Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20100
- 20119)
20100. If I could please ask for the Promoter's
exhibit 2 to be put back on the screen.[15]
Just using that diagram, can you explain to the Committee in brief
how the Billingsgate Market is constructed and the ground on which
it stands?
(Mr Monaghan) If I work from
left to right, in the dock there is an extended quay, built before
we took ownership which is founded on piles and columns through
water on the dock and the port is supported on that. If you look,
there is a step change in the building, a section on the quay
over the Banana Wall and behind the Wall again, was an original
dock building which was refurbished, that is founded on the quay,
also on the dock wall and behind the wall and then to the right-hand
side is the main market hall which has a ground bearing slab,
the ground slopes set in the ground separate from the structure
and the structure from the record drawings we have is shown as
supporting shallow foundations in the made ground.
20101. We can see that the diagram on the left
shows the tail of the Banana Wall embedded in the Harwich formation
and on the right it is embedded in the gravels. Does anybody know
whether it is embedded in the Harwich formation or the gravels?
(Mr Monaghan) These are
based on the Promoter's drawings, they are the Promoter's estimate
of what they think is the case. At the moment there is no certainty
on which formation we have got. There is a considerable difference
between the gravels and Harwich formation. The Harwich formation
provides what is described as an aquiclude which has got a lot
of clay material which prevents materials transferring through
and the gravel is very porous, which is a fundamental difference.
There probably is a change where it occurs and what change that
is we do not know.
20102. What are the consequences of not knowing
that for the type of mitigation that you require if you de-water
the dock?
(Mr Monaghan) It means there
will be probably more than one type of mitigation. It would be
uncertain where it occurs and where it changes and the interface
between the two would be difficult management. At the moment the
Promoters have come up with a number of options which are all
based on assumptions and require further investigations.
20103. I would like to ask you now about the
two scenarios put forward by the Promoter. If we can have the
Promoter's exhibit 1, please.[16]
This is Scenario 1, I do not need you to describe it all but just
the part that is going to be different when we go to Scenario
2. What should we be looking at in Scenario 1?
(Mr Monaghan) The fundamental
difference for this one is the water is retained in the dock,
shown in a colour blue, and it provides a support to a lesser
degree than is current to the Banana Wall and then there is a
small island built inside the dock and before the water tabling
are taken any further otherwise it could not be carried out.
20104. Billingsgate Market, top right-hand part
of the plan, and there is a bit shown in my version of it in a
pinky-purple colour, what does that show?
(Mr Monaghan) From my understanding,
that is a pontoon working area which is a floating plant on the
dock containing access and various plant materials, but it is
fundamentally floated within the dock.
20105. Could we then look at exhibit 3, please,
which is Scenario 2.[17]
It is the same part that I am interested in and that is the Billingsgate
Market and the adjacent dock. What is the proposal there?
(Mr Monaghan) The fundamental
difference is taking all the water away apart from the very western
end of the dock where they would deposit all the contaminated
silt, so it is fundamentally for the silt and there is a large
berm constructed to any of the exposed Banana Wall. By exposed,
any of the quay was accessible from the dock as opposed to the
Canary Wharf side where the Banana Wall is encased within the
structure.
20106. In general terms, if you de-water, or
partially de-water, the dock, is it known what effect that will
have on the stability of the Billingsgate Market?
(Mr Monaghan) In precise
detail, it is not known what the effect is but the Banana Wall
is somewhat unique in that it is not a traditional wall, it is
built and constructed so that the wall supports the front face
and supports the back face and in removing the water you create
a hydraulic pressure from behind the wall and the wall tries to
push forward.
20107. Will mitigation works be necessary in
order to stabilise the market if the water is let out of the dock?
(Mr Monaghan) My understanding
is that mitigation is a central requirement. We have asked a question
of the Promoter, "Has the dock ever been emptied before and
why is it maintained at such a high level?" It is not really
known to do that.
