Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21167
- 21179)
Ordered: That Counsel and Parties be called in.
21167. Chairman: Just before I bring
you in, Ms Lieven, could I remind people who are here that at
11:30, or thereabouts, I will be suspending the Committee so people
might have a drink of coffee or tea along the corridor. Also could
I apologise because it seems that our input to the new technology
has gone astray today, so we will try and get it back online,
if not we will have to operate without it. Could I offer an apology
from the Committee to Lucie Stephens because you have been messed
around somewhat and this is about the fifth or sixth occasion
when it has had to be re-arranged, so we apologise for that. Before
you come in, Ms Lieven?
21168. Ms Lieven: Yes, sir, could I start
by explaining the position of where we are with these Petitioners
who are, of course, the Poplar Dock and Blackwall Basin boat owners.
I am going to take a little bit of time to explain it because
it is not a wholly straightforward history, it would be fair to
say, and it is not going to be made any easier with the lack of
technology, but I will do my best. As the Committee knows, this
Petition concerns the boats which are presently moored in Poplar
and Blackwall Basins, approximately 80 boats in Poplar and 20
boats in Blackwall. I am sure Ms Stephens will give you more detail
on that and their uses, some are used for residential and some
for leisure. I am not sure whether all the members who are here
today went on the site visit, so if I will try to briefly explain
the factual position. It is not one of the plans that has just
been handed to you because it was going to go on the screen and
it is very small but I will do my best. Popular and Blackwall
have effectively only one access out into the wider watery world
and that is via a short canal—I am not sure if that is the
right technical word—into North Dock and then down what
is called Bellmouth Passage which takes them out into South Dock,
which is the large dock, and then out through a lock into the
Thames. The Committee will remember that it is in North Dock we
are constructing our station, so there used to be a way out from
Blackwall directly to the Thames, but that is now blocked and
there is effectively no prospect of re-opening that way. The consequence
of our works for the Poplar and Blackwall residents has been assumed
to be, until very recently which I will come to in a moment, to
require that a cut-off will be built in Bellmouth Passage which
will prevent them being able to get out of Poplar and Blackwall
into the wider world for the duration of our works, which was
something between three and a half and five years. That is the
situation they found themselves in because of the very extensive
works we are doing in North Dock.
21169. Quite understandably, the boat owners
were not happy with being stuck for three and a half to five years
and we have been working extremely hard, it would be fair to say,
to try and find a solution to the problem. What I would like to
do is briefly go through the solutions we have considered and
where we are with them.
21170. The first possibility, we believe, was
for the boats to stay in the existing dock and we are prepared
to cover the reasonable costs of them staying because that would
be costs such as increased insurance and, potentially, increased
maintenance. However, it is quite apparent from their Petition
and from long discussions we have had that the boat owners are
very unhappy about that proposal, partly because they want to
be able to take their boats out—many of them use them for
leisure purposes—and partly because of the various practical
problems of being stuck within the dock in the boat for three
and a half to five years in terms of maintenance and so on. That
is the first option we have considered.
21171. The second is to use reasonable endeavours
to try to find them another location and preferably, because we
understand it is their strong preference, with all of them staying
together, or all the ones who want to stay together can stay together.
It is not possible at this stage to know exactly how many of them
want to stay together because, of course, things may change, but
we do understand that the majority want to stay together. We have
looked at other locations within what I call—I hope it is
the right term—"the West India Dock complex",
that is South Dock and then Millwall Inner and Millwall Outer
Docks. Millwall Outer is the most southerly dock where the sailing
club exists, but it would be fair to say and, as the Committee
is well aware, and British Waterways are here today and so can
speak for themselves, that trying to find an alternative location
within the West India Dock complex has proven to be a very fraught
process.[1]
British Waterways are here to give evidence to the Committee as
to the problems with finding a location. The only two areas which
are in any terms big enough are Millwall Inner and Outer Docks.
It is fair to say that British Waterways are very strongly opposed
to that and have set out in a document we have seen, and they
will give evidence on later, a series of reasons why they think
that is not a sensible solution.
21172. The other thing that we looked at was
whether they could all be relocated to the Royal Docks. The Committee
may have a picture of this but it probably does not matter very
much. The Royal Docks are a separate set of docks. You might find
it, sir, at 003.[2]
Sorry, I have almost no idea what you have got and I have got
only marginally an idea of what I have got. The Royals are the
dock complex further east which some of the Committee may be familiar
with because it is where City Airport is and next to the Excel
Centre, which the Committee may remember from previous hearings.
It is a very large dock complex. We have been in preliminary discussions
with the owners. There probably would be space but it would be
fair to say that the boat owners are very, very far from enthusiastic
about going there for a number of reasons, one of which is that
access involves going through the Thames Barrier, it lies to the
east of the Thames Barrier, and my understanding is that some
of their boats, I do not know what proportion, would not have
insurance to go east of the Thames Barrier. I understand there
is an issue about training for—I am going to get the term
wrong—drivers, or whatever one has for these types of boats,
and there is also an issue about seaworthiness once one goes east
of the Barrier. That does not appear to be a very attractive option
at the present time. Where we have got to is that we have also
considered very, very hard the engineering solutions to try to
allow them to remain in Poplar and Blackwall Basins. Although,
I think it would be fair to say that various ideas have been around
for some time, it really has been in the light of the very strong
opposition from the boat owners to the Royal Docks and to be being
split up and equally strong opposition from British Waterways
to using Millwall Dock that we have gone back and looked again
very hard at whether we could manage to keep them in the dock
and keep waterborne access.
