Examination of Witnesses (Questions 9880
- 9899)
9880. Have you assessed that?
(Mr Berryman) No, we have not.
9881. If you look at this factor, again for
the June 2006 report, page 21, under the advantages of Woodseer
the first point that is made: "Traffic management may be
easier along Spital Street during construction as the site entrances
are away from road junctions". So traffic management is acknowledged
to be an advantage of the Woodseer site?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. I have to say, it is a marginal
advantage.
9882. We have the report for what it is worth.
Do you have the Promoter's response document available, that is
the response to us. In particular within that document there is
a document G3.[60]
That is an information paper. It is page 3 of the document, 4.6,
where we are told that the Britannia House site is the preferred
location for the combined intervention shaft for the following
reasons ... " I just want to see if we can summarise where
we have got to on this. So far as the first point is concerned,
acceptable railway alignment, as I understand it, it is accepted
that Woodseer 2 has an acceptable railway alignment?
(Mr Berryman) There might be disadvantages
that it goes under somewhere it cannot go. It may be acceptable
in railway terms but it is not acceptable in physical terms.
9883. That issue I am happy to leave to the
evidence the Committee has heard. So far as the alignment is concerned
of Woodseer 2, that is not a disadvantage of Woodseer 2, is it?
(Mr Berryman) No, of course it is not, but
then you are talking about something which in practice cannot
be built.
9884. That is a question outside my remit. So
far as the alignment is concerned, that is clear. So far as the
second reason given is concerned, we have dealt with that. That
is certainly not a matter where it is an advantage over Woodseer
2, is it?
(Mr Berryman) No, it is not, but it is an advantage
over the other sites we have looked at in the area.
9885. So far as the third point is concerned,
we have established there is not much difference between the two
on that, is there?
(Mr Berryman) Not a lot, no.
9886. So far as the next one is concerned, Spital
worksite, there is no real difference between the two, is there?
(Mr Berryman) No real difference, no.
9887. Minimising impact on Brick Lane. No real
difference between the two?
(Mr Berryman) Correct, yes.
9888. Finally, no permanent residential property
acquisition, no long-term road closures—no difference between
the two.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct.
9889. Going back to that third point, which
you seem to treat as a fundamental point, last Wednesday when
you were asked about the difficulties with Woodseer 2, this is
on page 32 of the transcript at 9564, you were asked about the
many examples in London of shafts of this sort being dug through
the Lambeth group or through the interface between the Lambeth
group and the clays. It was having to go deeper to avoid that
obstruction. You said: "Indeed there are. What we are saying
here is not that it is impossible and not that the alternative
is impossible ...on balance, it is less desirable... ." That
was the way you put it.
(Mr Berryman) Yes. Nothing is impossible in
engineering, if you are prepared to chuck enough money and enough
resources at it, but it is certainly not a desirable way of doing
it.
9890. Mr Philpott: Mr Berryman, thank
you very much.
9891. Kelvin Hopkins: Just from previous
sittings, we were told of the impact of boring on settlement.
I seem to remember that the deeper you go the shallower the settlement
would be but, presumably, the wider the settlement would be, because
it is spread out like a fan the deeper you go.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct. The deeper
you go the broader the settlement trough.
9892. And the shallower—
(Mr Berryman) Yes. I think I made the point
last week about when you go underneath piles with an end-bearing
pile it is significant that the foundations of the building are,
instead of being that distance above the tunnel, that
distance above the tunnel. So it increases the settlement locally
on the pile of building.
9893. Some of the piles are not end-bearing
they are side-bearing, are they not?
(Mr Berryman) Some of them are friction piles.
In fact, they are all a combination of end-bearing and friction.
So predicting the effects would be quite complex.
9894. The other question I have is: is the separation
of tunnels significant? They do not necessarily have to be parallel
and close together; they could, at a point, go wide apart. Is
that right?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, they could be. They are
quite widely spaced as we come out of Liverpool Street. It is
better to have them close together when you have got a ventilation
shaft because, otherwise, you finish up with long, horizontal
adits to get from the bottom of the shaft to the tunnels.
9895. Kelvin Hopkins: What is the impact
of the separation on settlement?
(Mr Berryman) Well, it is not a huge impact
at these kinds of depths. Separating them more widely would make
the trough even wider and reduce the amount of it, so it would
not be beneficial. At these kinds of depths it is not a big factor.
Cross-examined by Mr Elvin
9896. Mr Elvin: Can I just get this clear:
in terms of the impact of the current alignment on the listed
buildings, English Heritage is the statutory body responsible
for dealing with listed buildings. What is their view?
(Mr Berryman) They have expressed themselves
satisfied with our approach.
9897. The local planning authority, Tower Hamlets?
(Mr Berryman) Also satisfied.
9898. Can I just ask you this: in terms of the
approach, and we can see this in IPD12 (7.2 of D12), the specific
sensitivity of features within listed buildings is something which
is specifically taken into account when looking at settlement
issues.[61]
(Mr Berryman) Yes, indeed.
9899. Listed buildings are not looked at as
a generic group (if we can go to 7.2). The heritage assessment
looks at the individual sensitivities of the buildings, and the
Committee can see that spelled out.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it is spelled out there
in 7.2.
60 Crossrail Information Paper G3 Location of Hanbury
Street Shaft, para 4.6, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-IPG3-003). Back
61
Crossrail Information Paper D12 Ground Settlement, para 7.2,
http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-IPD12-007). Back
| 
