Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9520
- 9539)
9520. Can we just look, please, at 21804, page
27 which shows the two alternative locations.[37]
We know that there is a general agreement about the barrier effects
of Britannia House and we can see the flats opposite in Spital
Street. I should say to the Committee this is something I am going
to ask Mr Thornley-Taylor to express a view about next week. Unfortunately,
he was not available today, but he will express a view in the
context of the considerations arising in the Petitions next week
and so you will hear from him on this particular issue next week.
Mr Berryman, what is the expectation as to there being any significant
difference in terms of environmental impacts between Woodseer
Street and Hanbury Street?
(Mr Berryman) The expectation
is there would be no significant differences. Different people
would be affected, of course, but the total impact in the round
would be the same. In the case of Hanbury Street, the people who
would be primarily affected would be the people who live in the
residential properties above the shops just there and in this
block of flats. In the case of Woodseer Street, it would be primarily
people in this block of flats here and people in the street here.
It is worth just noting that there are no buildings between the
site here and the houses in Princlet Street and this building
here is a lower-rise tin shed whereas these buildings are significantly
tall buildings, which I think the Committee members saw when we
went on the tour.
9521. Mr Berryman, with all the qualifications
absent of the ES for the alternative provision, if the expectation
that you have expressed were correct, namely in terms of environmental
impacts, in terms of noise and construction and operational noise
and everything else along those lines, that the situation was
broadly neutral between the two. That is to say Woodseer Street
was no better than Hanbury Street in terms of its overall impact.
Given the engineering differences and the potential issues arising
from the alternative alignment, what would that mean for the choice
of which site would be preferred?
(Mr Berryman) In events where the two alternatives
which are being considered are neutral as far as the environmental
concerns are concerned, then the engineering concerns become the
dominant factor. Our selection would definitely be Hanbury Street
absent of any difference in the environmental impacts.
9522. In which case, can I then just ask you
to deal with the McDonalds question, please?
(Mr Berryman) I will do my best.
9523. Mr Elvin: I do not want to spend
a great deal of time on this, because I am sure the Committee
has got a clear view on what the respective positions are. Mr
Berryman, what is your view about the visibility and prominence
for the proposed location of the new ticket hall given the current
scheme proposes the pedestrianisation of the street but not the
creation of a mini plaza onto Whitechapel Road?
(Mr Berryman) I think we did show this site
to members of the Committee while we were on a visit there and
we accept that the existing street will need landscaping. It was
described as a narrow street earlier on, it is not that narrow.
It is currently used by buses. When you take the cars and vehicles
out of it, sort out footways and do a proper landscaping job,
it will make quite an attractive entrance to the station. I am
not suggesting for a second that a marvellous piazza could be
created by knocking down McDonalds. I am sure it could, but it
is not essential for the purpose of building the railway or for
making sure that passengers, customers, can find the railway.
Therefore, it is not something that we would be able to undertake.
I am sure members of the Committee will be aware, we are under
tremendous pressure to get the cost down in the scheme and adding
nicer paths is something which is very unlikely to be well-thought
of by the people who fund us. I would like to just add that if
the Council decided that they were right to use their powers and
their money to acquire this building and demolish it, then we
would be very happy to co-operate with them on the design of the
station and to optimise it in all respects. One final point is
we have a rather nice photograph there showing what the building
could look like if it was given a coat of paint. The Council produced
a photograph of what the building does look like, and it would
be fair to admit it is not as nice as that! It is just worth going
back to what Mr Whalley said in his evidence at some length that
the principal purpose of building the station at Whitechapel is
to lead to regeneration of the area so the chances that the building
on that side will still look like the previous photograph at the
time the railway opens or shortly after are just not very likely.
9524. Chairman: As I understand it, when
we did the visit, after you get through the narrow streets, you
are already agreed to widen it considerably, putting bridge in
this, so there will be a mini piazza type?
(Mr Berryman) Indeed there will.
9525. Mr Elvin: Mr Berryman, two final
questions. Finally, just to remind ourselves the land acquisition
policy in the information papers is not to acquire any more land
than is necessary for the project?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. I think that is a settled
government policy for many years.
9526. How would the suggestion of acquiring
the McDonalds accord with that policy in your view?
(Mr Berryman) It would contravene that. It
is definitely not needed for the operation and construction of
the railway.
9527. Finally, if it were necessary, could more
be made of a gateway feature to point potential passengers in
the direction of the station?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it could and indeed it will.
This was a sort of first stab by one of our engineers at creating
something that looks nice, but when we get the architects involved
and the landscape architect, they will no doubt improve on that.
9528. That will involve discussion with the
local authority?
(Mr Berryman) Indeed, as would all design issues
on all stations.
9529. Mr Elvin: Thank you, Mr Berryman.
9530. Chairman: Mr Drabble?
Cross-examined by Mr Drabble
9531. Mr Drabble: Mr Berryman, can I
start out with what I understand to be complete common ground
which is that Crossrail accept that they will need to produce
a further environmental statement, assessing the position that
now prevails, mainly an end-to-end tunnelling strategy, no need
to launch tunnel-boring machines, reduced shaft, in general the
Hanbury Street-Woodseer Street alignment?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct.
9532. It is inevitable that that environmental
statement will include a comparative assessment of the environmental
impacts of locating the shafts at Hanbury Street in comparison
with Woodseer Street?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it could do that.
9533. It would do that?
(Mr Berryman) It would do that.
9534. If the original environmental statement
did?
(Mr Berryman) I was trying to refresh my memory
what the original environmental statement said. You are right.
9535. That environmental statement would be
informed by modelling work which has not yet been undertaken?
(Mr Berryman) I think Mr Thornley-Taylor next
week will be talking on that point, but certainly the modelling
work has not been published which is slightly different.
9536. Or given to us?
(Mr Berryman) It has not been published to
anyone.
9537. Whether Mr Thornley-Taylor has done it,
we did not get any data showing noise sources on Hanbury Street
site until, I think, late on Thursday and no-one has either given
to us or, as far as we know, carried out any modelling work of
the sort that would inform the ES?
(Mr Berryman) Certainly we have not given any.
9538. It follows from the all the conversations
that we have been having in the course of the day that the modelling
work will need to be fairly careful because the relationship between,
say, noise barriers around the Woodseer Street site and the top
floors of the flats immediately opposite will need to be modelled
to understand how the mitigation works and what the effect is?
(Mr Berryman) As indeed for all sites, yes.
9539. The purpose of the environmental statement
is to allow the decision maker to make an informed decision in
the light of the assessment contained in the environmental statement?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct. I feel I am
bound to say that environmental comparison was done when the intention
was to launch tunnel-boring machines from here where the environmental
impacts would have been rather more severe than they are now,
principally because of the demolition of Britannia House and even
at that stage the Woodseer Street site did not come out particularly
better than the Hanbury Street site.
37 Crossrail Ref: P87, Hanbury and Woodseer Street-Worksite
Location (TOWHLB-21804-027). Back
| 
