Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9780
- 9799)
9780. I understand that that was put to Crossrail;
is that right?
(Mr Adams) It was.
9781. Slide 4.[45]
(Mr Adams) The reaction of Crossrail
is in the bottom paragraph of that letter, which says, "No
further work is being undertaken on any other sites within the
Truman Brewery and following on from the study on the southern
route no further work is being done on the southern route alignment."
So the door seems closed. The evidence given there by Dr Vaziri
really supports the evidence given last week by Dr Bowers, who
pointed out that although there are deep piles which have relevance
for a potential route, there are mitigating measures that could
be taken, and potentially an even more direct route from Liverpool
Street to the station at Whitechapel.
9782. You had reached paragraph 24 of your note
on the last page.
(Mr Adams) I would simply ask Crossrail how
many eminent opinions does it take to prove to you that in the
light of the now changed parameters of Crossrail link it would
be worthwhile to readdress this issue of the southern route. As
I understand it, the normal sequence of consideration in any decision-making
activity is to postulate options, to examine them against specific
criteria and then to select the optimum solution. Yet one has
the impression that the Promoters of this scheme consistently
and throughout our involvement have gone to great lengths to retro-fit
the arguments to suit the base case. Mr Berryman said last week—page
36, paragraph 9597—that he was completely satisfied that
the revised Environmental Statement would show that Hanbury Street
scheme is better. I would say better than what? What is the source
of such confidence if supposedly objective studies have not yet
been completed? Is it to do with the narrowness of the engineering
criteria that was set for the project or could it be that minds
have already been made up a long time ago? I think it is inappropriate
and dangerous to pre-judge an issue of such sensitivity and with
such an impact on people's lives. It is imperative that the engineering
and planning team go back to basics, do the assessment thoroughly,
take account of above ground as well as below ground issues. Simply
because Mr Berryman or the team is fed up with looking at options
and wants a decision made—page 39, paragraph 9958 last week—it
is not good enough. The Environmental Statement has to be undertaken
in conjunction with revised engineering considerations.
9783. If you could draw that together into your
conclusions, please?
(Mr Adams) I would say that it is simply not
possible now to say with any degree of confidence that the Hanbury
Street route is the best solution. We are asking respectfully
but determinedly that firstly the shaft sites and the base scheme
be reassessed in the light of changes in tunnelling strategy,
and the belated consideration of above ground impacts. Secondly,
that the viable options to the north and south of the base case
route are looked at in sufficient detail for all the issues to
be understood and resolved and that this exercise is done thoroughly
and objectively across all the criteria. Failing to take these
steps now will lead to further uncertainty, resentment and possibly
additional delays and costs as the sponsors seek to move towards
implementation, and inadequately consider it an ill-founded scheme
in so far as it affects the area between Liverpool Street and
Whitechapel.
9784. Mr Philpott: Thank you very much
for that, Mr Adams. Sir, that is the evidence from my witnesses.
The witnesses withdrew
9785. Mr Lidddell-Grainger: Thank you,
Mr Philpott. Given the time, which is 12.53, I intend to adjourn
the Committee until 2.30, unless you want to come in very briefly,
Mr Elvin.
9786. Mr Elvin: I was going to say to
the Committee that there are a large number of misconceptions,
which have been evident in the evidence presented by the Society.
I think the easiest way of dealing with that, rather than challenging
every single item and taking up a lot of time, is to deal with
it by calling my own witnesses. I do not therefore propose to
cross-examine these witnesses, but to have matters explained that
they have raised by my own witnesses, unless the Committee requires
me to do otherwise.
9787. Mr Lidddell-Grainger: I am quite
happy with that, Mr Elvin. I therefore call the Committee to order.
We will re-sit at 2.30 this afternoon.
After a short adjournment
9788. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Elvin?
9789. Mr Elvin: Sir, I will call Mr Berryman
first. Before I do so, can I just make one point clear and this
is really for the Petitioners' benefit because these are matters
the Committee already knows. I am not going to call generic settlement
evidence, but I will call a settlement witness to deal with individual
properties as they arise. Can I just remind the Committee that
the position with regard to settlement was dealt with generically
by Professor Mair on Day 8 and can I remind the Committee that
it is Day 8, paragraphs 2390 to 2403 of his presentation and,
in particular, in the Information Paper D12 which also has a specific
section dealing with Listed buildings and the fact that Listed
buildings will be subject to the more detailed Stage 3 assessment.[46]
There is something which the Committee may not have picked up
because it only appeared in correspondence last week—and
I am going to bounce this on Mr Fry, so I hope he is quick on
the ball, 21804-C, page 3.[47]
Part of the agreement with Tower Hamlets which made them not raise
this, and perhaps we can zoom in on 11 please, we have agreed
with Tower Hamlets that the Stage 3 settlement reports will be
made available to each individual property owner to whom the report
relates. If they wish to see the individual settlement reports
for their own properties, those will be made available and can
I make it clear that if anyone then has any individual queries
about the reports and wants them reviewed, I can give an assurance
to the Committee that that will be done. Therefore, so far as
the individual Listed buildings are concerned (a) they are subject
to reports (b) those reports are available, and (c) they can be
discussed if owners ask for them to be released. Sir, I do not
propose to say anything more on generic settlement issues.
9790. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I am sure
the Petitioners have realised now that that is the case, Mr Elvin,
and thank you for clarifying that situation and putting it on
the record. Please continue.
9791. Mr Elvin: In which case, I will
now come to Mr Berryman, whom the Committee is familiar with.
