Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20880 - 20899)

  20880. Ms Lieven: Looking at the aerial view again so we can see the buildings that Mr Berryman is talking about. At 10 Cabot Square Wren's Landing comes in so the cut-off wall would be coming across North Dock, is that right?[35]

  (Mr Berryman): That is right.

  20881. And I am told by a thoroughly reliable source, Mr Berryman, that it is not in fact Clifford Chance; it is an advertising firm, a financial firm?
  (Mr Berryman): That is all right then!

  20882. But one can see, is that right, the substantial building with the piles you are concerned about underneath?
  (Mr Berryman): Yes.

  20883. And the Financial Services Authority building is the building on the other side of the Great Wharf Bridge, is it?
  (Mr Berryman): No. On the other side of the DLR bridge.

  20884. Asking you about odour, it was suggested to you that there might be odour from the silt. First, have we carried out any sampling, to your knowledge, of the silt in order to discover whether it is contaminated or not?
  (Mr Berryman): Very, very limited.

  20885. And, so far as the management of the silt is concerned, and if there are odour problems, is that a matter which is covered by the Environmental Minimum Requirements?
  (Mr Berryman): Yes, it is.

  20886. And I know this is not really your area of expertise but I do not desperately want to call another witness to deal with this specifically: if the silt does have more contamination than we anticipate and than Canary Wharf have found elsewhere and there are odour problems, what kind of steps can the project take to minimise odour?
  (Mr Berryman): The main thing to minimise odour is to keep the silt under water, so the more quickly you can get it covered over by water the better it is in terms of minimising any odour that might arise. The other thing we can do is stabilise it by soil mixing and mixing with cement.

  20887. And would it be right that, to the degree you have to take it out of the water for any period of time, you can spray it with water to keep it wet?
  (Mr Berryman): Yes, indeed. It is very similar in a way to dealing with a dust problem. You just keep it wet, keep it under water as far as possible, and just keep it moist.

  20888. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much, Mr Berryman.

  20889. Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr Berryman.

The witness withdrew

  20890. Ms Lieven: Just to close briefly, sir, in my submission where the evidence gets us is that under Scenario Two there is no realistic alternative but to put the cut-off dam where we are proposing, diagonally across the North Dock. Of course, there is always an alternative, sir; one could knock down 10 Cabot Square or the Financial Services Authority building and do it that way, there is virtually always in life an alternative, but in terms of balancing the inconvenience to residents of the hotel looking out of their window on a drained dock for something between three and a half and five and a half years or knocking down one or two massive office blocks, I would suggest the choice is pretty straightforward. So, sir, the only issue is should Scenario Two be there at all?

  20891. Now, Mr Berryman took you through the advantages of Scenario Two, and I suspect that those from Canary Wharf might well wish to reiterate them as they are strong supporters, as I understand it, of Scenario Two. The advantages are that we do not have to take silt out of the dock, which itself has major both carriage and potentially odour advantages; we do not have to find another home for the silt, which is by no means straightforward given the landfill constraints which exist in south east England; and we do not have to bring in anywhere near so much fill in order to fill in to build the island and construct the station under Scenario One; there is the strong potential for short construction time and a benefit in terms of noise because we are working on the bottom of the dock and not halfway up. So, sir, those benefits will be balanced against disadvantages.

  20892. Sir, I did not cross-examine the witness from the Marriott Hotel because there probably will be residents and guests of the hotel who will be less enthusiastic about looking out over a work site than about looking out over the water. The degree to which that will impact on revenue is so difficult to predict that there is really little benefit in the Committee wasting its afternoon debating it, although there probably will be such impact and we will take that impact into account. Ultimately, sir, this is a bit of hard capitalism. We will weigh up the various financial consequences of the different choices and the various environmental consequences and come to a conclusion, but, in my submission, it would be completely wrong for the Committee at this stage to rule out a scenario which has the potential to be of significant benefit to a number of interests in the vicinity. There is a difficult balance to be undertaken, and the other material consideration which Mr Berryman brought in was of course, which one always forgets, the Grade I Listed Banana Wall which is going underneath all of these buildings, which also has to be put into the balance, so there is a difficult balance to be made. It is one that you, in my submission, can have complete faith in the Secretary of State and CLRL doing appropriately and taking into account all the different interests and considerations, but it would be quite wrong, as I have said, for the Committee at this stage, having heard one Petitioner with one set of interests, to rule out an option now. Thank you, sir.

