Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20840
- 20859)
20840. Chairman: Thank you. Mr Leddon?
Cross-examined by Mr Leddon
20841. Mr Leddon: Can I, first of all,
try and understand how we got here? As I understand it these proposals
form part of the Third Amendments to the Bill?
(Mr Berryman): That is correct.
20842. So originally you were going to have
a different method of construction of the stations?
(Mr Berryman): That is correct.
20843. What did that entail?
(Mr Berryman): That entailed driving two rows
of sheet piles in the form of a cofferdam around the whole of
the station site. The two rows would then be tied together with
cross ties and filled with soil or granular material to form a
cofferdam around the site. The reason that was rejected was because
it would have been a very, very noisy method of construction.
It is the way that Canary Wharf have constructed a number of buildings
in the past, but as their estate has become more occupied it has
become more and more difficult for contractors to get permission
to drive the piles in that way, and the number of piles involved
in that would have been very substantial.
20844. But in terms of it being an optimal engineering
solution to the problem, is it one that Crossrail still stands
by?
(Mr Berryman): What, the original scheme?
20845. Yes.
(Mr Berryman): No. We have dropped that scheme
in response to Petitions by almost all the owners around the edge
of the dock, and I think your own hotel would have been very severely
impacted in terms of noise impact by that scheme.
20846. I suppose what I am trying to get at,
Mr Berryman, is whether or not Crossrail got the original engineering
wrong, or they have changed their mind in view of the level of
compensation claims that may be made against them?
(Mr Berryman): No, compensation is not really
an issue. There is nothing wrong with the engineering and, as
I said, many of the buildings around Canary Wharf have been built
in that manner, but with more recent experience—since we
deposited the Bill, in fact—Canary Wharf have been building
buildings considerably to the east of where your hotel is and
on the south side of the docks, but they have only been allowed
to pile for two hours a day, and with the immense amount of sheet
piling that would have been involved in the original scheme we
would have been there for years just to get the sheet piles in.
20847. You can imagine the comfort my client
takes from the fact you have changed your mind once about the
engineering solution because of Petitions received in respect
of it, and this is what we are asking you to do again, to re-look
at your engineering solutions, but can we go back and look at
the two engineering solutions that you have actually proposed
in this particular matter, the first being Scenario One, AP3-11—[32]04-001.
This is the construction of the sand bund, is it?
(Mr Berryman): Basically, to simplify,
what this involves is lowering the water to about half the current
level, building a kind of island in the middle of the dock where
the station will be, and then constructing the station from the
top of that island. That is Scenario One, yes.
20848. Is that a scenario which Crossrail still
intends to have as one of its two options?
(Mr Berryman): It is. We would be perfectly
happy with that option.
20849. But strong preferences have been made
for option 2, have they not?
(Mr Berryman): We would be perfectly happy
with option 2. Option 2 does have a number of advantages over
option 1, in particular in reducing the amount of fill that we
would need to bring in. As I just remarked, with option 1 we have
to build an island in the middle of the dock and that requires
an immense amount of material. Option 2 would probably let us
get out of the way quicker. We are thinking in terms of a period
of about three and a half years between when we pump the water
out of the dock and when we let the water back in, so it will
be significantly quicker than option 1, because when we have finished
option 1 and have built the station we have to dredge out the
island and take the island away, so it is quite a heavy task.
If there are reservations about option 2, they are more to do
with the stability of the Banana Wall and such like than anything
else, and that may be the tipping factor, but if we can solve
that problem, which we are confident we can, option 2 is a preferable
option.
20850. But, so far as Scenario One is concerned,
it retains half the level of the water directly in front of the
Marriott Hotel throughout the construction period?
(Mr Berryman): That is correct.
20851. Is that something that you would take
into account at all in coming to your decision about which of
the two options you wish to pursue?
(Mr Berryman): Certainly that would be a factor
that would be taken into account. The interest of all the riparian
owners is significant. You are not the only people who are affected.
The Museum of Docklands and all the other people have views on
these matters as well, of course.
20852. Yes. And so in coming up with Scenarios
One and Two, and in particular Scenario Two, what consideration,
if any, has been paid to the visual impact of the proposed works
of draining the dock for five and a half years?
(Mr Berryman): Well, as I just said a moment
ago, it probably would not be five and a half years but I suppose
that is slightly academic. We do take into account visual impact,
as you will see from the Environmental Impact Statement, but obviously
it is only one factor amongst many that have to be taken on board.
20853. Yes, but if we actually look at the Environmental
Statement and in particular the impact on visual amenity, there
is no reference in there to the impact it will have on the hotel
guests at the Marriott Hotel, is there?
(Mr Berryman): Obviously there is no permanent
impact, as you know, because the water comes back again afterwards.
20854. But even when it lists the temporary
impact that is not one of the temporary impacts that is listed?
(Mr Berryman): It is not listed as significant,
no.
20855. And in terms of retention of existing
water courses, the retaining of the water there, I think your
Environmental Impact Statement says: "Whenever reasonably
practicable interference of surface water features will be avoided".
Is that something you have taken into account in coming to these
two scenarios?
(Mr Berryman): Yes, but it hinges on the definition
of what is reasonably practicable.
20856. But you have already indicated there
are three, or have at least to date been three, possible different
ways of carrying out this method of construction, so the range
of what is reasonably practicable here seems fairly wide, does
it not, Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman): There are many things which
are practical in engineering. A lot of it is about finding the
best balance between the different options which are available.
20857. And in terms of considering what the
impact may be of carrying out Scenario Two, what account will
Crossrail take of the possible financial impacts on the businesses
in that area, and on my client's hotel in particular?
(Mr Berryman): Well, there are financial impacts
on some other Petitioners who we will hear shortly, the commercial
boat owners, which we have taken into account, of course. I feel
bound to say that my view of the impact on your client's business
is very much less pessimistic than theirs. Having stayed in many
hotels around the world, the quality of the view is far less important
than the quality of the service, and I know that the service in
this hotel is very, very good.
20858. I hear what you say, Mr Berryman, but
have Crossrail undertaken any kind of cost benefit analysis to
analyse what the impact of the proposed works under Scenario Two
might be to my client's business, and other businesses in the
area?
(Mr Berryman): No, we have not done that.
20859. So, as it stands before this Committee,
the only evidence that we have is from the general manager of
the hotel, which seems to be unchallenged?
(Mr Berryman): Yes. I would not put it quite
like that myself.
32 Committee Ref: A239, Isle of Dogs Stations Site
Plan (Scenario 1) (LONDLB-AP3-11-04-001). Back
| 
