Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20120
- 20139)
20120. In terms of the construction programme
and the potential delays from giving one or more parties the right
of approval, how critical is the work in the North Dock to the
critical part of the construction programme for the Crossrail
project?
(Mr Berryman) It is quite
critical. The tunnelling will be coming in this way and going
out that way. Before the tunnelling can go through we have to
get these end walls, at least, of the box (preferably all the
walls round the whole box, but definitely the end walls). So it
comes fairly early in the programme that it has to be done. So
time will be quite an important factor.
20121. The other thing I wanted to ask you about
was Smithfield. It has been put by the City that we have given
a right of approval to the City over the works at Smithfield and
that, therefore, we are perhaps making a bit of a fuss about nothing
about not doing so at Billingsgate. Are the two positions comparable?
(Mr Berryman) The two positions
are significantly different. The point about Smithfield is that
we are actually going to alter the building; we are not just going
to go underneath it or go near it; we are actually going to take
part of the fabric of the building down and put it back up again,
and altering it significantly. The point there is that Smithfield
is also a Grade I listed building, which this building is not—it
is not listed at all (the Corporation or the local authority is
responsible for that)—but the main difference is that we
are going in and physically altering the building; moving the
plant within the building and all that sort of thing. We do not
intend to do anything like that at all with Billingsgate; we just
happen to be building near it.
20122. Ms Lieven: Those are all my questions
for Mr Berryman. Is there anything else you wanted to say?
Cross-examined by Mr Cameron
20123. Mr Cameron: Mr Berryman, the original
proposals for the North Dock were to create a cofferdam and to
retain the water on the outside edge of the cofferdam. Is that
right?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct.
20124. You changed those proposals in part because
of concerns from other Petitioners about the noise impact of driving
the piles.
(Mr Berryman) Not just from
other Petitioners but also from the market.
20125. It is the noise impacts. You have changed
the proposals and as a result of changing the proposals you are
now considering dewatering the dock.
(Mr Berryman) Either partially
or fully dewatering the dock, that is correct, yes.
20126. You do not know, at the moment, whether
it is going to be partial or full de-watering.
(Mr Berryman) No, we have
assessed both possibilities in the Environmental Assessment.
20127. You do not have fully worked up proposals
at the moment, do you?
(Mr Berryman) I think we
have them to the extent of knowing that they are feasible and
that either of them would work.
20128. You have not decided on Scenario 1 or
Scenario 2.
(Mr Berryman) No, we have
not decided yet.
20129. As a result, you have not decided on
the necessary mitigation measures, have you?
(Mr Berryman) We have decided
on the mitigation measures that will be necessary for Scenario
1 or for Scenario 2. What we have not decided, obviously, is which
of those mitigation measures we are going to take because we have
not made the primary decision as to which method of construction
we are planning to use.
20130. At the moment, there are unknowns in
relation—and I take as an example—to whether the toe
of the Banana Wall is embedded in the gravel or in the Harwich
formation.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, indeed
that is true. We will be doing further site investigation to determine
that. You may not be aware that we have a continuous programme
of site investigation which has been going on now for something
like four years, which refines and closes down on the areas of
concern. We organise a campaign every year of site investigation
and we will be bringing this forward fairly soon—I think
it is this calendar year. I am not absolutely sure without checking.
We will be doing a whole series of bore holes actually in the
dock to establish the ground structure.
20131. All that is planned future work, and
one of the reasons you need to do that is in order to design the
appropriate mitigation measures, and before you have done that
you cannot finalise the design of the mitigation measures.
(Mr Berryman) No, no, that is fair comment.
It is more than that; it is also to inform the decision about
which of the two possible construction methods is used.
20132. Whether or not you are actually working
within the building, the effect of your works, whichever construction
method is used, will be to have an effect on the stability of
the building necessitating measures of mitigation. Is that right?
(Mr Berryman) If we use
Scenario 1, it is very unlikely that we would even need to do
the recharge wells that we have shown on this plan which is up
now. That would arise only in the case of Scenario 2.
20133. At the moment it is not known, and absent
your proposals, whether within a building or outside it, Billingsgate
Market and its traders could carry on trading. It is only because
of your proposals that there will be or could be an effect on
the market. That is a statement of the obvious, to which you no
doubt agree?
(Mr Berryman) No, I do not
agree, because I do not think our proposals will have any impact
on the traders in the market; it is our intention to make sure
that they can trade uninterruptedly throughout the process of
constructing these works.
20134. However, absent the mitigation measures,
they could have and probably would have an impact on the market.
Is that right? That is why you need mitigation.
(Mr Berryman) Well, that
is a statement of the blindingly obvious. If you are doing construction
works which result in ground movements then you have to take mitigation
measures. Of course you do.
20135. At the moment, you do not know the precise
nature of those mitigation measures. That is agreed between us,
is it not?
(Mr Berryman) We know what
mitigation measures we may need to take with Scenario 1 and we
know what mitigation measures we may need to take with Scenario
2. We do not know which of those we are going to do because we
have not chosen which of those construction methods we will be
using.
20136. We have already established, and I do
not want to go back on it, the uncertainty as to the precise nature
of the mitigation measures because you do not know the precise
ground condition.
(Mr Berryman) That is certainly
one of the uncertainties. There are a number of other factors
which are involved as well.
20137. As far as the principal issue and dispute
between us is concerned, which is whether the Corporation should
be able to approve your plans when you work them up or whether
you just consult, there can be no objection in principle to a
landowner and statutory market operator having the ability to
approve the plans because you have agreed it in relation to Smithfield.
There is no in principle objection, is there?
(Mr Berryman) I think there
is an in principle objection, yes. As I have already explained
to the Committee, the reason for agreeing to that at Smithfield
was that we are physically altering the building in a very significant
way, as you know. You will recall the evidence that we gave on
this point about a year ago where we had taken substantial parts
of the roof down, we were underpinning the building in the actual
live part of the market. We were going inside it to do works,
so it is only right and proper that, as the owner and operator
of a building where we are going inside the building to alter
it, they should have the right of approval; I think that is fair
enough. The situation with Billingsgate is completely different.
We have no intention of going inside that building and interrupting
their trading in any way whatsoever.
20138. In terms of the principle, there is no
in principle objection to the constructors of the railway having
to obtain approval. Whether you draw the distinction because you
go inside the building or not, there is no impediment to somebody
having the right to approve works, is there?
(Mr Berryman) We have not
given it to anybody else, and certainly the only reason we would
have even considered it at Smithfield was, as I say, that we are
physically altering the building, we are changing it inside. The
scale of the works here is of a different order of magnitude.
20139. But here, unless you carry out the mitigation
measures, and you accept that some mitigation measures will be
necessary, at least in one scenario and probably in both, there
is going to be an effect on the building which will be adverse,
whether caused inside or outside. Is that not right?
(Mr Berryman) No, that is
not right. There will certainly be extremely unlikely to be any
effect at all on the building with Scenario 1. In Scenario 2,
if we can get away with just putting the recharged wells underneath
the false quay along here, there would also be no impact on the
building. The building would not even be aware that we were there.
| 