  20893. Mr Leddon: Sir, as you will have heard from my cross-examination of Mr Berryman, there are three potential solutions to the engineering problem here. In the first instance, it would appear that, bowing to pressure from third parties, Scenarios One and Two are now to be put forward as being the ones that they wish to pursue. Sir, it is for that reason and that reason alone that my clients find themselves before you today making these representations as there appears to have been little or no consultation with them at the time that these two different scenarios were put forward.

  20894. Sir, Mr Berryman indicated that, so far as he was concerned, he was happy to go with either Scenario One or Scenario Two. There may be some advantages to Scenario Two, but they would have to be balanced by the disbenefits that we have identified. It is clear that there has been no cost:benefit analysis of the impact of the removal of the water from the North Dock in front of this purpose-built, five-star hotel built, for between three and a half to five and a half years ago or the impact it may have on other businesses in and around the area, a number of whom I understand are going to come and address you separately on these matters.

  20895. Sir, the other point that came out of Mr Berryman's cross-examination is that it is quite clear that there are a number of different, alternative engineering solutions that are possible here so long as enough money is thrown at it. There could be a different position for the cofferdam, for the dam to keep the water in the dock throughout the construction process, either going one side or the other of the DLR bridge.

  20896. Sir, it is these sorts of matters that we would ask you to comment on and to give your direction on when you write your report and for it not to be left in Crossrail's hands as to who they believe wields the most influence in the Canary Wharf area. My clients' interests and those of the other businesses in the area will be very materially affected and that is the unchallenged evidence of Mr Downing before you today and we ask you to make sure that those matters are properly taken into account and that you recommend they do not pursue option two. There is another option they can follow and that is the one that they should pursue in these circumstances.

  20897. So far as the odour problem is concerned, it was nice to hear it acknowledged that there may be an odour problem that comes up. Where that quite takes my client with up to 80 clients sitting on the terrace outside, having to put up with an empty dock and smells coming from it is a completely different matter. At the end of the day, I suppose we would have to pull back with our public nuisance or private nuisance obligations, but that is a very unsatisfactory position for a world-class development, such as this, to have to fall back on in these circumstances. It seems a very high-handed and cavalier attitude for someone like Crossrail to take in these circumstances. Sir, unless there are any other matters on which I can assist you, that is all I have to say. Thank you, sir.

  20898. Chairman: Thank you very much. That concludes that Petition and we now move on to the final Petition of the day which is Canary Wharf Group plc, represented by Sharpe Pritchard.


The Petition of the Canary Wharf Group plc.

Sharpe Pritchard appeared as Agents.

Mr Alastair Lewis appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.

  20899. Ms Lieven: Sir, I shall do a short introduction. Sir, as I think the Committee have probably gathered by now, if they did not know already, Canary Wharf Group are very significant landholders in the vicinity of the North Dock and the Isle of Dogs generally. The particular concern they have come to talk to you about today is North Quay, which I will show you on a photo and then I will show you on a plan.[36] It is the site between the Marriott Hotel and Billingsgate Market, so you can just see it here. At the moment, it is largely used as a car park, and the witness will tell you more about it, and it is intended for a very large development at some point in the future. If we can put up the plan, the Scenario One plan, here is the DLR bridge you have just been hearing all about and here is the Marriott Hotel, here is Billingsgate Market which you have heard about a couple of weeks ago and here is North Quay.[37] It is needed by the Crossrail project under both Scenario One and Scenario Two, so you do not need to worry about the scenarios, as a worksite for the construction of the Isle of Dogs Station in the dock. I do not believe that the witness is going to argue or that the Canary Wharf Group are going to argue that it is not needed, so I am hoping at this stage not to need to call Mr Berryman on this one.


35   Crossrail Ref: P152, West India Dock North-Aerial view (TOWHLB-AP3-45-04-007). Back

36   Crossrail Ref: P152, West India Dock North-Aerial view (TOWHLB-AP3-45-04-007). Back

37   Crossrail Ref: P152, Isle of Dogs Station Construction Scenario 1-Sheet Pile Walling (SCN-20070314-004). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007