Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8660
- 8679)
8660. Chairman: Yes.
Mr Keith Berryman, Recalled
Examined by Mr Elvin
8661. Mr Elvin: The Committee is familiar
with Mr Berryman. I just wanted to ask where the nearest Crossrail
station was in relation to these premises?
(Mr Berryman) It is well off the plan that
you see there.[105]
In fact, if I can get my bearings correctly, it is on the other
side of the Mile End Road and some distance, at least a couple
of hundred metres, off the screen in that direction.
8662. Which station is it?
(Mr Berryman) It is Whitechapel.
8663. Can you just say as briefly as possible
what your views are about the question of interference with local
accessibility?
(Mr Berryman) There should not be any at all
in this area. The roads around the area, as the Petitioner has
said, are narrow and it is a busy area but our lorry route from
Whitechapel Station is confined to the main roads in the area.
We will no doubt be talking about Whitechapel Station later on.
Our work site is basically in the car park of the Sainsbury's
store which is on the north side of the main road there. The lorry
route would be just along that main Mile End Road. The road is
an extremely busy road, as I am sure you will appreciate, and
the difference that our lorries will make to the total number
of vehicles on that road is not hugely significant.
8664. Mr Elvin: Thank you, Mr Berryman.
Would you wait there in case there are any questions?
8665. Chairman: Mr Waterman, would you
like to ask some questions?
Cross-examined by Mr Waterman
8666. Mr Waterman: I would. Whilst on
the face of it that does seem the correct answer, if we go back
to the original drawing the reality is you only have access to
Assembly Passage from one end. It is of very restricted width
and very tight. You can get a car in but you could not get a commercial
vehicle in. You have to get access through from Redman's Road
end which now, with the various changes of routes, means you have
to come in from the Cambridge Heath side which takes you right
alongside where this proposed new station is going to be. That
is why, and I agree this is a worst case scenario, there is the
potential for issues to arise. I accept these sorts of issues
could arise. As it was today, the Rotherhithe Tunnel has been
shut and there was an issue with a crane over the Blackwall Tunnel
and the whole area came to a standstill. These things will happen,
we understand that, but my point is if there is a much more elongated
issue in terms of some land issue so access becomes a problem,
how is it proposed that these types of issues will be dealt with
from the point of view of dealing with compensation because, to
be honest, if we were to be denied access to our site for something
like approximately two weeks we would be virtually out of business,
it is as simple as that. We are working on a same day, next day
delivery cycle. In our type of field it is not an option just
to say to your customer, "I am really, really sorry but we
just cannot get board in and cannot deliver out".
(Mr Berryman) I find it quite difficult to
conceive of a situation such as the Petitioner has mentioned.
The main access to our site, as I have already said, is by the
Mile End Road and Cambridge Heath Road which is the immediate
access. They are both main roads, both wide carriageways. They
are both busy roads, of course, but, as I said earlier on, the
volume of our traffic will not make a huge difference to the volume
of traffic already there. I find it quite difficult to see how—I
am sorry, I am struggling to think of a way in which we could
materially affect the access to the premises of Mr Waterman, notwithstanding
the comments he has made about the difficulties of the one-way
system and so on, because our access is all on the other side
of the very main road that runs there.
8667. Without going on because we could just
carry on like this, the reality is it is quite well known that
this part of the East End does have its major issues. Going forward
there is an awful lot of building going on. The changes that are
going on as we speak at the Royal London where there have been
road changes have had an impact on the local traffic. It does
not take a lot because the main Mile End Road of an evening is
a nightmare most nights, and that is before any of this comes
together. There are significant traffic problems in the area,
that is undeniable. If you are working or living in the area it
is a major problem. There was a day last week when the Rotherhithe
Tunnel was shut, which is a major route across the Thames. Tonight
there is just Tower Bridge that is open and the whole area is
a complete mess. That is just on a one day basis. There always
is the potential and historically if you look at major construction
projects there are always risks where something unforeseen can
happen. All I want to have is some peace of mind that if something
were to happen it is not going to be the death knell for our company
and somehow there is provision in place that will deal with that
in some sort of workable and meaningful way.
