Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21540
- 21559)
21540. Kelvin Hopkins: Just a technical
point. The station box is obviously very close to the surface—almost
on the surface. I appreciate that it is difficult but would it
be technically feasible just to leave the building there and,
somehow, to construct underneath it and have accesses at some
side at the eastern end, or is it absolutely imperative that it
comes down? Setting aside the arguments on cost, and I understand
those as well, would it be technically possible to support that
building, build underneath it and have the accesses on the southern
side so it did not interfere with the building?
(Mr Berryman) It would be very, very difficult.
It would be hideously complicated. You said that the station is
very close to the surface, and indeed, compared to the other stations
on the route, it is, but it is about 14 metres deep. If you think
that this room is 6.7 metres tall, it is twice the height of this
below the ground.
21541. The upper ceiling, if you like, of the
station is quite close to the surface.
(Mr Berryman) The ceiling of the station will
be at the surface. If one were to do that, supposing it was an
ancient monument or something of that sort, one would, in this
situation, probably dismantle it and re-erect it stone by stone.
I do not think there is an easy way of doing it. A very, very
cost-ineffective decision, as you have just said.
21542. Mr Mould: Mr Berryman, just so
we are clear, we know that there are a number of listed buildings
in the vicinity of the Woolwich station site, and Ms Lieven has
pointed those out. Is number 16 Gunnery Terrace a listed building?
(Mr Berryman) No, it is not.
21543. Mr Mould: Thank you very much.
There may be some questions from Mr Jones.
Cross-examined by Mr Jones
21544. Mr Jones: So far as engineering
maters are concerned, you are the witness I should ask, as I understand
it. Could you just go through it in stages, please? I think we
can agree from your answers to the Committee, setting aside costs,
that it would be technically feasible to provide the station on
this alignment without the removal of 16 Gunnery Terrace, or you
say it would be taken down and rebuilt. That is technically feasible,
from an engineering point of view.
(Mr Berryman) It is technically feasible to
take it down and rebuild it. However, there would be surface structures
as well in this area here. It would not be an economical thing
to do, by any stretch of the imagination.
21545. Put costs out of your mind for one moment.
You are giving engineering evidence.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed.
21546. Bear in mind you do not have to worry;
we are not running a case, as Mr Charlesworth made clear, objecting
to the station. One of our points, as you will appreciate, is
very much who bears the burden of cost. By pursuing this scheme
for good cost reasons, it would be technically feasible to have
constructed the station with the ultimate retention of 16 Gunnery
Terrace—from a technical point of view.
(Mr Berryman) It would not be possible to retain
the exact building. One of the things which the Committee Members
will have heard me say many, many times is anything is possible
in engineering if you chuck enough money at it. These decisions
are actually all about money. What is technically possible and
what is economical to do are two different things.
21547. Mr Berryman, I am just asking you about
technical matters. Please just leave to one side economics. I
think we can agree if I say that it is accepted by you that technically
(but, of course, it costs and it may cost a disproportionate amount
of money) it is feasible to construct the station and, ultimately,
retain 16 Gunnery Terrace pretty much as you see it today.
(Mr Berryman) Or re-erect a facsimile pretty
much as you see it today.
21548. It is right, is it not, that by not doing
that but going on the proposal that is before us there are considerable
cost savings to the Promoters?
(Mr Berryman) There are considerable cost savings
to the Promoters by not doing that, but the main point is that
for the station itself we require to own the freehold—we
intend to own the freehold on all the stations on the route—and
we need to have access to the station structures so that when
the time comes to maintain it and repair it we can get at it.
There are a number of arguments as to why we would not want to
reinstate that building. Second thing: your client would not be
there for a period of five years: three-and-a-half/four years
to construct the station and then another year to reconstruct
a facsimile—
21549. That is a matter for my client, not for
you, though, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) Indeed, yes.
21550. So far as you raising the spectre of
shafts and stairwells, it is right for the Committee to know that
although you are giving this evidence (and I do not mean this
disrespectfully) this is pretty much oral, on-the-hoof evidence;
we do not see before this Committee any worked-out alternative
that shows that any detailed consideration has been given to this
alternative.
(Mr Berryman) There are worked-out alternatives.
I have not got them with me but we did work out alternative deep
level station proposals, probably 12 months ago, when the matter
was first raised by the Committee.
21551. On this alignment?
(Mr Berryman) No, on a slightly—
21552. I will come to the other alignment in
a moment.
(Mr Berryman)—an alignment slightly to
the south of this.
21553. Do not worry, Mr Berryman, we will come
on to the other alignment in a moment. So far as this is concerned—and
this is no disrespect—the answers you give are doing the
best you can to assist the Committee are not the result of a considered
study of the type you did for the other alignment to the south
of the site.
(Mr Berryman) No. On the contrary, although
it is some time ago a considered study was done on this—
21554. On this alignment?
(Mr Berryman) No, not on this alignment; on
the Hybrid Bill alignment. The study was done for a deep level
station.
21555. I am saying unlike that study on a different
alignment, the same detailed study has not been carried out of
a deep cut for this alignment.
(Mr Berryman) You could not do a deep alignment
here because you would collide—the reason we have got this
alignment is because at this point here we go over the top of
the DLR tunnels and the DLR is sloping quite steeply from here
down in this direction. On the old alignments you cannot get over
the top of the DLR tunnels because there is not enough cover and,
therefore, you have got to go underneath them. That is why it
is deep, and that is why this one is shallow.
21556. The option we are exploring, prompted
I think by the Committee, was not for a deep cut here but looking
at the feasibility of the existing shallow cut-and-fill as seen
on this alignment and then with 16 Gunnery Terrace remaining in
place. That is what we were exploring. I think I got the answer
I need: you have not carried out any detail—I am not criticising
you—on that basis. Can I ask: you raised the spectre as
well of shafts and accesses. It is right, is it not, that when
you initially came to the site—I say you, I do not know
if you were involved—you were proposing in AP3 a shaft saying
that it had to go in a location which we have seen, which would
have meant the relocation of my client's business. Was it not?
That was the position of the Promoters then.
(Mr Berryman) Not in AP3, no.
21557. Prior to AP3. The original proposal which
led to AP3?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct. The reason we
raised AP3, as I think you know, is so that we could keep your
client's business in play. As a result of that we had to take
the other business—these three businesses here.
21558. What that does indicate—and it
is right, is it not—is that the Promoters benefited from
the work and the discussions carried out by my client and those
advising him in formulating AP3?
(Mr Berryman) Certainly it was as a result
of discussions with your client and their advisers, yes.
21559. The work done by my client's advisers
was helpful, was it not, to the Promoters in coming forward with
AP3?
(Mr Berryman) I would not put it quite as strongly
as that. It was certainly helpful to your client in that it allowed
for the removal of his business to be lifted and given to somebody
else instead.
| 
