Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20820
- 20839)
20820. Mr Leddon: Mr Downing, I wonder
if I could stop you there for a moment. We produced some photographs
for the Committee and I was wondering if you could put up the
waterside view.[29]
Can I ask you to proceed from there, Mr Downing.
(Mr Downing) If we lose our water
view for five and a half years this will have a major impact on
our business and all businesses around us. Looking at mud and
silt and potential odour issues during the summer will affect
our business in a dramatic way as our customers do have a choice
of alternative facilities in the local area. It will directly
impact the views of 131 hotel rooms and service departments which
currently face south and overlook the water which is a popular
request. This does not include 32 rooms and apartments facing
east which will overlook the construction of the Crossrail station.
In the Canary Wharf area we have other hotels, the Four Seasons,
two Hiltons, the Britannia, the Radisson which is opening in August
this year and ten minutes away we have a Holiday Inn, Crowne Plaza,
Novotel and Ramada all with water views. For service departments
we have Fraser, Circus and 60 new apartments next to the Hilton
Canary Wharf all with water views. I have serious concerns that
if the water is drained in front of our hotel, apartments and
restaurant, it will affect our business dramatically in all areas
including banqueting and groups. The hotel currently employees
around 240 people and with a sustained decline in business, the
possibility of the need to forcibly reduce staffing levels is
increased which is highly alarming. We have a £22 million
business and if this is impacted, for example, of 50 per cent
over a five to six year period the potential loss would be around
£70 million and that is for our business alone. This does
not take into account loss of business before and after the works
and the advertising costs we will have to re-establish our business.
If the plan to drain the dock goes ahead, we will have to inform
our customers in advance and this will affect future bookings.
20821. Chairman: Just before you move
on, we have not got a copy of the photograph which is on the screens
at the moment.
20822. Mr Leddon: Sir, we have brought
16 copies of the advertising brochure within which that photograph
occurs.
20823. Chairman: We have received three
which we can list as 238 a, b and c, but if you could get us a
copy of this one at some point.
20824. Mr Leddon: Sir, I have handed
them to your Committee clerk and I understand that they are available
for circulation.
20825. Chairman: We will list them as
238 a, b, c and d.
20826. Mr Leddon: I am grateful to you,
Sir. I was wondering if we could now put the scenario two drawing,
which I think is 11—04-003 on the inquiry documents, up
which shows the dock as drained.[30]
Mr Downing, you can continue.
(Mr Downing) Group and catering
bookings are often done one or two years out and there is no guarantee
of the completion date, it will affect our business in future
for several years, even when the works are completed. Guests who
chose to stay in other hotels may not return, even once the construction
is completed. We do support Crossrail, as we know it will benefit
the area and we feel the impact to our business and the surrounding
businesses will be less only if the Select Committee supports
my plea not to drain the dock immediately in front of the hotel.
If I may suggest the dam be built directly beneath the DLR track
which is about 80 meters from the current planned dam on Wrens
Landing. The proposed Crossrail station is further towards Billingsgate
Market allowing construction to take place and leaving water in
front of our property. We know that even with this solution we
may still be impacted through the construction noise, dust and
possible odour issues, but it is a much more workable solution.
I thank you for listening to my concerns today and behalf of Marriott
International and the Yianis Group this is very much appreciated.
Thank you.
The witness withdrew
20827. Mr Leddon: Thank you, Sir. That
is the evidence.
20828. Chairman: Ms Lieven?
20829. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am not going
to cross-examine because the answers are all engineering ones
and I will call Mr Berryman to deal with them.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
20830. Ms Lieven: Mr Berryman, you are
very well known to the Committee but these petitioners have not
been here before so perhaps you could explain your position on
this project for them.
(Mr Berryman) I am the Managing Director of
CLRL which is responsible for assisting the promoter in the promotion
of this Bill. My specific responsibilities relate to the prosecution
of the Bill.
20831. Ms Lieven: I would like to go
straight to the heart of this matter. First of all, why are we
supporting Scenario Two as one of the proposed methods for constructing
the Isle of Dogs station? What are the advantages of Scenario
Two?
