Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3540
- 3559)
3540. Why does this route merit very much fewer
boreholes than the previous route? I can count half-a-dozen, at
least, boreholes from the previous safeguarded route and none
for this route—well, one down in the left-hand corner.
(Mr Berryman) I cannot answer for the previous scheme because
I was not involved in it. However, they actually, for reasons
which I do not quite understand, did far more detailed design
and far more site investigation for this area than we have done.
We have been focusing on the areas for which we have no results.
You will appreciate that this scheme is quite different from the
1992 scheme, in that it goes further out—it goes to Canary
Wharf and down to Woolwich, and so on—and what we have focused
on is the areas where we have nothing, which are quite large chunks
of the route. So this is an area where we have pretty good information
already. Of course, we will do more before we actually start boring,
but there is no reason to suppose that the geology sections produced
by these boreholes are anything other than correct.
3541. So you are suggesting that the evidence
that you gain from the boreholes that have been done are adequate
for your purposes?
(Mr Berryman) They are certainly adequate for planning at
this stage, yes.
3542. Are you intending to do any more along
the route?
(Mr Berryman) We have quite an extensive programme of boreholes
over the next two years.
3543. Why is it not on this plan?
(Mr Berryman) I have no idea.
3544. There is one on the bottom left-hand corner.
I have noted that. I do not think that really does the job for
us, I am afraid, but you see what I mean. So that is work that
you are going to progress. Are you proposing to do any more boreholes
on this route? They are not shown here but you say you are. Will
you announce where they are going to be? That is going to be something
that local residents will be interested in. If they are to get
a borehole in their back garden you should be able to tell them
now and not just before the tunnels come through.
(Mr Berryman) Certainly the boreholes will not be done just
before the tunnels come through. As I say, we have a programme
of boreholes in the area in the whole of the route. We have had,
as I say, some difficulty in locating people who are prepared
to let us on to their land. We will certainly be doing a borehole
just here, without any doubt. Whether we will need to do any down
here or not will possibly depend on what we find there. It is
likely there will be at least two in this area, between here and
here (indicating).
3545. We may be being paranoid, or whatever,
but you hear lots of stories about wells and underground water
in this area. It is not a big brewery next door for nothing.
(Mr Berryman) If I could just interrupt you there, Mr Wheeler,
the wells which fed the brewery were deep, artesian wells which
went much deeper than we would be going. They went below the London
Clay. Digging a well in London Clay is a very pointless exercise,
because there is no water in it. The essence of London Clay is
that it is impermeable to water. So we would be very surprised
if there were any significant wells belonging to these residential
properties.
3546. MR WHEELER: Thank you. I inquired
during the break what internal inspections had been carried out
to 3 and 5, because, as I mentioned in my previous evidence, we
put up the page from Alan Baxter that mentioned lots of internal
features and it rather stood apart from the rest of the assessments.
I understand that, actually, no internal inspection was carried
out of that property and that that list of internal features on
that assessment comes entirely from the listed building descriptions
that we were talking about earlier. Unfortunately, it was made
over 20 years ago, as I suspect are all the other listed building
descriptions. An awful lot, as you know, has happened in the area
over those years.
3547. CHAIRMAN: Mr Wheeler, there is
a difference between making a speech and asking a question. Could
you stick to the question?
3548. MR WHEELER: Yes. What I was going
to ask was: why was the policy of at least inspecting the listed
building descriptions not applied to all the other buildings?
As I demonstrated earlier, it has an impact on these scores.
(Mr Berryman) In the cases you mention I do not think it
had an impact on the scores.
3549. That is fine, I would accept that, but
I am worried about all the cases I have not mentioned. We have
demonstrated to you that when we took the Promoter, or Alan Baxter,
back to number 19 the score was uplifted.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed it was.
3550. We are concerned, of course, that if we
go through all the other properties the same result might apply.
(Mr Berryman) The reason the score was uplifted by Alan Baxter
when he went in—
3551. I am not talking about number 19 Princelet
Street. The question is why was this policy, of at least including
the internal description, applied to 3 and 5 when it was not applied
to the rest of them.
(Mr Berryman) I have no idea, I am afraid.
3552. As I say, it has an effect on the scores.
(Mr Berryman) May I contradict you there? I do not think
it does have any effect on the scores. In particular, in that
case it does not. The reason that the score for number 19—
3553. MR WHEELER: I am not talking about
individual cases.
3554. CHAIRMAN: Do let him finish. Let
him answer the question.
(Mr Berryman) The reason the score on number 19 was raised
was because of the general dilapidation of the building which,
our surveyors felt, with a good puff of wind would fall down anyway,
irrespective of whether or not we were going to do tunnelling
underneath it.
3555. MR WHEELER: That was not your original
assessment of the building, was it?
(Mr Berryman) That was not the original assessment based
on an external view but, as you noted, this is a building at risk
and, therefore, it would have been highly likely to have been
in need of some care and attention.
3556. So there was no reason that you know of
why the assessment for numbers 3 to 5 followed a rather different
strategy to the remainder of them?
(Mr Berryman) I would imagine it was because Alan Baxters
had ready access to that information. They told me during lunchtime
that roughly a third of the buildings which are in this area they
have done work on over the years, so they probably have an extensive
knowledge of this area, which is perhaps reflected in some of
the work they have done.
3557. Do you know why they did not pass that
on to Mott MacDonald in these reports?
(Mr Berryman) Passed what on?
3558. The extensive information you say they
have of these buildings.
(Mr Berryman) They passed on the information Mott MacDonald
needed to make assessments of the strains which would be placed
on the buildings. That is what they were engaged to do, that is
what they did, and they have expressed that is what they would
have expected at this stage.
3559. Do you think that can actually be done
without an internal inspection?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I do. The key thing is the geometry of
the exterior walls, is it not—the height and the disposition
of them.
| 
