Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18980
- 18999)
18980. Mr Thompson: Thank you, Mr Spencer.
Stay there, please.
18981. Chairman: Ms Lieven?
18982. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am going to
adopt my normal course. I am not going to cross-examine Mr Spencer,
I am going to ask Mr Berryman and Mr Anderson to deal with the
point.
The witness withdrew
18983. Mr Thompson: On that basis I do
not think I propose to call my other witnesses, I do not think
there is a need for them, we can proceed straight to the Promoter's
evidence.
18984. Ms Lieven: I will call Mr Berryman.
Mr Keith Berryman, Recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
18985. Ms Lieven: Mr Berryman, given
the tightness of time I do not want you to repeat matters we went
through outside. We will take as read how difficult an area this
is in which to find a solution. Can you just tell the Committee
about the processes that you, together with LUL engineers, went
through in order to find a site to carry out congestion relief
works here?[23]
(Mr Berryman) Yes. I think the
site, as you know if you know the area at all, is a very, very
congested one. There are only basically two alternatives as to
where a shaft could be put to access the works. One is in the
road and one is in an existing building. The two roads in the
area are Oxford Street, which is obviously a difficult place to
have a shaft, and Stratford Place, which is a cul-de-sac leading
north from Oxford Street. There are a number of buildings in the
area which are listed and there are two High Commissions, we mentioned
when you were outside. That means that the number of options for
places where an access shaft to get at the works could be put
is severely limited. What we did was to look at all of those potential
sites to see which one would give us access to the works. I ought
to mention when digging a new escalator shaft, which is the principal
work required for Crossrail here, it is always advisable and virtually
the only way of doing it is to dig that shaft from the top rather
than the bottom so we have to get access to the top. With all
those constraints taken into account we looked at all the available
sites which we could find and it really boiled down to three,
two in Stratford Place and the site we are now proposing to take.
The two sites in Stratford Place proved to be extremely difficult,
if not impossible, for construction and that is why we are taking
the site that we are.
18986. In terms of other options, completely
different schemes to solve the problem at Bond Street, what work
was done on that?
(Mr Berryman) There were
a number of options developed over the years by London Underground
and we re-examined those to see if any of them were practicable
to provide the kind of linkage we need. You have already heard
evidence that the principal problem is the link between the Jubilee
Line and the intermediate concourse and no doubt Mr Anderson will
give better particulars of that later on. It is, as you could
see from the model outside, very difficult to find routes to link
those two areas simply because of the congestion and the amount
of work. Mr Binley asked whether there was going to be any ground
left when we had done the tunnelling, so I think you can see that
is a complex issue we had to spend some time on.
18987. Can you just go through the various benefits
of taking the petitioner's site? What are the transport benefits
that come out of that and the construction benefits?
(Mr Berryman) There are
three principal issues about this station. The station is already
very congested, as I think is pretty much common ground between
everybody here. The three problems are, first of all, solving
that congestion and dealing with any additional congestion which
arises as a result of the construction of Crossrail. The second
problem is that the evacuation routes for the existing station
are substandard and certainly since the King's Cross fire they
would not be acceptable if the station was being built now. The
third problem is that there is no MIP access, there is no wheelchair
or mobility impaired access at all to any of the platforms on
this station. Of course, the lack of an escape stair and the lack
of MIP access you could argue is nothing to do with Crossrail
at all but it would make absolutely no sense at all to be doing
substantial works of this nature on a station and not remedying
those defects which exist already. Those are the issues about
what we need to do. In terms of how we construct it, clearly there
are problems with this site—I do not want to keep labouring
the point—because it is in a very congested area. We are
trying to avoid putting more traffic on or across Oxford Street.
We are trying to avoid disrupting the footways in Oxford Street,
South Moulton Street or any of the other shopping streets in the
area. We are trying to make sure that the construction work can
be carried out in the least environmentally damaging way. We have
not gone into this but it is worth just mentioning that the proposal
is to fully enclose the site on the petitioner's premises so there
is a large structure there with construction going on inside which
will be generally invisible to the pedestrians walking up and
down Oxford Street. This site lends itself to that treatment and
is a very positive attribute of this way of doing it.