(Mr Berryman) There are a number of advantages
with Scenario Two. One of the main ones is that it does not require
offsite disposal of the dock silt. In the bottom of the dock there
is a layer of silt and we are not quite sure how thick it is at
the moment, but we know it is there. If we go for the other scenario,
Scenario One, which is building an island in the middle of the
dock, we will have to dredge that out and move it off-site and
it is extremely difficult to find disposal sites for silt around
the London area. The advantage of this is that we know as long
as we keep the silt within the dock area, it is acceptable to
the Environment Agency and the authorities who have responsibility
for it. There is already a case in point where this area here
which is known as Adam's Place has been used as a silt store for
some time. The idea would be to put the silt in here, cover it
with water and then, in due course, when the construction stage
has been finished re-distribute it back over the bottom of the
dock. That is one of the main advantages, the other advantages
are that we would need to import less fill, Scenario One involves
building an island and that would involve bringing more material
in. It has got a larger work site and easier access and it should
lead to overall shorter construction time and better services
of the programme. It also means that the walls and so on that
we have to build are shorter because we are starting from the
bottom rather than at a point six meters above. It should help
reduce noise, particularly for Canary Wharf people, but also hopefully
for the hotel as well simply because equipment would be lower
down and it should generally help with the reduction of noise.
20832. Ms Lieven: Thank you. Can you
explain why the cut-off wall needs to be in this location? To
orientate us here is the Marriott.
(Mr Berryman) There is a particular problem
at the south side of the dock. There is a large building on piles
which is built out over the water so the dock edge is here.
20833. Ms Lieven: That is the Banana
Wall?
(Mr Berryman) That is the so-called Banana
Wall and there is another building here which is also on dense
piles. This is the area where the density of piles is less and
therefore there is more room for us to get in. The other location
which was mentioned by the petitioner is here and there is also
a very dense network of piles underneath here because this supports
the Docklands Light Railway. The location that is really optimum
for the south end of this wall is here and then having selected
that as pretty well the only viable option for that south end,
we are then looking for where to put the north end. There is a
corner here of the Marriott basement which is a diaphragm wall
just at the back of that Banana Wall which is there and that is
a good position for us to connect to.
20834. Thank you. If you could just give us
a little bit more detail, if we were to go under, first of all,
to connecting under FC2, which I think is a large office block
occupied by a legal firm, what would be the problems with connecting
in there?
(Mr Berryman): Well, the difficulty is that
there is a very dense network of piles into the bottom of the
dock which supports this building, and the way that we will have
to do this by going under the building involves us getting in
there with floating plant and so on, and it is impossible to get
in effectively under this building in—well, it is not even
in a cost effective way. It is impossible for us to get in.
20835. This is possibly the first time on the
route where you have used that word. This really is more than
normally difficult, is it?
(Mr Berryman): This is more than normally difficult.
I have often said that anything in engineering is possible if
you throw enough money at it. Moving Clifford Chance out of here
probably exceeds the bounds of throwing enough money at anything!
20836. You said I think that it would be under
the DLR bridge. What kind of specific problems would arise if
you try to go in under there?
(Mr Berryman): It is exactly the same problem
as under Clifford Chance. There is a very dense network of piles.
You can see even from this drawing that the structure is quite
complicated with crossovers on the rail tracks and the like. As
I think you know I actually worked on the DLR and I am aware that
there are many piles under that area.
20837. Chairman: You were the engineer
on that?
(Mr Berryman): Actually on that one, sir, I
was not the engineer. I was the engineer on the extension eastwards
from there.
20838. Ms Lieven: One issue on which
perhaps we can put the Marriott at rest a little bit is odour
from the silt and the works in the dock. Can you explain to what
degree there is likely to be an odour problem and the relevance
of this letter?[31]
(Mr Berryman): Yes. Canary Wharf
Group, who are the big land owners in the area, have on a number
of occasions drained the bottom of the dock usually by putting
a cofferdam around it first and then pumping the water out, and
they have told us on several occasions that they have not experienced
odour problems, and I think that is probably the best guide that
we have here. We have not been able to identify a scientific way
of knowing whether there will be odour problems but experience
tells us that there will not be any problems with that.
20839. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
Mr Berryman. That is all.
29 Committee Ref: A238, London Marriott West India
Quay Hotel (TOWHLB-AP3-8-05-005). Back
30
Committee Ref: A239, Isle of Dogs Stations Site Plan (Scenario
2) (LONDLB-AP3-11-04-003). Back
31
Crossrail Ref: P152, Correspondence from Canary Wharf Group plc
to CLRL, Crossrail Isle of Dogs Station-Odour Issues, 16 February
2007 (TOWHLB-AP3-8-04-007). Back
| 
