Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8960
- 8979)
8960. We therefore continue to remain very concerned
in a number of areas, and these areas are shared with our inspecting
architect Julian Harrap, who is a very experienced and well respected
conservation specialist. I think you may have before you a letter
which confirms an email which he or one of his staff sent highlighting
the practice's concerns about the impact of the Crossrail tunnelling.
He draws to mind the fact that the church falls within the zone
of zero to 0.01 mm of possible movement when the tunnelling is
taken. That might not seem like an awful lot, but the movement
is likely to be absorbed on all sides by the building fabric.
That could lead to cracking within the mortar joints, or fracture
of the stonework, due to the nature of the differential movement
experienced by the whole building, as if the building were moving
across itself.
8961. The existing structure is particularly
prone to movement due to the nature of its medieval construction.
That is the thing which concerns us most. The masonry walls consist
of random rubble which is not brought to courses. It is constructed
on shallow or minimal foundations. As yet, we are not convinced
we know the nature of the foundations that exist beneath the building,
especially beneath the tower, which, as has been alluded to, houses
our very grand bells. The bells are very, very heavy, as is a
lot of the concrete work at the top of the tower, and—although
this is hearsay and you may not want to hear it—people are
amazed that the tower is able to cope with that particular weight
at the top, given that there is no clarity about the nature of
the foundations at the bottom.
8962. Underpinning the foundations—which
might be seen as a way of protection—our architect advises
us would be an expensive task and may not anyway solve the problems
experience by differential movements across the whole building.
Movement in the north-west corner of the 15th Century church tower
has already been detected. If you were to walk up the tower's
spiral staircase, you would see those little bits of kind of tell-tale
glass cemented to the wall, which would suggest that there has
been movement. Our architect has told us that this has been due
to gradual ground movement over the last 200 years.
8963. Hockley and Dawson, specialists in conservation
work and our structural engineers, have stated that the configuration
of the branching tunnels is likely to make this particular movement
we are already experiencing much worse. Recent conservation work
on the tower, which has taken place over this last winter, has
highlighted that the general condition of the stonework forming
the walls is poor. The stone used is a mixture of soft Reigate
and Kentish ragstone which is particularly soft by nature and
is currently scaling. If you walk around the bottom of the tower,
you can see bits of the scaling that has dropped off and flaked
to the ground. I and the church are therefore very concerned about
the impact of the tunnelling process on what seems to me to be
a unique and really quite delicate historic building.
8964. We have had some discussion earlier about
the location of the plague pits which are located somewhere in
the vicinity of the churchyard. Our architects are particularly
concerned at the impact of that on the building, in that of course
it makes the subsoil of a very uncertain nature because we do
not quite know what exists beneath it. There is a concern about
the impact of that upon the nature of the ground beneath—in
fact, the whole churchyard, as you might expect, is full of bodies.
8965. We are also concerned about who would
pay for the surveyors and any agreed remedial works. Our structural
engineer has stated that the church could appoint an independent
tunnelling expert who would be best at advising us at the likely
impact of the tunnelling and be able to monitor the effect of
the tunnelling upon our building. This would be an expense which
I put to you the church would find it very difficult to have to
bear. Our reason for coming to you this morning is to reiterate
that, whilst we recognise the importance of the Crossrail development
and we do value the impact that will make upon our community and
upon the whole of the East End, we ask again whether the route
of the tunnelling could be amended to take account of the risk
of damage to what is a priceless historic and unique Grade I listed
building.
8966. Whilst we are aware that there is always
a cost implication to such a move, given the possible consequences,
we think it is a question well worth asking and, from your point
of view, well worth considering. We have never really had a clear
and convincing answer as to why that would not be a possible solution.
If it does transpire that that is not possible, we should like
to think that the church might be afforded the opportunity to
engage independent experts to monitor the impact of the tunnelling
on this unique building for a reasonable period of time, the cost
of which we believe ought rightly to be borne by the Crossrail
developers.
8967. The current proposals seem to use to be
quite short term and place a heavy burden of cost and responsibility
upon the church community that we would find it difficult to support.
At the very least, we would wish to see the building treated as
though, from the Promoter's point of view, it were in category
3, especially given the very real nature and danger of lasting
damage to one of the only medieval buildings surviving in East
London.
8968. This may seem a bit like a David versus
Goliath action, but we believe our requests are reasonable in
the circumstances. I hope that members of the Committee would
view them sympathetically and thank you for allowing me to speak
to you. I will hand over now to Stephen Richards.
8969. Mr Richards: I am the Agent for
the Petitioner. I would like to address some specific points that
have arisen from the Promoter's response to our Petition, if I
may.
8970. The overriding concern of the Petitioner
is the wellbeing of this church. He sees the wellbeing of the
church and its fabric as being best guarded by a diversion of
the route of Crossrail away from the church, even by a degree
or two, in order to minimise potential disruption.
