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
|