20108. So if you do not know precisely what
the Promoter is proposing and you do not know what mitigation
works are being proposed, have you been able to get involved in
the process of the design of those mitigation works?
(Mr Monaghan) We have been
in discussion since the AP3 was announced. In recent times we
have looked at systems that would help minimise impact, such as
the recharge well system and things like that, but without knowing
the detail we cannot form an opinion on what would be required
and we have suggested in discussion with them concerning what
we think would help resolve some issues but we do not know what
all the issues are.
20109. What they are saying is, to use Ms Lieven's
words, they will talk to you about it before they do it. In more
formal words, they will consult you but with the undertaking you
have taken at Smithfield is if you are able to approve the process.
Am I right in understanding that what the City of London Corporation
are asking for here is the right to approve the works?
(Mr Monaghan) Yes, and that
is fundamentally to approve the works in a manner that does not
cause damage to the market and the market can continue trading.
We are not saying we want to approve everything, we just want
to approve those aspects that mitigate that damage to ensure the
market can remain in operation. The standard requirements of the
Settlement Deed is that it allows, to a certain extent, surface
damage, surface finishes and minor decoration. As was explained
earlier, under the EU regulations in hygiene that is unacceptable.
20110. Mr Cameron: Thank you. I have
no further questions for you, but maybe from someone else?
20111. Ms Lieven: I do not think I will
cross-examine. I will proceed to call Mr Berryman if that is acceptable.
20112. Mr Cameron: I do not know if the
Committee have any questions for Mr Monaghan? Thank you very much,
Mr Monaghan.
The witness withdrew
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
20113. Ms Lieven: Mr Berryman, I am not
going to introduce you as I think you are well-known to everybody
in the room and these Petitioners. Can we go straight to the heart
of the matter here? In respect of impact on Billingsgate Market,
can you explain to the Committee what the likely impact is and
what mitigation measures you would anticipate being needed?
(Mr Berryman) Obviously, we expect the likely
impacts to be negligible because we intend to take the appropriate
mitigation measures to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps what
I should explain is what the risks of impacts on the market would
be. Could I have Figure 4 up, that is 002 on the chart?[18]
This is the slide you saw a few moments ago showing what the likely
geology is in the area of the market. As Mr Monaghan says, we
are not quite sure whether the toe of the wall (this thing is
called the Banana Wall) is in the Harwich formation or whether
it is in the gravel, and that will have an impact on how the water
behaves in this area. I think the first thing to say is that the
settlement impacts on this market are rather different from those
which arise when we are driving in tunnel because the main determinant
of the way that this building will settle or not settle is to
do with the water level in the ground which supports the building.
The matter that is concerning the City Corporation (I am sure
they will not mind me suggesting this) is if we lower the water
level in the dock to this level or an alternative to this level
then there will be lowering of the ground water which already
exists behind the Banana Wall. What that will lead to is settlement
of this building. The building is a large, open-plan building,
so settlement normally would not cause too much trouble to the
building itself but there would be a concern that it might cause
cracking of the floor. I think that was the point they would be
worried out. We would propose to ameliorate that by making sure
that the water table in this area was not lowered. We have a number
of methods of doing that.
20114. Do you want to explain by reference to
007 how you might do that?[19]
(Mr Berryman) Yes. As you have
seen from the cross-section, this section in front of the market
is a false quay which is supported above the dock water on piles.
We can get underneath there and put down a whole row of inclined
wells (I think Mr Monaghan referred to this in his evidence) which
we can use to pump water in and to recharge the ground water behind
the wall. We can also have, if necessary, another row of walls
around here, again to recharge the water. That would have to be
by agreement with the Corporation, of course. The point about
this is that the impact on the ground water level is unlikely
to go back this far; it is quite likely that the recharged wells
along the front will be sufficient to ameliorate the situation.
20115. Would any of those recharged wells involve
going into the market?
(Mr Berryman) No, they would
not.
