Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16180
- 16199)
16180. And what role does the local authority
have influencing the final decision of the public space and the
plaza area?
(Mr Berryman) As in all other cases where we
are replacing buildings or altering the landscape in some way,
the local authority have the final say in what goes there as part
of the normal planning process. Camden is the local authority
on this side of this road. We are just on the boundary here between
Westminster and Camden, so the stuff on the west side of the road
is on Westminster and on the east side is Camden, so this bit
falls into Camden and they are leading discussions on the future
of the St Giles Circus area and, in particular, proposals relating
to the reinstatement of the work site in front of Centre Point.
16181. Thank you. Let us leave Tottenham Court
Road and move to Farringdon Station now. I think perhaps if we
have exhibit 28904 page 6 on the screen.[63]
Mr Berryman, can you just explain briefly what infrastructure
Crossrail is constructing on the Lindsey Street site?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. This is in
the east end of Farringdon Station, we visited this site when
we had our tour round the site. It is the land abounded by Charterhouse
Street, Lindsey Street, which is this one, Haynes Street, this
little one here, and Long Lane, just here. It is a site used to
accommodate ventilation of the Crossrail platforms as well as
MIP access, fire brigade access, interchange facilities for London
Underground and the Barbican and all that sort of thing, there
is quite a lot of stuff to go on this site.
16182. The Petitioner identified a property
which they obviously are not fans of at 23-28 Charterhouse Square
which, I think, you can see on the plan here although it is not
marked, to the north.
(Mr Berryman) Which one, this one?
16183. The latter one, yes.
(Mr Berryman) That is The Royal Bank of Scotland
building, is it not?
16184. That is right, yes. Can a ticket hall
be positioned in 23-28 Charterhouse Square?
(Mr Berryman) We had a quick look at that and
the site itself is not large enough basically, the size of the
building. It would also make access to the tracks very difficult,
because our lines are over here and above our lines run the Thameslink
line and the Metropolitan and Circle lines and what we would have
to do is have an escalator going from there at quite an acute
angle to get to our platforms which are about here. We have already
given evidence at Liverpool Street on the difficulty of tunnelling
very close underneath London Underground lines and we clearly
do not want to do that and the design of this station is partly
predicated on the need to cross underground lines at 90 degrees
and keep the impact of them to the minimum possible, so that is
the issue there I guess.
16185. Is there also an issue about MIP access?
(Mr Berryman) There would be an issue about
MIP access because the ticket hall is there, the platforms are
under here, we would have to have at least two, a lift down and
then a horizontal connection and another lift down.
16186. Thank you. It might be suggested that
perhaps the ventilation and escape aspects that are currently
proposed for Lindsey Street could be provided at 23-28 Charterhouse
Square, thus enabling a smaller ticket hall on the Lindsey Street
site enabling, perhaps, one or two of the buildings to be saved;
what would you say about that suggestion?
(Mr Berryman) We again looked at several permutations
of how that could work down. It is difficult to move very much
of the stuff. The escalator here cannot really move as it will
go up into Lindsey Street if we move it further back, so that
means that this extent of the ticket hall is more or less fixed
and we have just not really been able to find a way of making
this site significantly smaller.
16187. The Petitioner expressed the view that
perhaps the existing building on the corner of Long Lane and Lindsey
Street, the building which has recently been refurbished to have
art deco features added, could be used for a ticket hall; what
do you say about that suggestion?
(Mr Berryman) Well the ticket hall footprint,
of course, will be considerably larger than that building. I think
that building is about that big and the ticket hall is just not
big enough to—the building site is just not big enough to
provide a ticket hall in line with modern standards. It would
be an immense job to underpin it and to build something underneath.
It would add very significantly to costs and I think that is a
point worth making with all of these things, doing it this way
is much, much more expensive and disruptive than doing it by demolition
and doing a replacement building.
16188. The last point you and I need to deal
with relates to 33-37 Charterhouse Square.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I think this is the one
I was erroneously pointing to first of all, yes.
16189. The suggestion, as I understand it, is
that the Metropolitan and Circle eastbound line platform access
stairs and footbridge can be moved further east into 38 Charterhouse
Square, which the Petitioner does not seem to like quite as much?