I will ask him to deal with a number of the issues arising from
the evidence that has been heard this morning.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Mr Elvin
9792. Mr Elvin: Mr Berryman, firstly,
concern was raised by Dr Pedretti with regard to safeguarding,
and we saw the plan which she had an overlay for with a black
area from the draft LDF for Tower Hamlets. Can you just explain
very briefly what the role of the safeguarding of the route was?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, the role of safeguarding
was, and is, to allow planning control to be exercised over the
sites which are over the proposed Crossrail tunnels. The reason
for that is clearly that we do not want buildings to be built
on the various sites which will obstruct the tunnels. The overwhelming
majority of planning applications which are made for buildings
above the tunnels are for straightforward buildings with no deep
foundations, and we receive about 250 enquiries a month relating
to what I would call normal, low-rise buildings which are over
the alignments. A very few of those buildings are proposing deep
foundations and where that is the case we work with the local
authority and the building owner to condition the planning application
in such a way that construction of our tunnels in the future is
not going to be prevented. That is really the only function of
safeguarding. It does not have any other statutory functions to
fulfil other than that.
9793. It does not confer on you the right to
build or anything of that description?
(Mr Berryman) No, it does not. It does not
give us anything other than the right to object to a planning
application which is made for a building on the alignments.
9794. Secondly, in terms of safeguarding, are
issues arising on safeguarding infrequent?
(Mr Berryman) Issues which arise on safeguarding
are very infrequent. As I say, we get about 250 enquiries a month.
If one or two of those a year gets referred to me, I would be
surprised because most of them are very routine and they just
go through.
9795. Can I move on then to the next issue and
can I ask about the issue of the alignment. It was suggested at
various points that sufficient consideration had not been given
for the alignment of the route east of Liverpool Street. I know,
Mr Berryman, that in some respects it has been suggested that
Whitechapel Station should not be there, that there should not
be a Whitechapel Station for Crossrail, but can you just explain
(a) how the alignment was chosen, as briefly as you can, and (b)
the extent to which other alignments were considered, other than
the two Woodseer Street alignments, which the Committee heard
about last week?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, the alignment has to fit
in with certain design parameters. We have a desirable minimum
radius and an absolute minimum radius and they are related to
the speed of trains which will be running over the tracks at that
location. The alignment has to pass through sites which are suitable
for ventilation and intervention shafts, and the alignment has
to link the fixed points, which on a railway of course are the
stations and in this case it would be Liverpool Street Station
and Whitechapel Station. Within those constraints, one can play
about considerably with the alignments. Very often in central
London, the crucial thing is actually finding a location for a
shaft and finding a site which is on the surface where a shaft
can be built without knocking down too many properties and without
causing too much disruption. Obviously in central London that
is not always easy and you can see in this case an example of
an area of London where it has been quite difficult to identify
shaft sites.
9796. Can I ask Mr Fry please to put up from
Volume 4A of the Environmental Statement plan C7(i) and could
we zoom in on Liverpool Street and east of Liverpool Street please.[48]
The Crossrail tunnels leave Liverpool Street where they do and
can I just ask, firstly, what would happen if one were to take
a straighter route towards Whitechapel? Are there any matters
in that route which might give rise to cause for concern?
(Mr Berryman) Well, actually this
route that we selected is relatively close to a straight line
between the end of Liverpool Street Station and the end of Whitechapel
Station. The issue is that the two stations are on different orientations.
In other words, Liverpool Street Station does not point towards
Whitechapel Station and vice versa, Whitechapel Station does not
point towards Liverpool Street Station, so we have to put an "S"
bend in to get from the orientation of one station round to the
orientation of the other station. If you were to go straight across,
as you described it, the first problem you would have is that
there are a number of deeply piled buildings quite close to Liverpool
Street at this location and you would still have to introduce
the "S" bend at some point on the route, and that brings
a number of problems in terms of alignments, radiused curves and
so on which can be provided.
9797. Just to remind ourselves, the yellow shading
on this plan is all Conservation Area?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes, and the
purple stuff is Listed buildings of one sort or another.
9798. Which includes, as we can see, Christ
Church which, because it is in dark purple, we know is a Grade
I Listed building.
(Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes.
9799. What time was spent, therefore, looking,
for example, at the southern alignment because the Committee was
referred to a letter from a Mr Mantey which said, "We do
not propose to do any further work on the southern alignment".
What actually has been done?
(Mr Berryman) We developed four options for
the southern alignment. They are all basic variations on the theme.
First of all, they are all longer than the alignment which is
in the Bill which obviously adds to the cost and is undesirable
anyway. Secondly, it is even more difficult to locate a site for
a shaft along the proposed southern route than it is in the northern
area primarily because there are quite a number of schools and
other similar educational establishments, but also because you
are much closer to Mile End Road and you have got even more of
a matrix of buildings and traffic movements in the area. Therefore,
we looked at the four options and appraised them. A statement
was made this morning that we appraised three of them where the
trains would have fallen off the tracks. Clearly that is not the
case. Three of the ones we appraised had substandard curves, but
that does not mean that trains will fall off the track; it means
that it leads to long-term maintenance problems and speed reductions
for the trains using the tracks.
45 Committee Ref: A113, Letter from CLRL regarding
Crossrail through Spitalfields, 1 October 2004 (TOWHLB-32805-035). Back
46
Crossrail Information Paper D12-Ground Settlement, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
47
Crossrail Ref: P89, Tower Hamlets Stage 3 settlement reports
(TOWHLB-21804C-003). Back
48
Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 4A, Liverpool Street-Key
Environmental Features, Map C7(i) http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-ES16-031) Back
|
