Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3220
- 3239)
3220. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I entirely understand
that, but we have not got very much information about it so far.
3221. MR WHEELER: I quite agree. I have
forgotten where I was! This would have the result that movement
and cracking at high levels is likely to be considerably more
than the 0.1 of a millimetre that they predict (which I think
is the point you are making). It is actually very difficult to
predict and there is no substance for their current prediction.
3222. There is a severe lack of tensile resistance
within the buildings due to the lack of bonding of cross-walls,
the presence of lime mortar and the poor bearing of often rotted
timbers on supporting walls or on rotted wall plates. This means
that any movement would have serious consequences for the buildings,
requiring extensive remedial works and repairs, and of course
the risk of collapse referred to in the letter from the Ancient
Monuments Society to Norman Haste of Crossrail on 24 May, 2004.
3223. They have taken no account of any of the
numerous structural alterations that have occurred over the last
300 years since these buildings were first built. This has frequently
involved the insertion of cast iron structural elements, both
columns and beams, the removal of much internal structure and,
more recently, the underpinning and piling of foundations in connection
with the change of use and extension of many of these properties
as they are converted back to family homes.
3224. Can I just take that diagram you were
describing, my Lord, of the terrace settling into a trough? If
you then put very rigid elements, like concrete-tanked basement
underpinning foundations (which is usually mass concrete, a metre
deep and a metre wide, and so on) and very rigid elements like
columns and beams and cast-iron framed structures like you find
at No 19 Princelet Street; if you put these very rigid elements
into that rather picturesque profile that we all assume nice old
houses will settle into, you completely disrupt that pattern of
settlement. That is what worries us so greatly about the lack
of internal inspections: that the tunnellers and engineers do
not know what they are going to have to deal with. I struggle
to see how Crossrail manages to define the risk and define its
liabilities or actually define the costs arising from the mitigation
or the remedial measures it is going to have to make to solve
those problems when they occur.
3225. The reports treat all these buildings
individually, or in small groups and pairs, completely ignoring
the fact that they share party wall structures, take support off
each other, overlap occasionally with flying freeholds (that happens
quite a bit), share roof structures, and so on. Wilkes Street,
for example, is not a collection of individual buildings but a
continuous terrace of about 100 metres long of buildings built,
rebuilt and adapted over 300 years and now comprises all manner
of structures and foundation systems.
3226. The Promoter explains that the middle
bits will sink about 27 millimetres and the end bits will sink
about 10 millimetres. The effect of the differential settlement
due to varying structural systems, varying ground conditions and
the uneven settlement predicted by the Promoter makes it virtually
impossible to make an accurate prediction of the damage that will
be caused by the tunnelling. Add to this one further complication,
which is that the two tunnels will be bored at different times,
therefore the ground will go up and down twice, as the tunnelling
machines pass through the area and you will understand why we
feel that the results of these Phase 3 reports are so misleading.
We have already spoken about the way it sinks in the middle, but
the alarming thing is that as the tunnels come through, the ground
actually slightly rises, it passes on, it then drops down, and
the next one comes through right next to it and the ground rises
again, passes on and it drops down. So these buildings are actually
being asked to move four times.
3227. CHAIRMAN: I think, in fact, it
depends how close the two tunnels are together.
3228. MR WHEELER: Yes, that does affect
the degree of settlement, but I think, also (I have to remember
back to our lecture from Professor Mair), the tunnels together
do create a single sort of basement. The profile of that basement,
if you like, changes though as they go through at separate times.
So there is an initial movement, there is a second movement and
then they settle to a more even settlement. The alarming thing
was that it was explained that the bulk of it will happen within
a week of the tunnels coming under the houses, but it then carries
on settling for years thereafter. It is the initial week that
really frightens a lot of people who have those sort of tensile
structures that you saw in my earlier presentation, who, frankly,
wonder: do they need to move out while the tunnels are coming
underneath? It would be interesting to hear what the Promoter's
advice is on that, actually. Anyhow, that is the end of the technical
bit. I think all the above clearly demonstrates that these original
assessments are inadequate; certainly inadequate for the purposes
of this project.
3229. My second point is that the Promoter has
not produced individual reports for all the listed buildings in
the area. I can be quite brief on this because I have referred
to a number of them during my presentation. I referred earlier
to the fact that these assessments have been restricted to only
those buildings visible from the public highway. The Promoter
claims in his response to the Select Committee's Interim Decisions
dated 11 October 2006 "that an individual report for all
listed buildings in the Spitalfields area has been produced".