8971. We do appreciate that this would involve
a certain amount of cost and difficulty at this point and, were
that not possible, then as a fallback we would like to address
certain of the points that the Promoter has raised, particularly
in relation to paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.[4]
They deal with the risk of damage to the fabric of the church
caused by tunnelling, ongoing vibration and traffic in tunnels.
That is on page 4 of the Promoter's response. The Promoter has
kindly offered that there will be a further stage 3 assessment
to the fabric of the church in order to determine whether the
risk category in which the church should be placed. We would ask
the Committee that, in order to save the cost of conducting this
additional assessment, and particularly given the unique and delicate
nature of the building, the church be treated as if it were automatically
a category 3 building. It is my understanding—and please
do correct me if this is not the case—that a category 3
building is entitled to independent monitoring of the cost of
the Promoter during and after tunnelling. If we are placed in
a lower-risk rating than category 3, there is ongoing monitoring
during tunnelling and following tunnelling, from my understanding,
only to the extent that the church is able to show certain movements
and that this movement has taken place within the two years of
the tunnel opening for traffic following its actual opening. Once
again, this is monitoring which the church cannot afford and we
consider by the time the damage is discovered, were we able to
afford it, then the damage may well be irreparable to this unique
Listed building. In terms of that, the Promoter has offered to
make good material physical damage within two years of the opening
of the tunnel for traffic, which we welcome and thank the Promoter
for.
8972. One point we would like to make is that
it appears that we have to identify the extent of this damage,
prove this damage and the causal link with Crossrail at the church's
cost. Once again, we believe this is a cost which the church is
not able to sustain, and even if it were able to sustain it, we
feel it would be more properly borne by Crossrail to show this.
Those are the points we would like to make in relation to paragraphs
14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 in relation to damage to the church fabric.
8973. The other points raised in the Promoter's
response were in relation to paragraphs 20, 21 and 23 of the Petition.
This is on page 8 and 9 of the Promoter's response and deal with
the matter of disapplication of various statutory provisions for
the purpose of the Bill being able to disinter bodies primarily
and also disapplication of Listed building regulations.[5]
We are happy with the Promoter's response to these particular
paragraphs of the Petition provided that the offers they make
in their response are made good in terms of ongoing monitoring
of the site and, also, provided that the offers they make in relation
to protective work are honoured. There are very few specific points
there, but, just to summaries that, we are very grateful to the
Promoter for the offers they have made thus far.
8974. In an ideal world, we would like to see
the course of the tunnels being diverted slightly away from the
church to minimise risk. If this is not possible, we would like
the church to be considered automatically as a category 3 building
and have the protections that that would bring with it in terms
of both monitoring during the tunnelling and after.
8975. Finally, to the extent that if there are
any works required to the church, we would like the Promoter to
agree to underwrite those works prior to them being undertaken.
At present my understanding is that it is proposed that the Promoter
will simply indemnify the church for works that are undertaken.
I am sure you know enough of business to understand that this
brings a cash-flow difficulty to an organisation which has had
difficulties raising £200,000 for the vital restoration works
in raising the tower; that took some three years. In order for
them to find a lot of money at short notice it would be difficult,
if not impossible, for the church. That is all I have to say.
Thank you very much for your time.
8976. Chairman: You have no other witnesses,
Mr Richards?
8977. Mr Richards: I do not.
8978. Chairman: Mr Mould, would you like
to make your case?
8979. Mr Mould: Sir, what I would like
to do, if I may, is ask Mr Berryman briefly to address the point
as to whether we are in—as Mr Richards put it—an ideal
world where we can shift the running tunnels from their proposed
location. I will deal with that in a moment, but there are one
or two points there which I think I can clarify, I hope, to the
satisfaction of the Petitioner and also to reassure the Committee
as well. First of all, I mentioned in my brief opening that we
have gone a fair way down the route of assessment in relation
to this building. I mentioned that we have in documents before
the Committee what we call the phase 3 first iteration settlement
report in relation to this structure. I wonder if I might put
that up on the screen. It is O4C009, please.[6]
I will not take the Committee through this in any detail, but
you will see the summary and the conclusion at the bottom of this
page. It sets out the score following assessment at this stage
in the process which has been attributed to this building from
an engineering perspective, in relation to the sensitivity of
the building structure, special or vulnerable features/finishes
and predicted damage category. You will see that the total score
is four. I will not go through why and how the scoring is done
at this stage, but the conclusion is this:
4 Crossrail Ref: P86, Promoters Response Document-Settlement,
contamination (TOWHLB-30902-004). Back
5
Crossrail Ref: P86, Promoters Response Document-Disapplication
of statutory controls (TOWHLB-30902-008). Back
6
Crossrail Ref: P86, Engineering Assessment by Mott MacDonald
(TOWHLB-30904C-009). Back
|
