Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3120
- 3139)
3120. This is a letter from Crossrail dated
9th June confirming their conclusions.[9]
They duly reported that further investigations would be carried
out into the effects of likely settlement on Christchurch; and
that the building sensitivity score for 19 Princelet Street should
be upgraded from two to three.
3121. The next document is the Inspection Report
itself where it confirms that this has changed the impact from
negligible to a moderate magnitude; and then, more critically,
the overall assessment from a negligible impact to a potentially
significant impact.[10]
What it also did, of course, was prove entirely our point that
the original assessments were inadequate. That is why we believe
the Committee asked them to look again at their assessments.
3122. Notwithstanding this, there has been no
further effort as far as we have been made aware to review any
of the other structures. On 30th January 2007 we appeared before
the Committee again to demonstrate the inadequacy of their investigations,
and pressed once again for a proper assessment of the listed buildings.
The Promoter at that time basically replied to confirm that the
Phase 3 reports he has already prepared are all he intends to
prepare at this stage. We believe that the Committee would not
have asked the Promoter to come back to the Committee in the autumn
and demonstrate that an individual assessment has been made on
each listed building if the Committee had been happy with the
previous reports. Subsequently there has been no action or attempt
to carry out a proper assessment of an area the Promoter acknowledges
time and again is of a highly sensitive nature.
3123. We were therefore astonished to read that
the Promoter has claimed in their response to the petitions dated
15th February this year that he has established a detailed understanding
of the historic character and significance of the buildings concerned
in accordance with the criteria laid down in PPG15, and in particular
identified any features of particular architectural interest of
sensitivity, for example delicate plasterwork and fine stucco
mouldings.
3124. CHAIRMAN: What are you quoting
from, Mr Wheeler?
3125. MR WHEELER: I am quoting from the
Promoter's response to the petitions.
3126. CHAIRMAN: To your petition?
3127. MR WHEELER: Yes.
3128. CHAIRMAN: The trouble is that none
of these things are ever paginated and it is impossible to find
them! It probably relates to paragraphs 47 and 48.
3129. MR WHEELER: Yes. What we asked
is how has he achieved this detailed understanding without entering
the majority of these houses? The claim is surely mistaken, and
I shall demonstrate how inadequate these reports are shortly.
3130. This presentation essentially is to make
two points: firstly, the assessments that have been carried out
have been shown to be inadequate and incomplete; and, secondly,
the Promoter has not produced individual reports for all the listed
buildings in the area contrary to his claim.
3131. My first point that the assessments carried
out have been shown to be inadequate and incomplete, this is simply
because they have not been inside a great many of the buildings.
They have been inside, I think, two or three of the 25, 30 or
so listed buildings in the area that are within the lines of deviation,
and I will refer to those later on. They have not therefore recorded
or appreciated the variety of construction and structural defects
inherent in many of these structures, both arising from their
original construction and subsequent alterations and deterioration
over the last 300 years.
3132. These subsequent alterations, which generally
arise from the conversion of the original houses into commercial
buildings, usually comprise removing structural elements that
from an external inspection you might assume still remain. For
example, in many of the houses all internal structure was removed
at ground floor level, in the late nineteenth century generally,
to form open factory space. The necessary structural support to
the upper floors that usually remained in residential use was
often reinstated by the installation of a single cast iron column
in the centre of a ground plan and sometimes on the basement as
well; or otherwise they simply relied on the strength of the original
floor beams spanning between the party walls.
3133. The fragility of the building construction
in the area was highlighted in a letter from the Ancient Monuments
Society. The Ancient Monuments Society is a statutory consultee
on listed building matters. In this letter dated 24th May 2004
to Norman Haste, who I think was the Chairman of Crossrail at
the time, they confirm in the middle paragraph, "The propensity
to distortion and collapse is therefore infinitely greater with
buildings of this form and age than would be the case for any
structure in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries".[11]
3134. In some instances the properties incorporate
complete buildings behind them, either self-contained or in the
form of large extensions often built for religious or commercial
uses. Many of these buildings have not been inspected or included
within the assessment simply because they cannot be seen from
the street or accessed without going through the buildings fronting
the street. I will comment on this later in connection with my
second point that they have not produced reports on all the listed
buildings in the area.[12]
3135. Let me give you some examples of what
has been missed. The next slide shows an extract from the Phase
3 report for the houses 17-25 Wilkes Street which, if you recall
Counsel's map at the beginning of this session, runs directly
over both sets of tunnels at right-angles to the tunnels.[13]
3136. The description given at the bottom of
the page refers only to the front elevation and talks about the
windows, shutters, stone dressings, spalling to the brickwork,
cracking below windowsills and other things that can be seen from
the street, basically attic dormers and chimneystacks. Not surprisingly,
therefore, the description of what is called "significant
and potentially vulnerable features" comprises only elements
visible from the street—no mention of any internal layout
or features at all as if they do not matter. Frankly, in estate
agent circles this is what they call a "second gear survey";
second gear being the gear you need to engage as you drive past
the house to make your survey.
3137. Then they get to the technical bit at
the bottom entitled "Foundations". Likely construction:
they refer to "corbelled brick strip footings approximately
2.0-2.5m below road level" and that is it. That is the sum
total of the assessment; the end of the historic building assessment.
In fact you wondered why they needed anything less than third
gear really.
3138. This is an historic building assessment
by what is reputed to be one of the expert consultants in the
land. I have demonstrated how superficial it is but it is so cursory,
I am afraid, they have not even got the number of storeys on the
buildings correct. The height is described as being three storeys
with cellars and weavers' attics to numbers 19, 23 and 25.[14]
There are actually weavers' attics to numbers 17 and 21 as well.
You will see this from the two photographs that follow this slide.[15]
This is number 17 with its weaver's attic; and this is 19 where
they acknowledge there was a weaver's attic; and this is 21 with
a very fine weaver's attic, which does not appear in the assessment;
and these are 23 and 25. The next slide shows the backs of these
buildings—five weavers' attics, the most notable feature
in the area really, unique to have five almost matching attics.
These five houses were built at the same time.
3139. Alan Baxter has a very good reputation
in the area. Indeed their practice has done a lot of work on historic
buildings in the area. I think it is fair to say that a lot of
the locals, who also count him as a friend, were actually very
relieved that he was assisting Crossrail in this matter; but clearly
their brief, I believe, is inadequate. They do not have X-ray
eyes, and if they are not briefed to go into the properties or
even around the back, as you can do here because this photograph
was taken from the Puma Court public alleyway, they are not going
to able to make any reasonable assessment of these structures.
I stress the word "structures". You can get the appearance
from the outside but you have to go inside to get the true character
of the structure.
9 Committee Ref: A19, Correspondence from CLRL to
Mr Rupert Wheeler, 9 June 2006 (TOWHLB-20_05-006) Back
10
Committee Ref: A19, Post visit review of Assessment-19 Princelet
Street (TOWHLB-20_05-007) Back
11
Committee Ref: A19, Correspondence from Ancient Monuments Society
to CLR, 24 May 2004 (TOWHLB-20_05-008) Back
12
Committee Ref: A19, 17-25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building Assessments,
Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20_05-009) Back
13
Committee Ref: A19, 17-25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building Assessments,
Historic Buildings & Features, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20_05-010) Back
14
Committee Ref: A19, 17-25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building Assessments,
General Description, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20_05-011) Back
15
Committee Ref: A19, Weaver's attics, Wilkes Street, London E1
(TOWHLB-20_05-012 and -013) Back
| 