18988. Just in terms of PRM access, if it is
not under the scheme being promoted it will go down through the
ticket hall on the petitioner's site. As I understand the evidence
Mr Spencer has given, one sub-part of his case is, "Well,
you might need my site to dig your escalator for construction
purposes but there is no justification for a ticket hall north
of Oxford Street for Crossrail, therefore you should delete that
part of the scheme and give us back a cleared site". If one
was to take that approach, what other solutions are there for
PRM access at Bond Street?
(Mr Berryman) One of the
solutions that was developed was to have a sort of telephone box
type structure on the surface at the location marked "E"
on that plan outside the Hog in the Pound public house where MIP
people could go into that and be lowered down, in a lift of course,
to the concourse level. I have to say the arrangements we have
got here are pretty complex but then an even more complex arrangement
of short rise lifts and intermediate passages to get from the
surface to the various platforms. What we are looking for here
is to provide as clean as possible a journey from the surface
to the platforms using as few lifts as possible simply because
every time you change a lift it is another inconvenience, it is
a possibility of further delay and a possibility that, of course,
one of the many lifts will not be working.
18989. Quite apart from PRM benefits, just in
terms of simple passenger benefits, can you see any to having
a ticket hall north of Oxford Street?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. There is an entrance to
the station at the moment which is north of Oxford Street. It
is a rather mean and unsatisfactory one in Stratford Place that
is not very much used, I think it would be fair to say. Instead,
very large numbers of pedestrians cross Oxford Street to gain
access through the West One Shopping Centre which is very crowded.
I think it would not be unfair to acknowledge that Crossrail will
to some extent relieve that overcrowding but the fact remains
that a very large number of people are coming from the north side
of Oxford Street to the station.
18990. There is only one other thing I want
you to give evidence on. It has been suggested that the design
of the AP3 scheme at Bond Street is at an inadequate stage for
the Committee to make any judgments on it or for the petitioners
to decide whether or not the scheme is appropriate. Can you just
explain what stage it is at and whether it is at any different
stage from the rest of the Crossrail project?
(Mr Berryman) It is roughly
RIBA Stage B. It is pretty similar to the rest of the Crossrail
project. There are odd bits on Crossrail which have been taken
to a higher stage because of particular problems. There are large
chunks of Crossrail which are not even designed to this level,
they are just alignment details basically. It is comparable with
the other works for which powers are being sought.
18991. Ms Lieven: I think that is everything,
Mr Berryman.
18992. Chairman: Mr Thompson?
Cross-examined by Mr Thompson
18993. Mr Thompson: Just a very few questions,
Mr Berryman. You mentioned that there were three sites that had
been considered; my client's site and two others. Has this information
been disclosed to us? Maybe it is in the Halcrow report but I
do not believe we recollect it.
(Mr Berryman) I am not sure
whether it has or not. I am not quite sure which reports you have
had and which you have not. Certainly it was in some of our reports.
18994. The alternatives and options that you
are mentioning today do not feature in the public documents.
(Mr Berryman) No. I feel
bound to say that I would not be prepared as an engineer to go
ahead with either of the options. In my opinion both of them were
extremely dangerous. They were probably dismissed without finding
their way into anything that came into the public domain.
18995. From your position do you think it is
entirely satisfactory that there has been the little degree of
engagement with my clients and their consultants that has occurred?
Is it unusual? Our suggestion is, you see, that it is.
(Mr Berryman) I would not
have said that it was particularly unusual as compared with other
sites, for example the Grosvenor site, immediately south of West
One, I think we have probably had a similar level of discussion
with them as with your client.
18996. When we referred earlier to the LUL submission
to the Department for Transport, is that something you were involved
with?
(Mr Berryman) The one made
in July?
18997. Yes.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I was.
18998. That was the basis, was it not, for the
decision to proceed and put this into Crossrail?
(Mr Berryman) That was indeed
the basis for that.
18999. When you say that large chunks of Crossrail
are not even designed to this level, are we talking about large
chunks of Crossrail the project or are we talking about the station
works?
(Mr Berryman) I am sorry,
I did not catch the last bit.
23 Crossrail Ref: P137, Crossrail Amendment of Provisions
Environmental Statement (AP3), Bond Street Station, Amendment
of Provisions-Axonometric (LINEWD-AP3-49-04-001). Back
| 
