Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8940
- 8959)
8940. There is no issue, therefore, as you would
expect, between ourselves and the Petitioner as to the very high
value of this building and its associated structures as a historic
structure.
8941. May I turn briefly to the impact of the
works. We have embarked upon careful assessment of the value of
the church and its associated buildings as heritage structures,
and of the possible impact, particularly in terms of settlement
risk, of the construction of the underground works which I drew
to your attention upon the integrity and fabric of the building.
We have identified that the building lies within the 10 mm settlement
contour, and, as you will recall from the presentation given to
you by Professor Mair towards the beginning of the Committee's
sittings, that means that the building is one which carries at
least a risk of settlement impacts from the works.
8942. May I say straight away that the Promoter's
commitment is to avoid any such impacts being brought to bear
upon the church from the construction of the Crossrail scheme,
or to reduce their effects so that those effects are negligible,
because there can be no doubt that the scheme must be constructed
in such a way as to secure the preservation of this building so
that future generations can enjoy it, just as others have enjoyed
it in the past and do so today.
8943. That is not an issue, therefore. The question
we have to address is how we are to achieve that and to minimise
and to control any risk of settlement impact. As you know, sir,
we have a detailed process for assessing, monitoring and providing
for the avoidance and the control of settlement impact. We have
explained that to you in evidence from Professor Mair and also
from time to time during the hearing of other Petitions. Suffice
to say that that process pays particular and detailed attention
to the assessment, monitoring and protection of listed buildings,
of which this is a prime example, and that process is well underway
in relation to St Dunstan's Church.
8944. We have carried out the Stage 3 first
iteration assessment, which has involved heritage assessment by
Alan Baxter & Associates and an engineering assessment by
Mott MacDonald, our engineering consultants. We have placed that
in the exhibits which are before you, beginning at exhibit 04C009.[3]
That process will continue now to the further stages of the assessment,
refining and attending to the particular features of the structure
that are sensitive to settlement effects, particularly the tower,
and making appropriate provision to protect those features and
the structure as a whole through the refinement of tunnelling
methods and the tunnelling process as it passes in this vicinity.
In practice, we expect that to avoid any residual settlement impacts
being caused, on the basis of our experience and our assessment,
but, to the extent that it is necessary to carry out protective
works above ground, then such works can and will be carried out
and provision can be made for those; for example, if there is
a need to brace the tower or matters of that kind. That can be
provided through the settlement process and through the construction
phase itself.
8945. All of those matters we have in mind.
They would fall within the scope of the process and the design,
both in terms of the assessment and monitoring of the design that
we propose for structures of this kind, and we have set that out
in our material to the Petitioner.
8946. That is by way of a brief overview. There
are perhaps two other points to make at this stage. Firstly, one
other matter that has been raised by the Petitioner is the presence
of plague pits in the vicinity of the church. That is something
which gives rise to understandable concerns when there is any
risk of groundbreaking being required which might interfere with
underground features of that kind. We do not propose works that
would break into those pits. The only residual risk that might
arise is if, inadvertently, because we are working relatively
close to them in relation to the shafts that are proposed in Stepney
Green, we do interfere with those. Suffice to say that there are
provisions which we can bring to bear to monitor the presence
of those pits and their extent and to take the necessary remedial
action to control any risk of the breakout of pathogens that might
be present within those pits. We have procedures in place which
will enable us to achieve that, again based on experience and
advice.
8947. The other matter I should mention is that
we have been in close consultation with the Petitioner over the
last two years or so, seeking to embrace his concerns, particularly
in relation to potential settlement impact; to explain our procedures
to him; to explain the measures that we would expect to bring
to bear in order to achieve our joint concern to secure the preservation
of this building. We would expect to continue to involve him as
a consultee in the process of developing the detailed assessment
and making provision for the preservation of the church as the
scheme progresses through to detailed design and ultimately through
to the construction phase. We have provided to you in documentary
form some of the letters and meeting minutes which reflect that
process of consultation.
8948. Sir, that is all I need to say to you
in opening.
