Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3280
- 3299)
3280. MR MOULD: The next question is
on a point raised and I think this really was the burden of Mr
Wheeler's argument to the Committee today, and that was can you
give an explanation of what motivated the choice of route alignment
through the Spittalfields area please?
(Mr Berryman) Yes I can. The alignment of Liverpool Street
Station, which is here (indicating) is effectively fixed by the
presence of the existing mainline station and the number of tall
piled buildings in the area.[31]
The alignment of Whitechapel Station likewise is fixed by the
availability of open space from which to construct the station,
which I showed your Lordships when we went down there, in this
location here (indicating). On any alignment the first requirement
is that it must connect (indicating) this alignment here with
this alignment here (indicating). What we also need to do is to
avoid piled buildings, as I think Counsel has mentioned several
times before. There are issues about settlement but there is also
the high risk of a tunnel-boring machine touching or colliding
with the pile on the building if you do not know where they are.
The general rule in London, I am sorry to say, is that we have
very poor records of how deep the piles are in existing buildings.
3281. CHAIRMAN: Or where they are.
(Mr Berryman) We are not too bad on where they are, my Lord,
but the depth is always a problem. Contractors, as I think you
are aware, are supposed to produce as-built drawings when they
finish the construction of a building. Unfortunately, piling contractors
appear to be less assiduous than perhaps they could be in that
matter. There is always a risk with piled buildings that we will
not quite know where the piles are and as a result we have tried
to avoid them wherever possible. That is the first criterion.
The second criterion is to keep within the Crossrail alignment
standards which is related to gradient and sharpness of curve
and so on. That is for the purpose of building a railway that
can operate at the design speed with satisfactory passenger comfort
and with minimum maintenance consistent with that. The final thing
that we have to do is to locate sites or potential sites where
a shaft can be positioned. As I think has been explained already,
we need to provide shafts for intervention by the Fire Brigade
and other emergency services and for purposes of ventilation.
3282. This is a requirement of HM Railway Inspectorate,
is it not?
(Mr Berryman) It is, Sir, so the alignment here was fixed
bearing those things in mind. Whatever we did we knew that we
had to have a kind of S-shaped curve. We investigated a number
of potential sites for shafts, as I think has already been explained,
and none of them was very good. I would not like to pretend that
the site we chose is brilliant but it is the least bad of all
the ones we looked at and so we knew the alignment had to go through
here and we wanted to avoid the large number of piled buildings
here. That is why this alignment was selected. The initial decision
on tunnelling strategy to put in a temporary adder here and tunnel
in here (indicating) was taken much later, at least a year after
this alignment had been selected, so the remarks made by Mr Wheeler
earlier that this shaft site had been selected to facilitate the
tunnel programme is actually not true, although, to be fair to
him, he would have no way of knowing that because he was not there
at the time.
3283. MR MOULD: Just following the logic
of that point, he said that the fact that under the revised strategy
it was no longer necessary to use the Hanbury Street shaft for
the sinking of the tunnel-boring machine and the Pedley Street
exit was no longer required as part of the revised scheme—his
suggestion was there is a clear link between that and the continuing
need to drive the tunnels through the Hanbury Street area. What
do you want to say about that?
(Mr Berryman) The absence of the need for that link and the
absence of the use of this site as a tunnelling site obviously
means the works here can be much more modest than they previously
would have been, but as things stand at the moment we still need
to provide the intervention and ventilation shaft and this is
still the best site in the area, although I would be the first
to admit it is not perfect.
3284. Does that revised tunnelling strategy
significantly affect the route alignment?
(Mr Berryman) It has no bearing on that really.
3285. Thank you. I want to turn to another point.
Mr Wheeler has expressed a number of concerns about the assessment
of listed buildings within the Spitalfields area that are potentially
subject to ground movement during the construction of the Crossrail
running tunnels. You heard him talk about that?
(Mr Berryman) Indeed.
3286. I have asked to be put up one of the assessment
reports that he referred to and criticised during the course of
his presentation this morning.[32]
The first question I want to ask you is this: as he pointed out,
the heritage aspects of these reports were prepared by Alan Baxter
Associates. Can you please explain the role Alan Baxter Associates
have had within the project and in the settlement assessment process?
(Mr Berryman) Well, the first thing I should
say, my Lord, is that Alan Baxter, as I think the Petitioner mentioned,
is very highly regarded in the conservation community. He is a
member of the Advisory Panel of English Heritage and he is, I
think, in terms of structural engineering probably the doyen of
experts in that matter. He advised us on the robustness or the
historical aspects of the buildings and helped us in formulating
our policy on how we dealt with the issue of tunnels passing underneath
historic buildings. I am sure members of the Committee will realise
that these are not the only historic buildings under which we
pass in London. There are quite a number in other areas of London.
3287. Was it open to Mr Baxter in principle
to express his views about the adequacy of the assessment method
that the project proposed in order to assess the potential impact
of the scheme upon historic buildings under which the route passed?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, my Lords. Alan Baxter is a man of quite
strong opinions and where he feels that we have not given him
a wide enough brief or he should be doing more than we have asked
him to, he has had no hesitation in coming forward and telling
me, and he has never done so in connection with the Spitalfields
area.
