Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21560
- 21579)
21560. Could I put it this way, if you do not
want to say it was helpful: if it had not been for that evidence
and that professional evidence it is unlikely that you would have
agreed to that removal?
(Mr Berryman) I think the situation was as
your client described in his evidence. When we first did our recognisance
of this area the building was empty, and that was the original
decision taken to locate the shaft there—when it was felt,
at that time, that it would not be of any particular inconvenience
to anyone. Of course, as things transpired, your client took a
tenancy in the building and we then became aware of it. He made
us aware of the fact that—
21561. He already had the tenancy at the time.
(Mr Berryman) Apparently so.
21562. You had not checked. That is the point.
Not you personally, but Crossrail had not bothered to check.
(Mr Berryman) No, I do not think that is right.
Certainly nothing had come up in the original investigation. I
think you have got to bear in mind that this project has gone
on for a very long time. We are talking about quite some time
ago. Certainly, when we became aware that he was there we did
start to look at the possibility of moving, and it was helpful—
21563. It was helpful.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, of course. Most of our Petitioners
are helpful.
21564. I am happy with that: that the evidence
provided was helpful to you. Obviously you made your own judgment
that it was helpful. Can I then move on, if I may, please? Other
alignments were envisaged, and I think, as Ms Lieven indicated
in opening, the southern alignment, with a deeper cut, was rejected
not least because it was much more expensive than the alignment
that is currently pursued.
(Mr Berryman) That is exactly right. It is
very much more expensive to construct a station.
21565. Just give the Committee a feel—they
may already have a feel but I do not—of the difference of
the cost saving of not going with the southern route for the station—the
southern, deeper alignment—and going with this route. The
southern alignment would not have affected my client's property,
would it?
(Mr Berryman) If there had been a station there
it would, yes.
21566. If there was a station there but there
need not be a station there. If you go with the southern alignment,
the deeper cut, that could have been accommodated, could it not?
(Mr Berryman) What could have been accommodated?
21567. My client's operations at 16 Gunnery
Terrace.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed it could, as you know,
because AP3 contemplated that situation.
21568. We are looking at AP3 in terms of going
with the current alignment with a cut-and-fill as opposed to the
other alternative that Ms Lieven indicated, which was for a deeper
station to the south, what is roughly the cost saving? Roughly.
(Mr Berryman) Several tens of millions; it
would be in the range of 60 million or so.
21569. Mr Jones: Thank you very much.
21570. Chairman: What I am going to do,
Mr Jones, rather than re-examine now I am going to break. We will
be back here at 11.45.
After a short break
Re-examined by Mr Mould
21571. Chairman: Mr Mould?
21572. Mr Mould: Thank you. Mr Berryman,
just a couple of points. First of all, there was a bit of debate
about the extent to which it might be possible, ignoring cost
considerations, to carry out the proposed station works at Woolwich
which you see on the screen and, if necessary, to demolish and
then reinstate a facsimile of AMP's building on the footprint
we see. Just so we are clear, can you comment on that as regards
the proposal to provide a ventilation and escape shaft at the
eastern end of the station box, please?
(Mr Berryman) Clearly the difficulty would
be that you have got to provide structure over the top of the
station box to allow the fans and vents to discharge into the
air and to allow the staircases to discharge into a place of safety.
Obviously there will be extreme practical difficulties in reinstating
a similar building to that which is there now. In any event, there
would be something immediately outside the building which would
mitigate against its effective use.
21573. I am not going to ask you to bring costs
into account, I think we understand the position in relation to
your evidence if that is done. The second point is Ms Lieven in
opening drew the Committee's attention to the fact that in the
Environmental Statement we have analysed a series of alternative
scenarios, including fit-out of the station itself being delayed
by up to five years and so on, do you remember that?
(Mr Berryman) I do remember that.
21574. I think the least invasive at surface
of those scenarios, if you will, was that which contemplated a
shaft only.
(Mr Berryman) That is right.
21575. If you can remember, Mr Berryman, as
regards AMP's premises at 16 Gunnery Terrace and the requirement
to acquire it for demolition, did the position change in relation
to any of those scenarios or not?
(Mr Berryman) No, not really. If there was
no station there and it was just a shaft which was providing emergency
intervention and ventilation the works would be marginally smaller
than they would be for those works which would be associated with
the end of the station but they would only be slightly smaller.
We normally have three fans at the end of a station and we have
three fans in each of our ventilation shafts. The main difference
would be that the staircases which in the station are designed
to evacuate all of the passengers on the station would only be
designed for intervention by the Fire Brigade and other emergency
services, so we would still have the staircase but it would be
slightly narrower and we would still have the lift to allow the
evacuation of MIP passengers if that was needed and we would still
have the fans which are about the same size. In summary, there
is not very much difference in the scale of the works.
21576. Under any of those scenarios would it
be feasible for the AMP building to remain and for AMP to continue
to occupy it?
(Mr Berryman) No, it would not. In any of those
scenarios the workspace we would need would completely submerge
the AMP building.
21577. Thank you. Finally, there was a debate
between you and Mr Jones about the assistance the Promoter had
derived from work undertaken by the Petitioner in the context
of the Hybrid Bill, do you remember that?
(Mr Berryman) I do.
21578. Just help me with this: were the AP3
proposals for the relocation of the Arsenal Way shaft informed
by an engineering report?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, they were.
21579. Who was the author of that engineering
report?
(Mr Berryman) Mott MacDonald, from memory.
| 
