Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3140
- 3159)
3140. The trouble with this process is that
these historic building assessments are then treated as fact and
they are handed on to Mott MacDonald so that they can assess the
likely effects of the tunnelling and consequent subsidence on
these buildings. As a result of maybe issues about mistaking the
height of these buildings, for example, they conclude that the
height of the structure is ten metres, when in fact it is at least
15 metres; 50 per cent higher again.
3141. They have at a stroke reduced the height
of these buildings by nearly two storeys. Let us have a look at
the next drawing.[16]
This is a scale drawing of I think 21 Wilkes Street and the basement
is at the bottom of the picture here (indicating) and if you go
right up to the top of the roof you get to a figure higher than
15 metres, but it is certainly not ten metres. This is a matter
of consequence when you consider how these buildings will move.
Professor Mair will explain hogging and troughs and things like
that. A building like this if it is on the hogging basically divides
the degree of settlement, the parting of the parting walls, as
it were, get more pronounced the further up the building you go,
so to mistake their height so dramatically we believe may have
serious consequences. It is certainly a bad mistake.
3142. Let me describe a few other things that
they have missed. To the rear of number 17 is an old synagogue,
a two-storey gallery structure. You can see the lantern light
here, not awfully prepossessing from outside but it has been in
commercial use for a long time, a two-storey galleried space supported
on cast iron columns and apparently one of the first synagogues
in the country.[17]
It incorporates many of the characteristics, although not the
scale, of the synagogue at number 19 that we saw earlier on at
19 Princelet Street, that was reassessed as being at a greater
risk as a result of the previously mentioned selective internal
inspections that we encouraged the Promoter to make. This building
is just not mentioned at all in the Promoter's assessment. The
basement of this house, incidentally, the house fronting on to
the street, is reported to have collapsed into a stream not so
long ago running under the building, a reminder that the area
is well known for being riddled with underground waterways and
wells and, of course, this is the reason it was chosen as the
site of the Truman Brewery. There were a lot of other local breweries
in competition at the time in the area. Number 19, next to number
17, is entirely underpinned with concrete footings and has a lowered
basement floor, the only house treated in this way in this part
of the terrace and therefore guaranteed to move and settle differently
to its neighbour. This differential settlement, which I will refer
to later, is a very critical issue and it is not commented on
in these assessments at all.
3143. Number 21 remains entirely in its original
18th century panelled form on the upper floors, the next page,
but was gutted at the ground floor in the 19th century and converted
to a furriers' factory and at the basement levels to form factory
space before being returned to residential use some ten years
ago.[18]
It therefore has no original rear wall at basement and ground
floor level, but now has instead a two-storey glazed screen of
full height sliding glass panels. I believe this panel here is
slid open and you can see up the garden up to the house. The very
slightest settlement will render this construction useless. This
is a good example of one of these houses where the internal structure
of the building, the internal timber structure of the building
within the four brick outer walls rests entirely on a single cast
iron post in the basement. Cast iron is extremely brittle and
flexible and is a bit of a frightening prospect for tunnelers.
You will see that a lot of these buildings do contain a lot of
cast iron within them.
3144. This building has been restored from a
near derelict state but almost all the historic internal timber
structure was retained even though considerably distorted. With
respect to main floor beams, this has been done by carefully tensioning
the old timber beams with steel rods tensioned by a turnbuckle.
This is a sketch of what went on in number 21 Wilkes Street.[19]
This is a floor beam and this is accurately drawn with the height
in terms of deflection in the middle. Rather than push this beam
up when you come to repair and make the house fit for human habitation
again, you fix some steel rods from the top at either end underneath
the middle and back up to the top at the other end, then with
this turnbuckle, which is a screw thread thing you see on boats.
You wind that up and you tension that beam so that not to raise
it up, but just to stabilise it and take the springiness out of
all the floors. Once you have done this, then you can proceed
to repair the panelling, the cornices and the plaster work because
you are reasonably sure that they will suffer no further movement
and cracking.
3145. The Promoter's analysis or Mott MacDonald's
analysis suggests, if you look at their settlement diagrams, that
this parting wall here (indicating) which I think is between 21
and 23, will subside by about 18 millimetres. I might not have
got this exact, I am transposing from the small-scale diagrams
in Mott MacDonald's report. The wall this other side is further
over the tunnel and that will subside by about 24 millimetres.
The maximum subsidence in the terrace is 26 or 27 but that occurs
to the property next door. This wall will go down further than
this wall. What that means in respect of this tensile member here,
we think that this one will start to sag and this one might be
stretched to breaking point. We really do not know. This detail
has gone back to the engineer who devised it for an opinion on
the matter, but we really think Crossrail or Mott MacDonald ought
to be considering this sort of issue because if this snaps, then
the consequences are too frightening to bear really. It is this
kind of fine engineering that has gone on in these houses that
does not appear in any of these assessments and, of course, they
are not apparent when you look at the front wall of the buildings.