3288. And as has been made clear, the historic
buildings and features reports, of which this is an example, were
prepared by his firm, as I understand it?
(Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes.
MR MOULD: Just turning from Mr Baxter
to the role of English Heritage, can you just give the Committee
a little bit of background ---
3289. CHAIRMAN: Just before you leave
that, was it Mr Baxter who produced the predicted strains where
they are given, which is most unusual?
(Mr Berryman) No, my Lord, that would be Mott MacDonald who
would have produced that. That is a matter of mathematical calculation
of course.
3290. Yes I notice that.
(Mr Berryman) I am not suggesting, my Lord, that Alan Baxter
cannot do mathematical calculations; quite the contrary.
3291. No, but it is not his primary role.
(Mr Berryman) Absolutely. The role of English Heritage is
that English Heritage are of course the statutory consultee in
the process of preparing this Bill and the approach to `Assessment
of Settlement Impacts on the Built Heritage', which is one of
our baseline documents, one of the documents on which the whole
process is based, was agreed with them. They were heavily consulted
on it and it was an agreed text with them. That is what sets the
framework for how the assessments should be done and the approach
that should be taken. As I say, they agreed that process with
us as to what was the appropriate way to do it and we have consulted
them all the way through on matters of concern where such have
arisen.
3292. MR MOULD: Just turning then to
where reports, of which this is an example (that is to say if
we look at the top left-hand corner "Listed Building Assessments,
Phase 3 Iteration 1 Reports") fit into the overall settlement
assessment procedure which the project has embarked upon, Mr Berryman,
can you help the Committee with that?
(Mr Berryman) Yes I think your Lordships will remember that
Professor Mair gave an outline of this iteration at stage one,
two and three—iteration one, two and three in the process—but
basically all the properties inside the 10 mm contour settlement
are subject to a Phase 1 assessment, irrespective of their age
or any other features. Anything which comes up as more than negligible
damage will be subject to a Phase 2 assessment and anything that
goes beyond that, and all listed buildings, irrespective of where
they come in the spectrum, will be treated to a Phase 3 assessment.
Phase 3 in itself has got three iterations. In the first iteration
is an individual building assessment and we calculate the maximum
tensile stress. Again, Professor Mair referred to that in his
presentation and explained the significance of that, I think better
than I could. Then iteration 2 is taken forward if the building
scores more than a certain amount in the scoring system that we
have developed and then iteration 3 would occur if advanced numerical
analysis was needed if we thought there was a really big issue.
So the process here is that most of these buildings, in fact all
of these buildings which are listed, have been taken to the Phase
3 analysis and all of them through iteration one. Further work
will be done when the contractor is appointed.
3293. CHAIRMAN: Where does the interior
come in this whole process, the features of the interior?
(Mr Berryman) The owners of these buildings will all be entitled
to a Settlement Deed, which will include a requirement to survey
the interior of the building in some detail for the purpose of
detecting existing defects in the building, and assessing whether
there is anything specific that needs to be done to that building
during the process of the works. Of course, once the contractor
is appointed and the details of his machines and so on are known
then further assessments will be done before tunnelling actually
comes through. I think it is worth saying in this case, because
as I mentioned earlier we are near the end of a tunnel drive,
by the time we get to these locations we will have very good empirical
evidence of how the machine is performing and what kind of settlement
we are experiencing with the actual construction.
3294. LORD SNAPE: Further to your question,
my Lord Chairman, if you do not look at the interior now surely
that impacts on the score sheet, as we have heard from the previous
witnesses, as to which category these buildings are put in?
(Mr Berryman) I do not think it necessarily does, and I am
not sure even if it does that it is that significant, my Lord.
We will be assessing them again before tunnelling is actually
done and that will include an internal inspection as part of the
Settlement Deed.
3295. You see the point I am seeking to make.
The fact is that you categorise these properties one, two and
three and presumably, having not inspected the interior, that
has impacted upon the category in which each building finds itself?
(Mr Berryman) It may do in some cases.
3296. Do you think that is satisfactory, or
can you see an alternative?
(Mr Berryman) At this stage of the process I think it is
satisfactory. As you said quite correctly, my Lord, it will need
to be looked at again before the tunnelling is actually done,
but I think it has been made clear in any event that we will be
doing that.
3297. BARONESS FOOKES: You indicated
that there will be an internal survey for all listed buildings
automatically?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, my Lady; not only for all listed buildings
but for all buildings actually.
3298. That was going to be my next point, and
you have answered it.
(Mr Berryman) The process here is that before the tunnelling
comes through a survey will be carried out by a surveyor, jointly
instructed by us and the building owner, and I am talking in the
generality here and not particularly about listed buildings, so
that if there is any damage due to settlement (and we confidently
expect there will not be any) we would have an accurate assessment
of what had been caused by the settlement as the machine went
through.
3299. It is quite likely, is it not, that there
will be existing defects which may or may not be affected by substance
but which a detailed survey will throw up?
(Mr Berryman) It is perfectly possible.
31 Crossrail Ref: P23, Liverpool Street Station to
Whitechapel Station (TOWHLB-XR5B-040) Back
32
Committee Ref: A19, 17-25 Wilkes Street, Listed Building Assessments,
General Description, Mott MacDonald (TOWHLB-20_05-011) Back
| 