21173. The Committee will be pleased to know
that Mr Berryman and his team think that they have come up with
a solution, but I should stress it is early days and the solution
involves quite significant problems that Mr Berryman can explain
to you, but we think we can make it work. I am going to explain
very briefly two sub-options at this stage and then Mr Berryman
can deal with it in detail.
21174. The Committee should have two plans which
both say "Isle of Dogs Scenario 1", but in the bottom
right-hand corner of the first one I would like you to look at,
says "Figure 4A". They are the ones that were handed
in this morning, I think, and they are on an A4 bit of paper.
Figure 4A, what is happening there is that a cofferdam is built
across at the eastern point of the station in a location that
allows Bellmouth Passage to be kept open. On the plan it looks
like an easier solution, but the complexity of it, which Mr Berryman
will explain, is, as the Committee will remember, that on the
north side of North Dock there is a false quay and immediately
on that and to the north is the Billingsgate Market and, therefore,
building a cofferdam there is an extremely complex business because
one has to get under the false quay. I am not going to stray into
the engineering; Mr Berryman believes that it can be done, but
there is no getting away from the fact it is complicated. The
other issue with both this and the other sub-option is that it
is going back to building a sheet piled cofferdam in North Dock,
which the Committee might remember, although you were never told
about it in any detail at all, was the original scheme for the
entire construction of the station and was bitterly opposed by,
in particular, the Canary Wharf Group because of the noise impact
of sheet piling in the dock. Although this is much less sheet
piling than the original scheme, because it is only one wall as
opposed to an entire whole circuit, it will have noise implications
and there may be issues, although we have not got to the stage
of discussing this with Canary Wharf and the London Borough of
Tower Hamlets, which is, of course, the planning authority.
21175. There may be issues about how many hours
a day we can do it which has the knock-on effect that in order
to build this proposal there still have to be two cut-off dams
to lower the water in this part of the dock. Under this scenario,
there would still have to be a period in which the boats are locked
in. Mr Berryman will say that the maximum is eight months, but
he hopes very much he could make it a good deal shorter but we
do not want to give false hope to the boat owners. That is option
one.
21176. Option two is a nuance of that and you
should have plan one in the bottom right-hand corner. Sub-option
two is again to build a cofferdam, but this time it is a dog-leg
and so one does not have to go under the false quay, but the cofferdam
is much longer so that has two significant disadvantages. One
is there would be a good deal more noise because there is more
sheet piling and the other is it is likely to be a good deal more
expensive, so those are the two possibilities.
21177. As I say, they are at an early stage
but Mr Berryman believes they should be feasible. Sir, if the
Committee is minded to think that is a course worth taking, then
I need to explain how the powers in the Bill work. These are construction
proposals that have not been assessed in any of the environmental
statements we have done so far and because they are likely to
have materially different, significant environmental impacts,
primarily the noise but also potentially, I am told, the lobster
in the Billingsgate Market which apparently are not going to like
the vibration very much, all these things will have to be assessed
in a further Supplementary Environmental Statement. The work falls
within our limits of deviation so we do not need an additional
provision for the work, but in accordance with the Environmental
Impact Regulations we do need to be environmentally assessed in
order to gain the benefit of planning permission under the Bill.
The Committee may recall that each time we produce a new Supplementary
Environmental Statement there has to be an amendment to Clause
10 of the Bill, so technically there is an additional provision
but it is merely to refer to this further Supplementary Environmental
Statement, so that is that option, which Mr Berryman will explain
he believes has considerable advantages.
21178. I should say, sir, finally, on this issue
of the Supplementary ES, the intention is to do that in parallel
with the Woolwich additional provision which we are already working
on, so the idea is that the two documents could be produced at
the same time and any petitioning to the SES, which I can deal
with in more detail if the Committee wants me to, would be considered
at the same time as the hearings on the Woolwich AP. Therefore,
it will have to be done quickly, but Mr Berryman believes that
is possible.
21179. There is one final option which I should
deal with because it has been mooted and it is important the Committee
understands our position, that is the issue of the Wood Wharf
canal. Sir, I was going to refer to a plan which I have no idea
whether you have, 015, I hope, in the blue file.[3]
That is a drawing which says in the bottom right-hand corner:
"Proposed New Canal and Basin Alignment Development Phasing".
This is quite a complicated topic. The area to the south of Blackwall
Basin is an area known as Wood Wharf. There are significant development
proposals in that area being brought forward by the Wood Wharf
Partnership, which is a partnership of British Waterways Board,
Canary Wharf Group and a property developer. They are promoting
a major re-development in this area consisting of offices and
residential. It is a very large project, as the Committee can
see from the area in question, but it has not yet, as I understand
it, got to the planning application stage. As part of the overall
scheme, the Wood Wharf Partnership intend to fill in Bellmouth
Passage and to build a new canal from Blackwall Basin out into
South Dock, and I hope the Committee can see that marked on the
plan. It is not really a matter for the Committee, but there are
very significant financial advantages for the Wood Wharf Partnership
which, of course, includes Canary Wharf and British Waterways
in doing that work because of the development land that it frees
up, but, unsurprisingly, it is an extremely costly project, something
in the region of £20 million.
1 Crossrail Ref: P155, Isle of Dogs Station-Millwall
Docks (Plan 1) (TOWHLB-325-04-005). Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P155, Isle of Dogs Station-Poplar/Blackwall Berth
Location Alternative Sites (TOWHLB-325-04-003). Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P155, Proposed New Canal and Basin Alignment Development
Phasing (TOWHLB-325-04-015). Back
|
