Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20860
- 20879)
20860. Well, unfortunately nobody seems to have
asked him any questions in cross-examination.
(Mr Berryman): I think the question of what
makes a hotel successful or not is a very complex one which I
am not competent to answer, but I would just say that the view
out of the window is in my experience rarely the deciding factor.
20861. You appreciate that this building is
a purpose-designed and built building for hotel use, taking into
account the water views?
(Mr Berryman): Yes, I do.
20862. And removing those for five and a half
years do you think might have an impact on that?
(Mr Berryman): Well, three and a half years.
Frankly, I doubt it. I am not the right person to ask about the
impact on hotels but the Marriott Hotel there is situated in an
area where heavy construction has been going on for a number of
years and will continue for a further number of years, and I do
not imagine that is something which really deters potential customers
very much.
20863. But unfortunately is it not true to say
that none of those other construction projects are proposing to
remove the water view from the site?
(Mr Berryman): Yes. Of course it is true.
20864. Of course it is, yes. Can I move quickly
to the issue of the storage of the silt? I think you indicated
in your examination-in-chief that you are not too sure exactly
how deep the silt is in the dock area, is that correct?
(Mr Berryman): That is correct, yes. As I mentioned
last week, we have a further programme of site investigation for
this area to be carried out.
20865. So you have no real idea of the volume
of silt you are going to have to move and store?
(Mr Berryman): Well, it is not as if we have
done no work on this. We have a number of discrete locations where
we have established the thickness of the silt, and we have interpolated
from that and we have allowed quite a significant margin of error
in calculating the volume that we need to retain, so insofar as
it is possible to be confident at this stage of design I am reasonably
confident that we can achieve that.
20866. But you have no idea exactly what the
material will be made up of, or how much, for example, gaseous
releases may be released in the event of the silt being moved,
have you?
(Mr Berryman): We have obviously ideas of what
is in the silt in the areas which we have sampled, which I will
be happy to concede are very few sites, but we do have the experience
of the Canary Wharf Group to rely on who have given us valuable
advice in this matter, and you saw the letter which Jim Berry
wrote to us based on their very substantial experience of dewatering
parts of these docks.
20867. But the Canary Wharf letter relates to
their experience of storing silt elsewhere under a covering of
water, is that correct?
(Mr Berryman): No, it is more than that, is
it not? Can we pull it back up again? [33]
20868. Kelvin Hopkins: Just to confirm,
is the base of the dock concrete?
(Mr Berryman): It is not concrete, no.
20869. It is just clay, is it?
(Mr Berryman): Yes. There you see it says:
"Subsequently Canary Wharf has constructed cofferdams around...
Barclays,... State Street and ...Heron Quays. In all cases, water
was removed from inside the cofferdam and the silt was exposed,
and thereafter removed both from the body of the cofferdam..."—which
is exactly what we are proposing to do here. "On carrying
out the work, odour was not raised as a significant issue".
Of course on an issue like this there can be no guarantee because
you can always find something, but there is no guarantee if we
do Scenario One that there will not be silt disturbed and gas
released.
20870. Mr Leddon: But leaving aside the
issue of the silt to be stored when removed from the dock, what
about the bottom of the dock itself? Once that is exposed to the
elements for, I do not know, three and a half to five and a half
years, what effect will that have on odours or smells coming out
of the dock over that period, or do you not know?
(Mr Berryman): Well, based on experience with
other projects in the docks there will not be any odours. The
bottom of the dock is, generally speaking, puddle clay, which
was a Victorian or Georgian technique for waterproofing structures
of this sort, and it is a material which we are very familiar
with. It is used on all the canals and things round the UK.
20871. Finally, going back to 11-04-003, Scenario
Two, which is a point my clients have put on a number of occasions
of moving the dam further down, you have explained that there
are problems with piles under Messrs Clifford Chance's building.[34]
Would it make any difference if it was not occupied by a firm
of solicitors, Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman): We always try to
disturb the members of the legal profession as much as we possibly
can, of course!
20872. I think my client's request was to move
the dam further down towards the DLR bridge. Is there any particular
reason why the dam has to be amongst the piles of the bridge?
Could it not be put either side and, therefore, avoid the problem
with the piles?
(Mr Berryman): The buildings there come very
close to the edge of the DLR viaduct structure, very close indeed.
I believe we have got the piling drawings for this building although
I do not have them to hand, but I believe there is a row of piles
along the edge, and then the next piles for the viaduct are only
just outside that row.
20873. So is there any reason why the dam could
not be put the other side of the DLR bridge, which avoids the
piles?
(Mr Berryman): Well, you have another building
there, and, again, we do not have a drawing of the piles there
at all but we do know they will be very similar to all the other
buildings in that area. These three buildings are all suspended
over the dock.
20874. And going back to your earlier comment,
Mr Berryman, that in terms of engineering solutions usually there
is one if you throw enough money at it, surely it is physically
possible to put the dam in a different location taking into account
the existing piling, if you throw enough money at it?
(Mr Berryman): Yes, it would be but I think
the kind of money you would have to throw at it would be very,
very substantial.
20875. Would that be a matter that you would
have to balance against the cost of any compensation claim being
brought against the company as a result of damage to my client's
business?
(Mr Berryman): Well, it would. You are asking
me quite a detailed question off the top of my head. As Ms Lieven
said I do not actually often use the word "impossible",
but you are getting very close to the impossible in trying to
get something under here.
20876. Impossible without throwing enough money
at it?
(Mr Berryman): Well, yes, and I do mean enormous
sums.
20877. Mr Leddon: Thank you.
20878. Chairman: Ms Lieven?
20879. Ms Lieven: Just a couple of points,
sir.
Re-examined by Ms Lieven
33 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
34
Committee Ref: A239, Isle of Dogs Stations Site Plan (Scenario
2) (LONDLB-AP3-11-04-003). Back
| 