3230. Further analysis of their settlement assessment
reports reveals that this is not so. For example, detached buildings
to the rear of numbers 3, 5, 7 and 9 Princelet Street and to the
rear of 13, 23 and 25 Wilkes Street have not been inspected, and
large and architecturally notable extensions to properties such
as 4 Princelet Street (of which I showed you some photographs
earlier) have also been missed, and, of course, the synagogue
to the rear of number 17 Wilkes Street.
3231. The details of these properties were contained
in our earlier presentation to the Commons Select Committee and
they, at the time, asked that we provide these details to the
Promoter. They were provided to Mr Mounty, who was in post at
the time, as requested by the Committee, and I believe the reason
they requested that is they clearly expected the Promoter to make
good these inadequacies and inspect these other parts, areas,
of individual listed buildings. We believe that has still not
been done, and that is why we say that we feel that the original
assessments are not complete.
3232. MR WHEELER: To recap, first, 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. The Promoter has acknowledged on many occasions Spitalfields
is environmentally a very sensitive area. It has never taken the
trouble to assess just how sensitive it is or to quantify it in
any meaningful way. The Phase 3 reports have all been produced
in respect of the historic fabric of the area and we have demonstrated
very clearly how incomplete and incorrect and, therefore, how
inadequate they are. I understand that this Bill is the equivalent
of the Promoter applying for planning permission or, in the case
of the aforementioned buildings, listed building consent for the
works that will so affect these historic structures. The reports
prepared to date come absolutely nowhere near complying with the
scope of detail required for historic building assessments, required
by planning authorities to accompany such applications, and they
wilfully understate the condition and the fragility of these buildings.
The extent of such assessments is set out in government guidance
entitled "PPG 15" and requires a detailed understanding
of the historic character and significance of the building concerned.
The Promoter undertook to carry out internal inspection and has
claimed that he has established a detailed understanding of the
historic character and significance of the buildings concerned
in accordance, as he says here, with the criteria laid down in
PPG 15 and, in particular, identified any features of architectural
interest or sensitivity, for example delicate plasterwork and
fine stucco mouldings. It interestingly refers to obviously what
are internal features in that comment, but he has clearly not
done so. The Promoter has claimed in earlier evidence that PPG
15 does not apply because they are not proposing to alter the
buildings, but then they acknowledge these buildings will be affected
by settlement and in the case of 19 Princelet Street, for example,
they have confirmed they will be carrying out structural alterations
and bracing by inserting steelwork into the building and this
will most certainly require a listed building consent unless,
of course, the Promoter is in a position where such consents are
waived, I am not sure of the conventions on that issue, but if
it were a private or building owner for example, that sort of
work would definitely require listed building consent.
3233. CHAIRMAN: It may be deemed to be
granted in the Bill.
3234. MR WHEELER: I understand that,
yes, which I think is why it is so important to consider it carefully
now, yes.
3235. CHAIRMAN: I quite agree.
3236. MR WHEELER: The conclusions we
draw from the above evidence is three-fold. That the reports acknowledge
that damage will occur that is negligible, slight or moderate;
in truth we have demonstrated that these reports cannot be relied
upon; that the Promoter entirely misses the point of damage and
loss of fabric to historic buildings is irreversible. You can
repair it and you can replicate it, but you cannot recover it.
Once lost it is gone forever. This is precisely why these buildings
are protected. It is also why a lot of local people and historians
and so on do get so agitated about it because they were so nearly
lost and they should, therefore, not be subjected to any amount
of stress and settlement.
3237. Thirdly, that the choice of the base route
has been based on incomplete and incorrect evidence. The original
Crossrail route passed up to Allen Gardens and avoided the historic
buildings of Spitalfields both to the west and the east of the
route, but this later route now loops around to aim at the very
heart of the historic area even though the original stated reason
for this that they needed to connect to the spoil adit serving
the tunnelling shaft in Hanbury Street no longer applies.
3238. The latter point, I believe, is the most
fundamental. There is no reason why there should be any risk to
the historic area if the Promoter is genuine in his desire to
achieve the quickest, most cost-effective, most buildable and
most environmentally friendly route. You will hear petitions from
others in the Spitalfields area that demonstrate there are better
routes available to the Promoter and that the selection of the
current base route is ill-advised and possibly unlawful.
3239. CHAIRMAN: We are going to have
to look for a natural break because there is coffee available,
I do not know whether this is it?
|
