Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8980
- 8999)
8980. "The particularly significant sensitivity
of the building to movement with the very slight degree of damage
predicted means that further appraisal of the structure and the
likely movements is proposed in Phase 3 Iteration 2, particularly
detailed consideration of the sensitive features. Further engineering
assessment will concentrate on the interfaces between the nave,
the towers and other peripheral parts of the church, effects of
the foundation types and depths, especially the depth of the Victorian
meeting room and differential movements at the interfaces".
That would embrace many of the particular concerns that were raised
by the Reverend and by Mr Richards just now.
8981. Then one turns on to the heritage assessment
which is part of that report. If one turns to page 13 one sees
there the subheading `Significance/Potentially Vulnerable Features'.[7]
I will not read them out, but you will see that we are very well
aware of the particularly sensitive aspects of the historic building
which have been mentioned. Over the page we have also taken account
both of the likely construction and also the limited knowledge
we have of that and the need to take both what we know and what
we do not know, importantly, into account in our further assessment
work in the provision we make through the detailed design and
implementation of the scheme to preserve the church and avoid
causing it any damage.
8982. Sir, I draw your attention to the fact
that we have got to that stage in the process. Of course, there
is a good deal more work to do which the details of the design
process develop in terms of taking forward the detailed assessment.
Perhaps I can touch on that a little. If we can look at information
paper D12, I will remind you that we have particularly detailed
procedures in terms of controlling and avoiding settlement, which
are applicable to Listed buildings. If we turn to section 7, we
see that that is summarised there.[8]
If you glance down from 7.1 through to 7.5, you will see where
the report I have just showed you fits into the process. We have
got to the first iterations of stage 3 and we now need to move
on to the next stage. The important point is at section 7.6:
8983. "When considering the need and type
of protective measures, due regard will be given to the sensitivity
of the particular features of the building which are of architectural
or historic interest and the sensitivity of the structure of the
building to ground movement. Where the assessment highlights potential
damage to the features of the building which it will be difficult
or impossible to repair, and/or if that damage will have a significant
effect on its heritage value, the assessment may recommend appropriate
measures to safeguard those features either in-situ or by temporary
removal and storage off-site if those with relevant interest(s)
in the buiding consent".
8984. It then goes on to deal with monitoring
and you will see that also involves the English Heritage's consultation
and advice, the Local Planning Authority's consultation and advice,
and it also involves the Petitioner and his adviser.
8985. Sir, I want to make the point that ultimately
in a case of a building of such importance and sensitivity as
that which you have before you today, the position we adopt is
that the building must be assessed and provided for what it is
and it is the building and its particular needs that, as far as
we are concerned, must drive what is appropriate in terms of assessment,
monitoring, protective provision and any further measures that
are required. In that important sense, we are, I think, at one
with the Petitioner as to approach.
8986. Mr Binley: I am sorry, Mr Mould,
I need to understand this and you can help me clarify the matter.
I do have some concerns about experts, having been interested
in football for a long time and seen what has happened at Wembley
and being interested in politics and seeing what happened to the
Scottish Parliament building, so mistakes can be made. My concern
is about the word "may" here, and let me relate that
to the assessment of the next stage that you referred to.
8987. Mr Mould: Can you show me where
the word "may" is?
8988. Mr Binley: Where we were talking
about: "The assessment may recommend appropriate measures".
8989. Mr Mould: I see what you mean.
8990. Mr Binley: I am always concerned
when lawyers are not as specific as I like them to be, and "may"
is not very specific. Let us move on from that, bearing that in
mind. You say that the next stage will undertake a more detailed
assessment of the process. My concern is linking that with the
financial situation of the church, and I declare an interest because
I have been involved in some similar processes for different reasons
and I know just how difficult money is in that respect. My concern
is, if you do the later assessment, I hope there are no lawyers
with respect to payment, particularly understanding the money
the church will have to spend and particularly making a commitment
to cover those costs, and say so now because I would hate to get
to a situation where the experts proved not to be right, where
more material damage did occur to this very fine and important
building and the church was placed in a very difficult position
financially because an undertaking was not given. At this stage
they would be not only embarrassed, but placed in an almost impossible
situation. Would you be prepared to give that undertaking now?
