Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17520
- 17539)
17520. Mr Berryman, you are well known to the
Committee. Your role is effectively chief executive of the project
in presenting the Promoter's case to Parliament.
(Mr Berryman) That is correct.
17521. The first point raised in the helpful
summary was that the Petitioners challenge the need for a sewer
diversion in this location at all. That point is predicated on
the argument that Crossrail have chosen to come to the surface
in the vicinity of Pudding Mill Lane when in fact it is unnecessary
to do so, and that it would be possible, with no disbenefit to
the project as a whole, to come to the surface in a more easterly
location. Can you comment on that?
(Mr Berryman) We are not
aiming to come to the surface at Pudding Mill Lane; the target
is Stratford Station. Pudding Mill Lane happens to be the point
at which the track level is level with the surface of the ground,
because, as you will be aware, Stratford Station is on an embankment,
on a raised structure. The reasons for getting to Stratford are
because of the importance of Stratford as a regional centre. It
is an important rail interchange with the North London Line, the
Jubilee Line and DLR, as well as with inter-city services out
of London. It is quite an important point to get to. That is why
we aim to come out to the surface at that point.
17522. What about the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
(Mr Berryman) I am sorry,
I had temporarily forgotten that. Yes, the Channel Tunnel Rail
Link is also at Stratford. Of course the development of the Stratford
City and what will follow on from the development in the Olympic
Village all make this an important regeneration area and it is
certainly one of the Mayor's targets that we should serve Stratford.
17523. Is missing Stratford Station an option
which you think is acceptable in terms of the scheme?
(Mr Berryman) Missing it
completely would very significantly reduce the benefits of the
scheme, both in terms of transport, usage and also in terms of
the regeneration impacts.
17524. If we are going to hit it, what is the
impact of that in relation to works in the area of the H.A.M.
and Wick Sewer?
(Mr Berryman) If we are
going to hit Stratford, closer to the west of Stratford Station
is a stretch called the Northern Interceptor Sewer, which is a
high level structure which carries most of the sewage from North
London down to the works at Beckton. We need to get over that,
because we cannot get under it and still serve Stratford, and
then we need to get under the River Lea. The vertical alignment,
if you like, the gradient on which the railway runs, is pretty
much fixed by those points which we cannot avoid.
17525. The suggestion was that we have disregarded
or failed to take account of the residential nature of this particular
area as opposed to the wider location of this part of Bow. Do
you remember that?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I do.
17526. I just remind you: this is the main Environmental
Statement, volume 2, just focusing on paragraph 8.16.38 there.[31]
You see it says: "Further to the southwest, beyond the Blackwall
Tunnel Approach Road, a core of Victorian terraces, dating from
the late 18th Century or early 19th Century, is encompassed within
the Fairfield Road Conservation Area. The listed Bryant and May
match factory is located on Fairfield Road. Originally opened
in 1861, this prominent structure was rebuilt in 1911 and is today
used for residential apartments". So I think that is the
area we are concerned with today.
(Mr Berryman) That is exactly
the area we are concerned with, and that I think describes it
reasonably well.
17527. Has the Environmental Statement assessed
the visual and townscape impacts and the community impacts of
the proposed sewer diversion, both under the Bill scheme and under
the proposals for the additional provisions?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it has,
as you have explained.
17528. So that is the position in relation to
the need for the sewer diversion. I explained to the Committee
in opening how the Bill scheme had been proposed and the reasons
why, as a result of the option exercise the additional provisions
before the committee were developed and came to be proposed by
the Promoter. First of all, did I get it right?
(Mr Berryman) Pretty well,
yes.
17529. Is there anything you want to add in
relation to the history and how the current proposals were arrived
at? We are going to come to Grove Hall Park in a moment.
(Mr Berryman) I do not think
there is much I need to add to what you said. I am just trying
to rack my brains to see if there is anything you did not say.
17530. Let us turn, please, to the next topic,
which is the question of the need for the access shaft in Grove
Hall Park itself. Perhaps we can put up, please, our document
039.[32]
Whilst we are waiting for that, I referred to the letter from
Thames Water when I opened the case for the Promoter. Have we
enquired of Thames Water as to whether, from their operational
perspective, there is any substantial distinction to be drawn
between our proposals for a shaft in Grove Hall Park and the alternative
two intermediate shaft arrangements which have been put forward
by the Petitioner?
(Mr Berryman) We have enquired.