(Mr Berryman) I do not think, to be fair to
the Petitioner, that is what he means. I think perhaps what he
is getting at is that it would be possible with this building
here to retain the fa[lcced]ade, or easier to retain the fa[lcced]ade,
and then produce a sensible over-site development behind it, whereas
to take this building you have in front of you here, it is very
difficult to use it afterwards when the works have been done in
the basement. I am sure he will tell me if I am wrong, but I understand
that is the case and I do not think he dislikes anything.
16190. Could the Metropolitan and Circle line
eastbound platform access stairs and footbridge be moved further
east in the way suggested?
(Mr Berryman) Well it would be extremely difficult.
The only way we can see of doing it is to build a footbridge over
this platform, over the Circle and Metropolitan Line westbound
platform down to the eastbound platform, to a point opposite the
premises which we talked about and then put a footbridge across
there. The difficulty with that is that all around this site under
this scenario there would be buildings, so access to this will
be very difficult for a crane. This would mean that the footbridge
running along here and crossing over would have to be brought
in in small bits and assembled and because we could not get columns
in here, we would have to put a stretch expanding right the way
across the Thameslink and the Circle Line platforms. This would
require closures of the line, a couple of weeks possibly, but
it would particularly require a longish closure of this platform,
the Circle Line and Metropolitan Line eastbound platform. That
is not unprecedented, of course, the Thameslink westbound platform
has been closed for many years, but it would be clearly not advantageous
or helpful for people who use that to commute to work.
16191. Last question quickly, Mr Berryman: how
long would the eastbound platform at Barbican need to be closed
for?
(Mr Berryman) It could be a period of up to
six months I would have thought for that.
16192. Mr Taylor: Thank you very much
indeed.
16193. Chairman: We will now adjourn
until 2.30 when Mr Wilkinson will have a chance to talk to Mr
Berryman.
After a short break
16194. Chairman: Mr Wilkinson, would
you like to continue?
16195. Mr Wilkinson: Mr Berryman, I have
got a couple of questions, I will try not to be too long. At what
stage in the Crossrail process were external designing heritage
advisers employed?
(Mr Berryman) Certainly shortly after my involvement.
I started on this project with this company in 2001. One of the
first appointments we made was the two historical building advisers,
Alan Baxter, and some aspects of a town scale firm, I have forgotten
the name of the firm.
16196. Was the route settled on and decided
upon before their findings were produced or after?
(Mr Berryman) The underground routes, that
is the alignment, if you like, of the tunnels was settled before
they were appointed. In fact, generally speaking with minor tweaks
the underground route is that which was selected in 1992 for the
reason I have already given in evidence earlier. A number of buildings
have been built in London with deep foundations which made an
alternative route difficult to identify. That route had the benefit
of safeguarding for the last 15 years and is therefore must less
obstructed by deep foundations. The other thing we did generally
speaking was to refer to the areas of surface interest which again
would be safeguarded for a long time. It would be quite difficult
for a plot of land which has been safeguarded for 15 years, which
was the case, to come along and say to the owner of that site,
we do not want you any more we are going to take the next door
site.
16197. Chairman: The whole aspect of
the route was debated in the House and it was agreed by the House
and while we have been tweaking here and there, the reality is
that has been agreed and approved.
16198. Mr Wilkinson: I am trying to work
out when they became involved and when the considerations were
made in the Bill for heritage. The route was settled before it,
that is clear and the site selection came in afterwards and so
it almost looks likes it is a justification working backwards
from the buildings rather than choosing the sites around.
16199. Chairman: I understand that, I
am guiding you to where we are.
(Mr Berryman) Can I go back on that because
there are a large number of underground obstructions in Central
London probably for the average person on the street you do not
realise how many things they are. The number of options for routes,
east and west across London is very, very limited. The fact that
this route had been safeguarded for 15 years, parts of it runs
under a railway corridor which cannot be developed, it goes between
the streets of Farringdon, these were the only realistic options
we could identify for a route. It is true to say that the route
was, in effect, fixed before the heritage adviser's report was
done. That was done many years ago when the original safeguarding
was put in place.
63 Crossrail Ref: P115, 33-37 Charterhouse Square,
Proposed Conceptual Plan (LINEWD-28904-006). Back
|