3146. This is a slide which shows the same principle.[20]
This is a site protection of buildings publication that gives
guidance on these appropriate techniques, so they are quite sophisticated
conservation techniques. There is another one here that has been
done on some of the other houses in the area where you have to
reinforce them in the other direction and you carefully drill
through all the joists and do the same sort of turnbuckle at the
end and then you can tension them up as well and that helps brace
the floor so that you can reinstate the partitions on top of the
floors. These are details used by Alan Baxter, I hasten to add
as well, on buildings in the area. They should know about this
sort of stuff and they should be aware that these buildings contain
these sorts of technology.
3147. If I carry on down the street, number
23—next slide, please—includes another completely
self-contained dwelling in the rear garden of the original historic
--- This is of original historic construction.[21]
It is a listed building. It is not connected to number 23 at the
front, but it is another building that the Promoter has completely
missed and it has some quite nice old timber trusses inside it
and cast iron as well.
3148. The next one, number 25, I do not have
a slide number for 25, but the history of 25 demonstrates what
happens when work is undertaken without sufficient analysis of
the historic fabric. While this property was being converted back
to residential use some 23 years ago the entire front wall of
the building from the first floor up came loose and crashed down
into the street. This is exactly what the Historic Monuments Society
were talking about, the front walls are very rarely effectively
bonded to the parting walls. I am sure you have heard evidence
on this sort of thing before, but it is a very familiar problem
and in this instance it simply gave way as a result of work happening
elsewhere in the house. They were not planning to do any work
on the front wall at all, there were repairs going on elsewhere
in the house and something moved, something shook and the front
wall came off. If I could go on to another example. I will not
go through many more examples but let me mention one more.
3149. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, we have got
a picture of 25, is that before or after this happened?
3150. MR WHEELER: That is after, yes.
It appears in that photograph I showed you but you may be referring
to another picture. It was rebuilt 23 years ago and you will see
it has slightly redder brickwork as a result, but they did a nice
job of it.
3151. Another clear example that demonstrates
that the Promoter has made no effort to record the internal features,
if I could refer to page 216 of Alan Baxter's reports.[22]
It is a shame you cannot see the top of it. This is right next
to the Ten Bells. The report is on a pair of buildings, this one
you see here (indicating) and the one to the right. This is another
example that demonstrates that the Promoters made no effort to
record internal features contrary to his recent claims. Again,
the listed building assessment only refers to features of the
front elevation and very briefly at that as well, only three lines
of it, and, therefore, misses a whole host of very fine internal
features, some so dramatic that they can be seen from the street.
There are some very elaborate gilded plastered ceilings on the
first floor of this building, recently been rather overly gilded,
frankly, but they are genuinely historic and very fine. The ceiling
of the first floor of number one, these two houses really do contain
some remarkable work. You can see the wider width and they really
are quite grand and are full of the most elaborate panelling and
also decorative plasterwork which does not occur very often in
Georgian buildings, it is something that came along a bit later
and this ceiling did follow 20 or 30 years after the original
build, but it is of note and it is of sufficient note to mention
quite an extensive mention in the survey of London. It is one
further indication of the superficial nature of these Phase 3
assessments, that the presence of a great many of the internal
features of the buildings in Spitalfields can simply be revealed
by reading the listed building descriptions of the properties.
3152. CHAIRMAN: I was going to ask you
about that because if these are listed buildings there will be
a description of the elements that have caused them to be listed.
3153. MR WHEELER: Yes, that is true.
3154. CHAIRMAN: What about 1 Fournier
Street, does it mention the ceilings and so on?
3155. MR WHEELER: Yes, I believe it does.
3156. CHAIRMAN: You have not got them
with you.
3157. MR WHEELER: I have not got them.
I have spoken to the owners of the building who have not seen
the listed buildings.
3158. CHAIRMAN: But they are public documents,
are they not?
3159. MR WHEELER: Yes, they are. They
refer to the fireplaces, the staircases, the ceilings in the listed
building description. It is also referred to in the relevant sections
of the Survey of London which describes, as I say, the ceiling
that I have just mentioned and that is available in any good local
London library. I will not take you through any more of the reports,
but I assure you that the inadequacies are apparent and the ones
I have described are repeated throughout most of them. It was
not our intention to carry out the detailed survey, I think that
obviously is the responsibility of the Promoter, but we did intend
to highlight the fact that these Phase 3 reports are inadequate
and not of the standard required by PPG15 or, indeed, claimed
by the Promoter.
16 Committee Ref: A19, Scale drawing of 21 Wilkes
Street, London E1 (TOWHLB-20_05-014) Back
17
Committee Ref: A19, View of the rear of 17 Wilkes Street, London
E1 (TOWHLB-20_05-015) Back
18
Committee Ref: A19, View of the rear of 21 Wilkes Street, London
E1 (TOWHLB-20_05-016) Back
19
Committee Ref: A19, Floor beam strengthening-21 Wilkes Street,
London E1 (TOWHLB-20_05-017) Back
20
Committee Ref: A19, Floor beam strengthening (TOWHLB-20_05-018) Back
21
Committee Ref: A19, Rear view of 23 Wilkes Street, London E1
(TOWHLB-20_05-019) Back
22
Committee Ref: A19, 1-3 Fournier Street, Listed Building Assessments,
Historic Buildings & Features, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20_05-020) Back
|