20116. In terms of designing the detailed mitigation
measures and, indeed, deciding the construction methodology in
the dock, is the project prepared to involve the City in the process
of working up those methodologies?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, of course,
we would expect to do that. We have a pretty good working relationship
with them and we would expect that to continue, and that they
would be involved in this.
20117. Can you explain to the Committee why
we are so concerned about not giving the City what I would describe
as rights of approval over the works rather than a right to be
consulted?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. There
are a number of interested parties in this area, as I think you
explained in opening, but the particular ones are the market themselves
(the Corporation), the Canary Wharf Group, which are all this
estate on the south side, the British Waterways Board, which is
responsible for the docks and the maintenance thereof, and the
London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which is the local authority
in this area, and which will have concerns about the Banana Wall,
which is a Grade I listed structure. So there are a number of
different parties who will have different interests and different
priorities as to what they regard as the most important factor.
For instance, the Corporation, I am sure, will be particularly
concerned about settlement of the dock; the local authority who
is responsible for the Banana Wall, backed up by English Heritage,
will have different concerns about, perhaps, whether or not we
can drill holes through the Banana Wall. People will have different
priorities and we have to get the best fit between them. If we
give the right of approval to the City Corporation we would also
have to give it to the British Waterways Board, and to the local
authority, and it would be impossible to come up with a solution
which satisfied all of them, which would mean constant rounds
of arbitration, and so on. What we do want to do, and we are very
happy to do, is involve them all the way along the process with
all the interested parties and make sure we get the best fit for
everybody.
20118. Chairman: I quite understand where
you are coming from—you are building a railway—but
I see nothing wrong with those parties you have just referred
to being involved. They are statutory bodies.
(Mr Berryman) Absolutely
nothing at all wrong with them being involved; we could not do
it without them being involved. We are not talking about whether
they are involved and consulted and work with us to develop the
right solution; what we are talking about is someone having the
right of approval or not. That is a different thing; that is going
to the next level of entitlement, if you like. We would expect
them to be fully involved with us.
20119. Ms Lieven: Can you try and explain,
Mr Berryman, the potential implications for the project if landowners
with this level of concern—not just at Canary Wharf but
thinking, perhaps, of UBS at Liverpool Street—did have a
right of approval? I think the City is suggesting that we are
being a bit precious about this and "Well, you can always
appeal to the Secretary of State and there is a process that can
sort this out". In terms of actually building Crossrail,
what do you see as the problem there?
(Mr Berryman) I think the
problem is if you have got very, very many parties who need to
approve the works it becomes almost impossible to get an agreement
on how the work should go forward. You have a constant round of
negotiations with different parties to try and bring them together.
At the end of the day, we are all trying to achieve the same thing.
We will be having prevention of settlement of the market building,
the Banana Wall, or any of the other buildings around the dock,
as our highest priority. We are not trying to suggest that that
is not an important priority; what we are saying is the way to
deal with it is by negotiation, consultation and bringing everyone
all together rather than giving one party or another the right
of approval.
15 Crossrail Ref: P143, Crossrail Environmental Statement,
Crossrail Isle of Dogs Station Cross Section Billingsgate Protective
Works (Scenario 1), billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (TOWHLB-AP3-11-04-002). Back
16
Crossrail Ref: P143, Crossrail Environmental Statement, Crossrail
Isle of Dogs Station Site Plan (Scenario 1), billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(TOWHLB-AP3-11-04-001). Back
17
Crossrail Ref: P143, Crossrail Environmental Statement, Crossrail
Isle of Dogs Station Site Plan (Scenario 2), billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(TOWHLB-AP3-11-04-003). Back
18
Crossrail Ref: P143, Crossrail Environmental Statement, Crossrail
Isle of Dogs Station Cross Section Billingsgate Protective Works
(Scenario 1), billdocuments.crossrail. co.uk (TOWHLB-AP3-11-04-002). Back
19
Crossrail Ref: P143, Plan showing Billingsgate-Potential further
protective measures subject to design development for Scenario
1 and Scenario 2, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (TOWHLB-AP3-11-04-007). Back
| 