There does not appear to be any particular advantage in the two-shaft
solution because the distance between the two shafts is almost
exactly the same. I think it is about 20 metres shorter than the
distance between the shafts that we are currently proposing. It
does not make much difference.
17531. Chairman: Before you move on,
Mr Berryman, in the earlier drawing which showed the second preferred
route, which shows this alignment, it was mentioned by the Petitioners
that there were vacant derelict properties just down from there.
Can you just explain why you could not move this further down?
17532. Mr Mould: It is the Petitioners'
bundle page 28.[33]
(Mr Berryman) Could I just explain
on this drawing where the other shaft is, being the shaft that
was described as being a derelict piece of land, it is here. You
see our shaft is there; it is about 40 metres further to the south.
The distance between that shaft and that shaft would be unacceptable
to Thames Water. I think the position we have got from there to
there is really on the borderline of what is acceptable to them.
To go a further 50 metres would not be acceptable.
17533. Chairman: Could you not have moved
the northern shaft closer?
(Mr Berryman) This northern
shaft is fixed by the need to connect into the existing sewer,
which runs just here. Works around here are extremely complicated.
I have a great deal of difficulty getting my own mind around these.
This thing up here is what we call the "tumbling bay".
That is where the two sewers will need to be connected together.
At the moment they run one above the other, and that work there
will be modified so that the two sewers run into one tunnel. So
this end of the tunnel needs to be fairly close to it, so we can
tap in to make that connection. So we do not have much flexibility
about where this should be, in terms of it being within that block
of land. We may be able to move it slightly that way to reduce
some of the impacts, but we are still working on that. It is going
to be somewhere in this piece of land here.
17534. What about if you put another entrance
to the shaft just to the south, across to the other side, and
you move that frame towards the tunnel?
(Mr Berryman) This site
here has an extant planning condition and the developer, which
is a housing association, is about to start construction. I think
demolition is going to start in November of this year. By the
time Crossrail is built that development will be in existence.
We do have a drawing of the site, actually, which perhaps we could
put up.
17535. Mr Mould: Do you want the elevation?
(Mr Berryman) The plan. I think it is 001 on
the appropriate section.[34]
Basically, the development there envisages a series of courtyards.
This thing is a courtyard, this is a courtyard and this is a courtyard,
and in the middle is a car park. The site for the shaft—here
is our sewer tunnel running underneath—would be in this
courtyard, and the position here would be that there would be
five or six floors of flats directly overlooking and very proximate
to the site of the shaft. So although this particular shaft is
on nowhere near the same scale as the Hanbury Street shaft, it
is in the middle of a construction. Nevertheless, in terms of
closeness to the site and its impact on the people who will, by
that time, be living there, it will be similar to those on the
Princelet Street flats which we discussed at some length at Hanbury
Street.
17536. On that alternative scenario, for how
long would those who would be living immediately to the west and
north of that site be experiencing the operation of the worksite
for the construction shaft?
(Mr Berryman) The duration
of the works would be about the same as if the shaft was in the
park—that is to say about six months.
17537. What about access?
(Mr Berryman) I have to
say they are modest works. I do not want to overstate how complicated
they are. Access would be down this road here and that would,
I expect (although we received this proposal fairly late in the
day), lead to access to the car park in this area.
17538. It was said by the Petitioner that under
the additional provisions scheme in relation to cars parked by
residents of the Manhattan Building there would be a three-day
period when they would not be able to get their cars into the
car park.
(Mr Berryman) That is correct.
17539. What is the position in relation to car
parking for this development scheme, assuming it is built and
occupied, if the shaft were to be constructed in this alternative
way?
(Mr Berryman) There would
be obstruction for a period of several weeks—months even.
Out of the six-month total construction period there would be
some periods when they would not be able to get into the car park.
31 Crossrail Environmental Statement, Volume 2, Route
Window C13: Pudding Mill Lane portal, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
32
Crossrail Ref: P126, H.A.M. and Wick Lane Sewers Diversion-Sketch
9, Grove Hall Park Worksite Layout (TOWHLB-29104-039). Back
33
Committee Ref: A193, Fairfield Conservation Area Residents Association,
H.A.M. and Wick Lane Sewers Diversion (TOWHLB-29105-028). Back
34
Crossrail Ref: P126, Plan of Fairfield Road Development (TOWHLB-29104D-001). Back
| 
