Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9820
- 9839)
9820. You have seen during the course of our
evidence slide number 6, and perhaps I can just ask for that to
be put up please.[54]
This was an extract from a meeting note taken by my clients of
a meeting which I understand took place on May 5 2004, and I said
I would give that date when that matter came up. The particular
point which was focused on was the passage half-way down the page
to do with the amount of environmental information then available.
Do you recall that?
(Mr Berryman) I do recall it.
It is not in front of me today of course, but I do recall it.
9821. You have not, I think, taken the opportunity
in your examination-in-chief to say if that was an incorrect recollection
or note of what you said.
(Mr Berryman) Well, can I take the opportunity
now of saying that it is a selective note. I am not suggesting
that it is inaccurate, but it is certainly amidst a lot of things
which were said.
9822. It is the question that begins "there
are families living on Hanbury Street". The answer which
is given, I take you point you say there were other things said,
"There is no data on this area as such that the environmental
impact is a consideration. We are working on a lot of sites. I
am coordinating this. You can ask specific questions but we do
not have site-specific information". So far as that answer
goes, that was the condition at that time, is that right? There
was not site-specific data?
(Mr Berryman) It does not actually make sense.
No, that is not true; that is not correct. We probably did not
have site-specific data tabulated in a form which we could release
to people; but we certainly did have assessments done of the impacts
of high level probably at that stage on the various properties
and people concerned.
9823. When you say at "high level",
what do you mean by that?
(Mr Berryman) When you do an environmental
assessment there are a whole load of issues which have to be considered
in doing that assessment, to be compared one option with another;
and they go into all sorts of things like ecology, noise, air
quality, settlement and there is a whole raft of things which
need to be considered. In a case like this, some of those are
just not relevant so we do not assess them; we just focus on the
things we think will be important and will influence the decision.
Obviously as you would expect, you would do that in your first
pass of work and then fill in the blanks afterwards. In a case
like this, by inspection you could see that the issues which are
likely to be significant will be noise and settlement; and we
focussed very much on those in making our preliminary assessment.
9824. Can I just ask for a bit of help on this,
so far as the preliminary assessment is concerned. By the time
that the preferred route had been identified, how much detail
was available on issues such as noise, settlement and impact on
residential amenity; how detailed was the information available?
(Mr Berryman) When the preferred route was
initially selected very little was available because, as I said
previously, design is an iterative process. You have to select
a route, analyse and see what the impacts are. You cannot analyse
the settlement which might be caused by a tunnel when you do not
know where the tunnel is going to go. It is a fundamental principle
of how these things are done. Similarly with noise, you cannot
make a reasonable assessment of how much the exposure of various
people to noise is if you do not know where the site is and what
kind of equipment has got to be used on it.
9825. Let me help you with this. When you went
out to the first round of consultation—and you will have
to forgive me because you are more familiar with this than I am—what
date was the first round of consultation?
(Mr Berryman) I cannot tell you offhand. Perhaps
Mr Elvin could refer. It would have been some time in 2003, I
think.
9826. How much of this detailed information
was available to you at that stage? Detailed information on noise
impacts, settlement impacts, impact on listed buildings and that
sort of thing—how much detailed information was available
to you then?
(Mr Berryman) I would say enough to make a
preliminary stab at where a sensible alignment might be. For example,
the shaft sites I spoke about earlier which were shown on the
site, we would have done a recognisance of those and done preliminary
alignments for each of them to see which of them worked and which
of them did not work. We would have a recognisance of the area
to see how many people might be affected by noise, the kind of
buildings that would be in the area in a qualitative rather than
a quantitative way at that stage.
9827. At that stage you had already decided
the option you were going to present to the public for the purposes
of consultation?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, we had. This is one of the
essences of consultation, that you have to have something to present.
You are always in this cleft stick because, on the one hand, people
want to know what you are planning to build; on the other hand,
they do not want to know that you have fixed everything and nothing
can be changed. You have to go out for consultation at a fairly
early stage in the design process otherwise it is nugatory. If
you design the whole thing and finish it off and then go out to
consultation, what is the point? What you have got to do is get
the design to a point where you have got something to talk to
people about; go out and talk to them; find out what the issues
are; and then adjust if necessary, or not if not necessary, and
go to the next stage of design. You cannot have a fully worked-up
design when you go for the first consultation—it would be
bonkers to do that.
9828. You have told us already that you had
a pretty clear idea of what the issues were going to be here:
they were going to be noise; they were going to be settlement
impact on listed buildings, residential amenities and those things?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
9829. Because of the approach that was taken,
when consultation took place people were not given any detailed
information or even indicative information at that stage on noise
impacts and on settlement because that work had simply not be
done?
(Mr Berryman) That work had not been done in
a quantitative way; it had been done in a qualitative way. For
example, if you go to one of the sites that was considered, the
corner of Princelet Street and Brick Lane you could see by inspection
that a worksite on that corner was likely to be noisy and intrusive
for a lot of people. You can walk round and form that kind of
impression, as I say, at a qualitative rather than a quantitative
level.
9830. I want to come onto another matter, which
is the Environmental Statement itself. We have been told both
by Alistair Darling in a written statement to Parliament, and
also in the Promoter's response, that further environmental information
on this issue is going to come forward in due course. That is
right, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) We are proposing to produce a
supplementary Environmental Statement on the tunnelling strategy,
yes.
9831. That has not yet been made available?
(Mr Berryman) It has not been written yet.
9832. Mr Philpott: I see. Do you know
when it will be made available?
9833. Mr Elvin: Can I indicate, because
Mr Philpott does not know what is happening. The tunnelling strategy
will be the subject of a third AP in due course, which will also
accommodate any issues which may arise from the Committee's recommendations.
It will be subject to its own petitioning period and will have
its own Environmental Statement. Since it is yet to be determined
and of course there is yet to be an instruction debate, it is
not a matter that can be dealt with at this stage.
9834. Chairman: Mr Elvin, I take that
point. Mr Philpott, do you accept that?
9835. Mr Philpott: My point is this:
insofar as the change in tunnelling strategy has led to a change
in the environmental effects of what is proposed in the area that
affects my clients, we are told that firm environmental information
will become available. Part of the purpose of that environmental
information, as the Promoters say in their response to us, is
to inform our ability to petition. The simple point I am making
is that we do not have that information here yet but will have
an opportunity to observe it. We have reserved our position on
that. I just wanted to establish if there was a date. What I want
to focus on, just to give us some sort of framework for our discussion,
is what seems to me to be the most recent assessment of the two
alternative sites that was produced in June 2006. In the material
we have put in, it is in Tab 6. I do not know whether that is
a document you have available to you, Mr Berryman? It is part
of your exhibits. I will start off with page 15 and some general
questions first.[55]
As I understand it, this is the most up-to-date assessment that
we have comparing the two sites, the June 2006 report?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.
9836. Is the intention of this report to present
an impartial and objective analysis of the advantages and disadvantages
of the two sites?
(Mr Berryman) This is the GOMMMS report, is
it not?
9837. I think it is produced as a result of
a GOMMMS assessment.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.
9838. The report, as I understand it, is intended
to be objective and impartial in presenting the advantages and
disadvantages of the two options?
(Mr Berryman) That is right, yes.
9839. To inform the Committee and also to inform
petitioners?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
54 Committee Ref: A113, Extract from a meeting note
with Mr Keith Berryman and Spitalfields residents, 5 May 2004
(TOWHLB-32805-037). Back
55
Crossrail Ref: P89, Use of Woodseer Street Site as an alternative
to Hanbury Street Shaft, Mott MacDonald, June 2006 (TOWHLB-21804B-015). Back
| 