8949. Mr Binley: Mr Mould, a letter I
have from the Reverend dated 16 May states: "The Church identified
the issue of the plague pit which is located somewhere in the
vicinity..." That is a vague phrase. Are you telling us now
that you know exactly where they are and consequently can deal
with them?
8950. Mr Mould: We have a reasonable
idea of the presence of these pits. In so far as any works to
be associated with the church are concerned, those works are underground
and are well below to which these pits are likely to have been
dug. I mentioned that we are talking about works of the order
of 28 to 37 metres below ground. I think it is inconceivable that
those pits would have got down to anything like that level.
8951. As I said to you earlier, the residual
concern identified by our Environmental Statement is that, in
relation to the construction of the surface structures (that is
to say, the shafts on Stepney Green itself), whilst we do not
propose to break ground at the points where we understand the
extent of the pits to be, because we cannot be absolutely sure
as to their full extent there is that residual risk that we may
do so. It is for that reason that we are committed to a regime
of non-intrusive monitoring in order to ensure that, if that risk
eventuates, we can take the necessary action to avoid any harm
resulting from that effect.
8952. Mr Richards: Sir, if it assists
the Committee, we are happy with the Promoter's responses concerning
the ongoing monitoring of plague pits.
8953. Mr Mould: Sir, unless there is
anything else, I will give way.
8954. Chairman: Possibly Reverend Burke
knows the exact area where the pits are. Reverend Burke, would
you like to make your case?
8955. Reverend Burke: Certainly. Good
morning and thank you for inviting us to speak before you. As
you may have gathered, this is a fairly low budget affair, so
if I make any errors in my presentation I ask for your patience
with me.
8956. I am Chris Burke. I am the rector of St
Dunstan's Church, and, as such, I am a freehold beneficed incumbent.
That means that I have the freehold of the church and the land
around it, and even the railings that circumnavigate the outside
of the churchyard. I am not in a position to sell it to you for
property development though! I am charged with its preservation
and looking after its best interests as an historic and significant
building, as well as a worshipping centre in the heart of a developing
community.
8957. St Dunstan's, as you will have picked
up in the Petition, is a very old and historic church, founded
originally in 952 by St Dunstan himself. He did not presume then
to name it St Dunstan, instead naming it the Parish of All Saints,
and it then became St Dunstan's in the 12th Century, with the
two names being reunited later, I think in the 18th Century. Parts
of the building, I am told by one of my churchwardens, are much
older than the Tower of London, a fact which gives people a great
source of pride. We have a 15th century nave and a 13th Century
chancel which includes a triple sedilia and contains the remains
of one Henry Colet who was twice Lord Mayor of London. Some of
the stonework in the church dates back to the 11th Century.
8958. The current church community is lively
and viable and there are services taking place in the church every
single day. But it is not tremendously well resourced. The church
is located in a community which is in receipt of major New Deal
for Community renewal funding, and in some respects the church
has had to rely heavily on resourcing funds from outside. The
church community is struggling to maintain and to slowly restore
and repair parts of our building. We have re-roofed the church
over the last 20 years or so and that has cost us many hundreds
of thousands of pounds and taken a great deal of effort and energy
by local people.
8959. I stand before you today having taken
a modest amount of legal advice and that advice has been offered
to us free of charge by those who have been able to work with
us and advise us. Neither myself nor the church community are
opposed to Crossrail in principle, and we have welcomed the meetings
that we have been able to broker with Crossrail, staff and advisers
during 2004. The presentation in 2004 by Professor Mair of Cambridge
University—to which reference has been made already—left
me—as I guess he probably left you—as one of the most
knowledge people in the country when it comes to tunnelling methodology.
I know everything there is to know about pressure tunnelling and
those great big machines as they pass through the ground. We felt,
however, that the examples he used in his presentation to us and
the models he offered, whilst very helpful, were not able to be
related directly to the unique and distinctive context and challenges
of our church building. He called upon an office block in Elephant
and Castle and another church, without demonstrating that they
were made in particularly the same way or face the particular
impact that we are fearful of when it comes to tunnelling, as
you can see from the drawings that were shown, so close to our
building on so many sides and perspectives.
3 Crossrail Ref: P86, Engineering Assessment by Mott
MacDonald (TOWHLB-30904C-009). Back
| 
