Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9580
- 9599)
9580. Mr Drabble: Mr Berryman, there
is one last point on Hanbury Street and Woodseer Street. Does
Crossrail, or do you, have a further alternative to add to Options
A, B and C?
(Mr Berryman) I think we really need to negotiate
with the Borough on the grounds of amenity, environmental impacts,
costs and what they want on the site. We are guessing they want
housing, but there may be other social functions that they want
to put there and we have not really got into a dialogue with them
on that, but we are committed to, and intend to, work fully with
them to develop the optimum solution for all concerned.
9581. Option C is described in the comparisons
report as an attempt to mitigate the disadvantages of Options
A and B without losing their merits. It sounds like they choose
proposals which just maximise the advantages, or is that a misreading
of it?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I think that is probably
what it is. I think Options A, B and C are first stabs at these.
I need to get our electrical and mechanical engineers to have
a good go at the size of the rooms needed, but certainly they
are intended to be demonstrative rather than actually be firm
proposals
9582. Option C is the optimised synthesis between
A and B.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is the idea of it.
9583. It does involve unloading lorries in the
street, does it not, at least the larger lorries?
(Mr Berryman) When the building above is being
built.
9584. I do not think that is right. Perhaps
we can look at 21804A-069, Option C.[42]
It says, "Large delivery lorries unloaded in road".
(Mr Berryman) Yes, well, thank
you for drawing my attention to that. I do not think that is what
we will be doing. That clearly requires a bit more work.
9585. Can we move on now to Whitechapel Station
and I can take this shortly. I would not mind having our Exhibit
32 up while we have this short debate.[43]
At least we know what 32 is. If you either look at the illustration
or you know generally from the site visit, there is no doubt that,
in order to integrate the station into the wider scene along Whitechapel
Road, something more than a narrow entrance down a side street
is desirable.
(Mr Berryman) I would not describe
that as a narrow entrance. I do not know what width it is, but
it must be at least 15 metres wide, just scaling it from the vehicles
that are sitting in the road there. Maybe it is 15 or 12, I do
not know, but I certainly would not call it narrow and indeed
members of the Committee visited the site and looked at it.
9586. Once again we can scale it up. My understanding
of the thrust of your evidence is that you understand the desire
of Tower Hamlets to have a better relationship between the station
and Whitechapel Road and in particular the hospital?
(Mr Berryman) We certainly do, yes, of course.
9587. One way of articulating the debate that
is going on is that the issue is whether that better relationship
should be delivered as part of station design, in which case it
is for you, or whether in truth it is only a Tower Hamlets townscape
aspiration, in which case you would say it is for us.
(Mr Berryman) I think that is a pretty fair
summary, yes.
9588. Presumably you do not contend that in
station design issues you are simply going to deliver something
that works, is safe and functions, but you would accept a design
responsibility to integrate the station into the wider townscape
as part of station design?
(Mr Berryman) I think we are aiming to have
good design in that matter, yes, but that has to be balanced against
what is actually needed. You can always produce better design
if you have got more space, but it costs more money. As I said
earlier on, we have a responsibility to keep the costs of the
scheme down and this is just an example of something which occurs
in places all over the scheme where local authorities and others
would like us to expand the scope of our works to make it better.
If we lived in a perfect world with inexhaustible supplies of
money, I would say that is a great idea, but we do not, as you
know, and we have issues of funding to consider. I think one of
the things that leads to is a requirement only to build the things
which are necessary for the efficient functioning of the railway.
9589. Is a piazza which you are proposing necessary
for the efficient functioning of the railway?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it is, yes. It is a circulation
space outside the front of the station entrance.
9590. Do you in fact contend that it is only
Crossrail's responsibility to provide an adequate circulation
space? Does design come into it?
(Mr Berryman) Of course design comes into it.
We need to provide an adequate entrance and we need to provide
a highly visible entrance, a well-signposted entrance with sufficient
circulation space. All of those things are important. However,
this building is not needed for the purpose of building the railway.
A perfectly satisfactory and well-designed railway can be produced
without taking this building. If others want to take it, that
is absolutely fine by us.
9591. That is for us, not for you. I will just
have another go at formulating the issue. The Committee has got
to decide whether the access that is presently being proposed
is commensurate with the functioning of the station. If it is
not, you ought to do something better and, if it is, then it is
for us because it is a townscape aspiration.
(Mr Berryman) Your description of it as a "narrow
side street" I would not accept. It is a side street, but
it is a full-width street. It is used for two-way traffic and
it is used by buses as well.
9592. Mr Drabble: Thank you.
Re-examined by Mr Elvin
9593. Mr Elvin: I just want to come back
to the question of Hanbury Street, Woodseer Street and the alignment
and I just want to check that we have this right. In terms of
the rejigging of the alignment that Dr Bowers has suggested, has
an alignment similar to that which he was suggesting already been
considered as part of the work carried out by Crossrail?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
9594. Secondly, in terms of the comparative
exercise which has already been done on Woodseer Street, can we
look at the first Supplementary Environmental Statement of May
2005, page 6-26, and could we focus on Option 6, Woodseer Street.[44]
There we can see that the first point is dealing with the alignment
issue, the railway issue, which is irrelevant to the present considerations,
but we can see in terms of the environmental impact the fourth
bullet point and the fifth bullet point, the demolition issues,
less noisy than on Hanbury Street as the buildings are less substantial.
This was of course for the tunnel launch site when Britannia House
was to be demolished. Is that right, Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct,
yes.
9595. And then lorry routes, the point is made,
would be substantially the same. We can then go over to the next
page please, paragraph 6.3.2. "By inspection, it is possible
to see that Woodseer Street had the slightly lower environmental
impact during construction of these three alternatives. The detailed
appraisal of this against Hanbury Street was carried out. As a
result, Hanbury Street was confirmed as the best available."[45]
That was because of the railway issue?
(Mr Berryman) That is right, but
of course by that site inspection it was possible to see that
Woodseer Street had the slightly lower environmental impacts which
was when the demolition of Britannia House would have been happening
and that is a major impact which has gone away from the Hanbury
Street site.
9596. Mr Drabble put to you the need to know
the environmental information and the Environmental Statement
and that line of questioning, but just looking at the view which
has been formed today, is this an area where Crossrail has little
knowledge of the surroundings and the relationships of the various
buildings to the various sites?
(Mr Berryman) On the contrary, I would say
it is an area we have probably studied in more depth than any
other equivalent area on the job.
9597. What degree of confidence do you have
that your assessment, even ahead of the technical noise appraisals,
is a defensible suggestion?
(Mr Berryman) I am completely confident.
9598. Mr Elvin: Thank you.
The witness withdrew
9599. Chairman: Before you proceed, Mr
Elvin, I would like to recall Mr Whalley and ask him a question.
Mr Owen Whalley, recalled
Further examined by the Committee
42 Crossrail Ref: P87, Hanbury Street Shaft-Worksite
Layout Sketch-Piling Operations (TOWHLB-21804A-069). Back
43
Crossrail Ref: P86, View of Fulbourne Street (TOWHLB-21804-032). Back
44
Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement, May 2005, Further
Consideration of Options, Overview, Option 6, Woodseer Street,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (SCN-20060607-001). Back
45
Crossrail Supplementary Environmental Statement, May 2005, Further
Consideration of Options, Overview, Para 6.3.2, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(SCN-20060607-002). Back
| 
