of the modern building outside which the bus
is parked?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct. We believe that
the original station building was further to the west than is
shown in this diagram and that that ramp which you can see represents
the bit of the ramp which led up to the station building at that
time, so if you produced that line onwards, it would give you
the approximate position of where the earlier building was.
7377. So we can see within that Victorian structure,
can we not, the door which has been described as the one for occasional
use, the level of occasion being described in evidence?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.
7378. And that is something which has been cut
into the existing Victorian structure, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct. It has been
cut into the existing perimeter wall.
7379. It has been cut into the existing perimeter
wall and, moreover, a way through has been found so as to enable
people to get through.
(Mr Berryman) You will notice that that is
at the back of the buttress structure. The buttress structure,
as I mentioned earlier, is acting as one end of the bridge over
South Street. That bridge was originally an arch bridge, whereas
at the moment it is a steel-beam bridge. The very heavy abutment
will be constructed as a dead weight to stop that arch springing
apart. Where that opening has been cut through is at the back
of that abutment structure, so the structure at that point changes,
as I think you can see on our drawing number 59.[45]
Moreover, when that was built, there were a couple of things to
bear in mind. First of all, the railway was only a two-track railway
at that stage and, as the new two tracks were built, trains could
be diverted on to those tracks to allow construction underneath
of the existing railway, if you understand what I mean, during
the phases of construction, and that option is no longer available
to us because all four tracks are now very heavily used.
42 Committee Ref: A82, Draft Undertakings sought by
London Borough of Havering (HAVGLB-14705-078). Back
43
Crossrail Ref: P75, Schematic Diagram of Existing Structure of
Romford Station (HAVGLB-14704-059). Back
44
Committee Ref: A82, Photograph of route between station and bus
interchange (HAVGLB-14705-075). Back
45
Crossrail Ref: P75, Schematic Diagram of Existing Structure of
Romford Station (HAVGLB-14704-059). Back
| 
