Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3360
- 3379)
3360. MR WHEELER: I would like to follow
up the most recent presentation and ask a few questions of the
witness myself, if I may.
3361. CHAIRMAN: You will have several
opportunities to do that. I do not mind. If you do not want Mr
Adams to give evidence now and you want to ask Mr Berryman questions,
so be it, your go ahead and do it.
3362. MR WHEELER: I would like to ask
Mr Berryman questions but I am not insisting on doing it now.
3363. CHAIRMAN: Why do you not do it
after lunch and see if we can get Mr Adams' evidence on to the
record and perhaps then he will want to go. Thank you, Mr Berryman,
for the moment.
The witness withdrew
The Petition of Nicholas Morse and others
MR ROY
ADAMS appeared as Agent
3364. MR ADAMS: Good afternoon. I am
an urban planner and a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
I am a specialist in urban regeneration and major development
schemes. For 10 years I was Chief Executive of Europe's largest
multi-discipline firm of architects and engineers. I was also
for two years an Executive Director of one of the largest construction
companies in the UK, Laing O'Rourke, and I am now Executive Chairman
of a development company specialising in urban regeneration. My
experience includes the conception and the implementation of many
large development projects ranging across infrastructure, housing,
shopping centres and stadia. I was awarded an OBE in January 2006
for services to urban regeneration in North Belfast where I have
been for the past two years chairman of a cross-community ministerial
advisory panel charged with producing a development strategy for
a £300 million project on a 30 acre site. I am also a member
of the Spitalfields Society and I live in the area.
The Petition of Nicholas Morse and others
3365. My Lord, I am anxious not to cover old
ground and, therefore, do not intend to go through the details
of what I regard as the inadequate way in which these proposals
were first explained to the wider community in February 2004,
nor do I intend to recount the sorry tale of the disregard by
Crossrail engineers on the impact on health and community welfare
of their proposed tunnelling shaft at the eastern end of Princelet
Street/Hanbury Street—an enormous hole in which they planned
to build a structure the size of one of the towers of Tower Bridge,
nor do I want to remind people of Crossrail's reluctance to change
any aspect of this proposal when urged by the community and its
advisors. In fact, abandonment of the proposal was only achieved
through changes in the engineering concept for reasons to do with
the 2012 Olympics. For me and residents right across the area,
this episode demonstrates very well the intransigence of Crossrail
which has been evident from our very first meeting with them in
February 2004 to deviate one iota from the route they had already
chosen. I am going to concentrate in this presentation on the
issue of the route which is the major objection to the Crossrail
scheme by people in the community where I live. Again, I do not
wish to waste people's time by going through the detail or arguing
about the radii of curves or vertical and horizontal alignments,
these engineering issues are dealt with in other evidence to the
Committee. Instead I am going to ask three simple questions. The
first question is, if there had been or were to be no station
at Whitechapel what would be the alignment of the railway between
Canary Wharf and Liverpool Street? The answer to that question
is surely that it would have followed a route to the south of
that proposed now by Crossrail and if valid in those circumstances,
why not now. My Lords, this is no longer just a theoretical question
because if the costs of the Olympics continue to rise, if the
costs of the Crossrail project continue to rise and if the consequences
of the recession we are undoubtedly in become more serious than
anyone is admitting right now, then this project must be subject
to review. Hopefully the Crossrail project will not tumble but
financial difficulties of this the largest infrastructure project
in Europe could cause there to be a review of the cost benefit
of all stations, in which case Whitechapel might fare badly. My
question is not just academic but I raise it to demonstrate the
point that there is a viable alternative to the route to which
Crossrail has stuck since day one. My second question is that
if one were deciding to plan a new underground railway across
London, would it not be logical to take into account above-ground
impacts as well as tunnelling feasibility and to seek to weigh
these impacts against criteria that enabled a balanced answer
to be arrived at, before deciding on the best route? This was
not done for Crossrail. The choice of the "base scheme"
route was arrived at and property safeguarding transferred, without
any assessment that was meaningful of above-ground impact. It
is my opinion that the "base scheme" had the worst above-ground
impact of any of those options considered and drawn by Mott MacDonald,
the engineering consultants. Rupert Wheeler's evidence made clear
the dangers to and the potential impacts on the historic fabric.
Please bear in mind also that Crossrail's preferred route scored
better in their analysis before the tunnelling shaft was dropped;
before this massive proposal that would have impacted so adversely,
particularly on the Bangladeshi community, was dropped.
The Petition of Selina Mifsud and others
3366. Therefore, I regard that process as being
flawed, with options to the north and south scantily regarded.
The engineering analysis smacked of retro-fit and the engineers
from Arup, employed by Tower Hamlets, found the Crossrail comparative
evaluation report unconvincing and the arguments against other
routes "not proven". I would condemn it as a failure
to achieve any form of objective evaluation.
3367. My third, and final, question is around
the fact that the 1990's scheme linking Paddington to Liverpool
Street Station was due to exit its underground length via a portal
at Allen Gardens, to take it on to the suburban route which passes
to the north at that point. How, then, was it possible for Crossrail
to be happy with a route passing directly under the tallest buildings
in the Brewery with, presumably, deep piles, and not now in the
case of a route to the south? Mr Berryman confirmed today that
the avoidance of piled buildings was an important criterion, but
it does not seem to have applied to the original proposal. I can
find no reason for the anomaly. The Mott MacDonald report, when
analysing the northern routing options, cites the difficulties
of "conflicts with the piled foundations under the Truman
Brewery" as a reason why tunnel depth would have to increase
by seven metres and would, thus, penetrate the water-bearing sands
of the Lambeth Group, even though, in a subsequent statement,
the engineers admit that "the size and depth of the piles
on this site are unknown". If engineers are confused on this
issue, what possibility is there for the rest of us?
3368. So, my Lords, there is an obvious way
to remove blight , remove objection and reduce the above-ground
impact of the current proposal, and it is to take a route to the
south. This has been a consistent message from the community.
We have been saying it for four years and it is about time somebody
listened.
3369. CHAIRMAN: Mr Adams, I am afraid
you are going to have to listen to me about this, because it is
not within our powers to do anything about your suggestion. I
had this out yesterday with one of your colleagues from Spitalfields.
We are stuck with the alignment, within the limits of deviation,
in the Bill. We cannot say anything about alternative routes;
it is not within our powers, it departs from the principle of
the Bill, and however much you and your various colleagues and
friends in Spitalfields would like there is not anything we can
do about it. It is part of the Parliamentary process.
3370. MR ADAMS: Thank you for clarifying
that.
3371. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you did not know
that, but that is the situation.
3372. MR ADAMS: I was not aware of what
took place yesterday, my Lord.
3373. CHAIRMAN: That is a rather brief
repeat of what happened yesterday. I am sorry about it; it is
a simple fact of life.
3374. MR ADAMS: Thank you very much for
the clarification. All I can say is God help us all then. I am
not at all relieved to understand from Mr Berryman that by the
time the boring machines get to Spitalfields we will know the
level of settlement we are in for. Thank you for listening.
3375. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, I do not suspect
you want to ask any questions?
3376. MR MOULD: My Lord, I do not.
3377. CHAIRMAN: I wanted you to have
the opportunity of reading your proof out this morning so that
if you do not want to stay you do not need to. You are, of course,
welcome to stay if you would like. That, I am afraid, is a frank
description of the situation in which we find ourselves in relation
to what it is you have told us.
3378. MR ADAMS: Thank you very much.
3379. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me this might
be a moment to adjourn.
| 