8991. Mr Mould: I am prepared, I hope,
to give you essentially exactly what you want. Can I put it this
way: that we envisage it will be necessary to carry out further
detailed assessment work as is appropriate to the needs of this
building and the potential impact of the scheme upon it, and we
will pay for that; we envisage that the Petitioner will wish to
participate in that process and will wish to have access to his
own independent expert advice in order to audit, to test and to
assist in the identification of appropriate preventative and curative
measures as they may arise, and we will pay for that; and we envisage
that, in the event that there is any need for works to be carried
out to the fabric of the church, whether it be through the bracing
of the kind I mentioned earlier, or to the extent that there may
be some, we expect, at most, very superficial cracking of that
kind in the superficial fabric of the building, we will pay for
that.
8992. The way in which this might best be controlled,
in my judgment, is this: that you have heard us talking in relation
to other Petitioners about the availability of a settlement deed
in certain circumstances and it is dealt with in this information
paper which I have placed before you. I do not know whether Reverend
Burke has asked for such a deed, but it seems to me absolutely
right that such a deed should be made available to him in relation
to this building, having regard to its very significant value
to the nation and the concerns he has expressed about the financial
implications of repairing it. I make that commitment to you, and
you will know that, within that deed, provision is made for the
landowner, in this case the present incumbent, to advise an engineer
in relation to matters relevant to settlement and remediation
and the cost of that will be met by the Promoter. Indeed, I am
now instructed that a deed has been offered. It seems to me that
the sensible thing is simply to say, "Let's have a deed and
let's negotiate on that". Through that commitment we can
assure this Committee that the Reverend Burke and his adviser
will be fully involved in the process of deciding what is appropriate
for this church.
8993. Chairman: That is very helpful.
Do you want to call Mr Berryman?
8994. Mr Mould: Can I make one more point.
Mr Binley raised the question of the word "may" and
he pointed out that if lawyers are good for anything, they are
good for their precise use of language. I may or may not be a
good lawyer in that respect, but I will do my best.
8995. Chairman: I am sure you will.
8996. Mr Mould: Sir, the point we are
seeking to get across in that paragraph is this: that in relation
to a Listed building, more than any other type of structure, the
question as to what is appropriate, if anything, in terms of actual
protective works to the structure itself is a very sensitive judgment.
What we are saying there is that, and this of course is a paragraph
which is a general application, it is not focused on this particular
church, it is focused on a whole range of historical structures,
and there is a list of them in the Environmental Statement that
are directly or indirectly affected by these work, but what is
appropriate or, to use the word, what "may" be appropriate,
in relation to any particular building by way of protective measures
is something which needs to be considered very carefully indeed
by those who are best placed to make that judgment. That would,
most importantly, include not only the Promoter and his specialist
advisers who also is charged by law with the tutelage of buildings
of this kind, but indeed the Petitioner and his advisers as well.
What we are saying there is let us look carefully in relation
to this church and see what is appropriate, if we need to, in
order to secure its salvation throughout the works.
8997. I make a final point in relation to that.
The work we have done so far—and it was helpfully touched
on by Mr Richards in his presentation—does indicate to us
to the degree to which the church is likely to be affected by
settlement from the carrying out of the works, and its effects
are likely to be very slight. Indeed, that itself, as you will
know from what you were told by Professor Mair, is based on what
we believe to be, from experience, a conservative approach to
assessment. In other words, that in itself builds in a degree
of robustness and rigour and, in practice, based on experience
with other schemes, we would expect that the works themselves
will have a negligible impact on this structure, but we are not
relying on that, and that is the point I am seeking to make to
you. That is what we have got to at this stage, the whole raft
of further works, assessment monitoring and so forth, both before,
during and after the scheme which will be available as a matter
of policy and will be confirmed and committed to by virtue of
the deed which will be made available.
8998. Chairman: In short, we can take
it that the word "may" which Mr Binley referred to should
be read as "shall"?
8999. Mr Mould: It means "shall,
as appropriate", unless that gives insufficient reassurance
to the Petitioner that we cannot approach the ideal world that
he mentioned but if that point is still being put to the Committee.
7 Crossrail Ref: P86, Significance/Potentially Vulnerable
Features, Engineering Assessment by Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-30904C-013). Back
8
Crossrail Information Paper D12, Ground Settlement, Para 7, Listed
Buildings (LINEWD-IPD12-007). Back
|
