Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17620
- 17639)
17620. Mr Mould: Mr Berryman, the point
was raised about the existing diagonal route across the path—you
will recall that the question was put—towards the memorial
garden?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
17621. Do you want to say anything about the
arrangements to review that?
(Mr Berryman) We have adjusted
the boundary of our site compound slightly, which you can see
there, so that that footpath can be kept open and access to the
memorial gardens can be maintained as now.
17622. Thank you, Mr Berryman.
The witness withdrew
17623. Mr Mould: Now, sir, there were
points raised about noise impacts and Mr Reuben Taylor is ready
to call Mr Thornley-Taylor to deal with those.
17624. Chairman: We are in tune with
all of the arguments on noise actually.
17625. Mr Mould: Then just to sum up
very briefly, and I will not take that long because you have heard
the issues dealt with in some detail, firstly, there is the question
of the need for the diversion of the H.A.M. and Wick sewer. Our
submission is that the case for that diversion being required
and justified in the context of the Crossrail scheme is clear
in the light of the evidence you have heard from Mr Berryman.
Certainly the case against it, which has just been explored a
little further in cross-examination, is, as a point of money,
a choice between £3-4 million for the diversion and upwards,
I think the figure was given, of £500 million by Mr Berryman
for the inevitable deepening of Stratford station. One only has
to mention those figures to see that is a clear-cut proposition.
Certainly we would submit that the approach we have taken in relation
to strategic issues means that the sewer diversion is clear and
supported and Mr Berryman has explained the more localised question
of the existing sub-surface constraints of the sewer, the River
Lea and the need to find a way of resolving that clash, as I pointed
out to you in opening this morning, between the existing H.A.M.
and Wick sewer lines in the ground and the Crossrail tunnels as
they begin to merge up towards Pudding Mill Lane. That case of
course has been accepted, as you were told yesterday by the local
planning authority, Tower Hamlets, in their presentation to the
Committee.
17626. Moving then from that to the case for
the additional provisions now put to you, we have explained the
reasons why we have moved from the Hybrid Bill to the additional
provisions and we have explained that the need for the intermediate
shaft in Grove Hall Park is one which has its basis firmly in
the health and safety operational requirements of the statutory
undertaker who would take on responsibility for the diversion
of the sewer following completion of the works. I do not need
to say more than to remind you of what was set out very clearly
and unequivocally in the letter from Thames Water in that respect.
17627. The Petitioners put forward the two shaft
alternatives which are on the screen before you. You have heard
Mr Berryman say that we have spoken to Thames Water about that
and there is no significant operational requirement to be gained
by that alternative. Our proposal is satisfactory and it meets
their operational requirements.
17628. So far as the environmental impacts are
concerned, Mr Berryman has explained that in fact the two-shaft
alternative is one which has significant environmental disbenefit
over the Crossrail additional provision proposals and, in particular,
it would involve substantial conflict with an already committed
residential development in relation to the northern of the two
alternative intermediate shafts, a development which we expect
to be completed and occupied by the time that shaft would come
to be built, and you have seen the visual material. The effect
of that would be a worksite which would be surrounded on three
sides by substantial and dense residential occupation and the
environmental impacts associated with that need no further elaboration.
Insofar as there is also a problem with prolonged interference
with access to that new development and for those who would be
in occupation of it, we expect (inaudible).
17629. So far as the southern shaft of the site
is concerned, Mr Berryman has explained the problems of getting
access to that in the absence of Bill powers and the need for
additional provisions if that package is to be a package of two.
That shaft in isolation is not sufficient to meet Thames Water's
requirements because it does not meet sufficient spatial distance
in order to meet their health and safety criteria. Therefore,
the alternative solution is not one which has operational advantages
and it is one which has clear environmental and construction disbenefits.
17630. The additional provisions scheme, on
the other hand, is one which, whilst it will plainly have an environmental
impact during the construction phase of some six months, as has
been mentioned, in terms of its permanent impact, it would be,
we would respectfully submit, negligible, a narrow hole in the
ground, and we have explained that we have entered into, and will
pursue, in close co-operation with Tower Hamlets and the community,
all reasonable measures to minimise the impact of that site both
in terms of duration and in terms of the extent and effect of
the works.
17631. I have mentioned to you earlier the undertakings
referred to by Tower Hamlets yesterday. The upshot is that Tower
Hamlets have told you that they are content for that proposal
to go forward, subject to the those undertakings and arrangements
we have agreed, and that embraces the reinstatement provisions
that Mr Binley and Mrs James asked about earlier and about which
I gave extra information in the light of yesterday's proceedings.
17632. Touching briefly on other matters, we
have addressed in general terms the question of settlement. We
have assessed the combined impact of the sewer and the running
tunnels in this location. That assessment has been shared with
the Petitioners. We have explained the limited amount of night-time
working and you know about our general approach to noise matters,
both groundborne and surface noise, so I do not need to address
that any further now.
17633. In relation to general matters of enforceability
and environmental control, as I said earlier, we have dealt with
those already in a number of sessions and I do not need to take
further time on that, as indeed have we dealt with the question
of entitlement to land compensation. You have our compensation
note which bears to a certain degree on the Petitioners' circumstances
before you today.
17634. Sir, the upshot then is that, along with
the Borough Council, we would respectfully submit that the proposals
which are now set out in the additional provisions for the diversion
of the sewer are proposals that the Committee can recommend to
the House. Thank you.
17635. Chairman: Ms Bradshaw-Price, you
have the last word.
17636. Ms Bradshaw-Price: Well, I am
not a barrister, but I feel, when I speak on behalf of the Residents'
Association and all the people in the area, that it is defacing
the park permanently. I think it is not respecting open spaces
and whilst I understand that monetary considerations are really
important, there is a big difference between £4 million and
£400 million. It was not £500 million and I think he
said between £3 million and £4 million. I just do not
think it is always a question of money and I am not being naïve.
It is a little park, it is a protected area, it is unique and
there are not any other areas like it. There is lots more building
going on. You saw from the Crossrail presentation that there is
that big area there which is going to be another, I do not know
how many, hundreds of houses and people coming into the area with
no provision for open space. It has been taken away and not given
back. I think that is all and there is nothing I can add to what
I have said. Thank you very much.
17637. Chairman: Thank you. Can I just
say that even though you are not a barrister, as is no one on
this top table, you have put your case very, very well. I know
you have been through a bit of pressure today and it has been
very arduous, but it is much appreciated.
17638. That ends that Petition and we now move
on to the second Petition which is Barbara and Tony Wheeler.
The Petition of Mrs Barbara Wheeler and Mr Tony Wheeler.
Mrs Barbara Wheeler and Mr Tony Wheeler appeared
in person.
17639. Chairman: Could we have the case
outlined, Mr Mould?
| 