(Mr Berryman) I am not sure what else I can
say on this point. I fully accept that the East End is a congested
area and traffic there is bad, it is a matter of common experience
that is the case, but as to whether this particular project is
any different from any other building project in the area, I cannot
see how it is. Indeed, it should be better than most because we
have a complex system of codes of construction practice, agreed
traffic routes, liaisons with local authorities and so on, which
perhaps smaller more routine projects do not need to do. Because
this project has been authorised by this Bill and is the subject
of an environmental assessment all of these things are taken into
account to a much larger degree than they would be in a conventional
building project.
8668. Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
Mr Berryman.
Re-examined by Mr Elvin
8669. Mr Elvin: Just for the Committee's
information, the traffic assessment in Volumes A to B of the Environmental
Statement shows the lorry routes. If we can just show you that
very briefly.[106]
(Mr Berryman) I do not have my
trusty pointer here, I am afraid.
8670. Perhaps if Mr Fry can zoom in a bit more
so we can actually see it.
(Mr Berryman) There you can see the routes.
We will be discussing these at length when we get on to Whitechapel
Station. Beside the Blind Beggar pub, which is a very famous public
house in the East End, Cambridge Heath Road runs up to the north
and we have a lorry route into the main tunnelling site which
is in the Sainsbury's car park. We have another lorry route which
runs up Brady Street and round the back of the Swanlea School
which is marked in black, which will have a much smaller number
of lorries. Then we have another route which goes along Durward
Street which is a street to the south of Swanlea School. Those
subsidiary routes of Brady Street and Swanlea School will have
relatively smaller numbers of traffic but there will still be
quite a few lorries. The biggest one will be up the Cambridge
Heath Road into Sainsbury's car park and back out in exactly the
same way. All the traffic will be coming in from the east and
going out to the east.
8671. Mr Elvin: Thank you.
Examined by the Committee
8672. Sir Peter Soulsby: The Petitioner
may or may not be aware that we have had evidence on the issues
of noise, subsidence and compensation and, of course, have explored
these issues to some considerable extent. I wonder if you could
say something to the Committee about the depth to which the tunnels
will be dug beneath these particular properties and how that compares
with other parts of the route.
(Mr Berryman) They are reasonably deep at this
point. From memory I think they are about 25 metres, 75 feet,
below ground level. They are a good depth down, which obviously
has an impact on the noise generated.
8673. Sir Peter Soulsby: That is very
helpful because that helps the Committee to compare the situation
that Mr Waterman and these properties will be in as against the
other evidence we have heard elsewhere.
8674. Chairman: Thank you very much,
Mr Berryman. Mr Waterman, we will take into account your petition
and what has been said at this meeting in due course. Thank you
very much indeed.
The witness withdrew
8675. Mr Waterman: Thank you very much.
8676. Chairman: Can we move on to the
petition of Ann-Marie Cousins?
8677. Mr Elvin: Miss or Mrs Cousins does
not appear to be here. My position on that petition is simply
to rely on the Petition Response Document and not to call any
evidence. It is a property close to Abbey Wood Station where the
line required for Crossrail— Perhaps if we could look at
the petition responses. It requires the removal of a building
in the garden that has been recently constructed and the Petition
Response Document simply says since the property has to be acquired
and demolished compensation will be provided.
8678. Chairman: Mr Elvin, because the
Petitioner is not here I would prefer not to hear the case at
all, but give it time to ascertain the reason for her non-attendance.
8679. Mr Elvin: I will introduce it again
if the Petitioner turns up.
105 Crossrail Environmental Statement, Whitechapel
Station-Construction Works and Impacts Map C8(ii) http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-ES16-035). Back
106
Crossrail Environmental Statement, Whitechapel Station-Transport
and Access Map C8(iv) http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-ES44-014). Back
| 
