Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4220
- 4239)
4220. MR MOULD: That is why I was at
pains, I hope, to point out a few moments ago, that this has been,
and I had in mind to use the word "validated", but that
can sometimes carry technical connotations, so perhaps that would
not be quite the right word to use, but certainly I think it is
fair to say, as I think Professor Mair confirmed, that this methodology
has been approved by English Heritage at the time when the Bill
was being prepared.
4221. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I was
thinking particularly of the extent to which English Heritage
have been involved in previous projects.
4222. MR MOULD: I do not know whether
you are able to answer that, Professor Mair. If not, I can ask
for instructions on that. I would be very, very surprised if it
was not, but I do not want to go ahead of myself and say something
which I do not know for a fact. Can I come back to you on that
because I am afraid I just do not know.
(Professor
Mair) Perhaps I could add that I have a clear recollection of
English Heritage showing a close interest in the Jubilee Line
Extension and obviously a particularly close interest in the effects
on listed buildings.
4223. MR MOULD: I have just been reminded
that there was a building of some sensitivity not many yards away
from this room which was of interest to English Heritage, namely
Big Ben, and I believe that they took quite a close interest.
4224. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I was
thinking of more modest buildings.
4225. MR MOULD: Of course, but you will
recall of course, and this is not the point, but it is perhaps
of some relevance, that Professor Mair explained to you in some
little detail when he gave his presentation the successful experience
in relation to the construction of the Jubilee Line Extension
in relation to a residential building in, I think, the East End.
(Professor
Mair) That is correct, in Bermondsey.
4226. Yes. Now, I am not sure that that was
a listed structure, but it gives an indication of what the experience
is, I think, in relation to masonry structures and the sort of
tunnelling activities that we are talking about.
(Professor Mair) Could I just add to that
and say that, at the conclusion of the Jubilee Line Extension
project, there was a major set of volumes produced, and I was
involved in the production of those along with colleagues at Imperial
College and also engineers at London Underground, summarising
all of the experience of a very wide range of buildings, many
of which are listed, of many different ages, different kinds of
structures, masonry buildings, modern, steel-framed, reinforced
concrete buildings, a huge compendium of all that had happened
during the Jubilee Line Extension, and that is in the public domain
and is very well-known. The message that clearly evolved from
that experience was that there was very little damage to any buildings
and that the assessment processes followed by the Jubilee Line
Extension project were very successful in identifying those buildings
that might need special protection, and that was done in some
cases, but the overall outcome was very successful in terms of
extremely little damage being caused.
4227. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I think
it is a pity that Mr Wheeler is not present today to hear these
exchanges, and perhaps we, one way or another, should ensure that
he sees them.
4228. CHAIRMAN: Well, he had better read
the transcript.
4229. MR MOULD: I spoke to him briefly
outside the room yesterday after he had completed his evidence
and he told me that he was going to take a close interest in what
was said today, albeit he did explain that it was unlikely that
he would be able to be here to hear it in person, so I think he
certainly is going to take a close interest in it.
4230. LORD SNAPE: On that point then,
Mr Mould, is it a fact that, if he or any of the other Petitioners
who have given evidence over the past couple of days had been
present today, they would have had the opportunity to cross-examine
Professor Mair both about his expertise and his evidence?
4231. MR MOULD: He would have done certainly.
4232. LORD SNAPE: Any of them any would
have done?
4233. MR MOULD: Indeed, that is right.
4234. LORD SNAPE: You would have been
quite happy for any of them to cross-examine Professor Mair?
4235. MR MOULD: Of course. One of the
purposes of inviting Professor Mair to come and give evidence
to you in relation to these matters was not only to enable him
to explain the position to you, but also to allow Petitioners
who might wish to question him to do so. I think we have made
clear through remarks made to, and by, my Lord, Lord Colville,
during the course of the week that Professor Mair would be giving
his evidence today.
4236. CHAIRMAN: Also, we tried to get
hold of him during the lunchtime adjournment and somebody said
he might turn up. Did you have anything else?
4237. MR MOULD: Well, I did have one
other question and we just wanted to touch briefly on the other
point Mr Wheeler raised and, for that purpose, perhaps we can
remind you of this photograph that he showed you yesterday. It
was to do with rear extensions. Professor Mair, do you want to
say something about this? You have the point that Mr Wheeler took
in relation to extensions and that he suggested that there had
been an absence of consideration of such features, and we put
up this which is the photograph of the rear elevation of 17-25
Wilkes Street and we can see that there are a number of rear extensions
to that range of buildings.[39]
Do you want to comment on that?
(Professor Mair) Yes, I think it might or it
could be said that, if there is an extension, it somehow in the
engineering process needs to be taken into account. I think it
is a little bit like the attic point that I addressed earlier,
that the engineering assessment, which involves the calculation
of the maximum tensile strain, idealises the structure. There
is no doubt about that. It idealises the structure to certain
dimensions, a certain height, a certain length, a certain width,
and all of our experience is that the tensile strain that is calculated
in that structure is not very sensitive to changes in dimension.
You may remember earlier that I showed that in terms of different
lengths of buildings and it did not make very much difference
to the maximum tensile strain that was calculated. There seem
to be two extensions here and the one in the foreground of the
photograph is a low-rise, single-storey extension, and the one
in the background of the photograph is a two-storey extension.
My view on this is that the presence of those two extensions would
not make very much difference to the assessed maximum tensile
strain in the structure.
4238. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
was just interested that you used that word "idealise".
If I use my word, and you tell me if I have got it wrong, what
you are sort of saying to me is that, if you take into account
the height of the masonry of the main building and various other
things you know about the main building, it does not really matter
in terms of calculating that strain? It does not really matter
if you have a loft on the top or there is a two-storey extension
at the back as that will not materially affect the result?
(Professor
Mair) That is correct.
4239. MR MOULD: Just to complete the
picture, I think you alluded a moment ago to this graph, did you
not?
(Professor Mair) That is right. That is the graph which I
showed and spoke about earlier where a very wide variety of building
lengths were considered and the difference in the calculated strain
is really rather small with really rather big differences in dimensions
of the building. It is a related point to the question about extensions,
that the presence of an extension, as you have just put it very
well, would not have a material effect on the calculated maximum
tensile strain.
39 Crossrail Ref: P23, View of the rear elevation
of 17-25 Wilkes Street (TOWHLB-20_5-013) Back
| 
