Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7880
- 7899)
7880. Third, there is the question of the strengthening
of the structure and fabric of the house where necessary, including
the possibility of permanent steel-cradling of the entire building,
as was carried out at the Mansion House, before work should commence
on a rail tunnel beneath that heritage building as concern was
being expressed over the Rococo plasterwork there, which is not
as extensive as at Greek Street, due to the potential twisting
of the structure.
7881. That steel structure was not a birdcage
structure put around the outside of the building and through the
interiors of the building as a temporary measure; it was a permanently
embedded steel structure which is still there. The members of
the steel structure were placed in gouged channels made through
the whole fabric of the building, which on the interior, when
the steel members were applied through from the interior, the
plasterwork finishes had to be remade to cover the channels where
the steelwork had been applied.
7882. Alternative ways rather than doing that
would be to provide a complete cradling system of the plasterwork
ceilings before any work started on the tunnels and ancillary
works. That would mean a birdcage scaffold arrangement through
all the important rooms with the ceilings cushioned to stop them,
if they did become detached from their fixings, that they would
then rest on the cushioning and they could be re-fixed to the
structural joist above them so that then when the birdcage scaffolding
was taken down the plasterwork ceilings would still stay up. The
problem here is that once they have crashed that is it; so one
has to prevent them from crashing to the floor.
7883. So as the House of St Barnabas is a Grade
I listed building all this will need to be carried out to full
conservation standards, as set out by English Heritage and any
other interested bodies, before any of the Crossrail tunnelling
and infrastructure work could commence.
7884. So in conclusion I submit that the present
Phase 3 Iteration 1 Report on the House and its associated Chapel
is inadequate. Rather, a proper conservation-led approach should
be adopted, leading through to a thorough recording and surveying
to reach a schedule of preventative and precautionary measures,
where appropriate, to the satisfaction of the owners as advised
by their own suitable conservation specialists and at the proper
costs of the Promoters in order to protect and preserve the heritage
values of this exceptionally important Grade I Listed Building.
7885. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnier.
Mr Mould, the Phase 3 Iteration I Report is not the end of the
story, is it?
7886. MR MOULD: My Lord, indeed not.
7887. CHAIRMAN: Would you like to put
any of these points to Mr Garnier?
7888. MR MOULD: A very few; thank you.
Cross-examined by MR
MOULD
7889. MR MOULD: Mr Garnier, you said
in conclusion that a proper conservation-led approach should be
adopted hereafter towards continuing further appraisal of these
buildings, and the identification of appropriate preventative
and curative measures in relation to the potential impact of the
Crossrail works.
(Mr Garnier)
Yes.
7890. We agree. Just picking up on the thought
of my Lord Chairman, I think you now understand that the Phase
3 Iteration 1 Report is a stage in an ongoing process and it is
not the end of that process?
(Mr Garnier) I do, yes.
7891. Indeed, given the findings of that report
in relation to this building it is inevitable under that process
that a further more detailed stage of internal and external survey
and investigation should happen hereafter?
(Mr Garnier) I do understand that and
I believe the Petitioners do as well.
7892. It has been made clear to the Petitioners—and
I think you are aware of this—that just as we have agreed
to do in relation to St Dunstan's Church, we intend and will agree
with the Petitioners that that further stage of detailed assessment
and consideration of these buildings should be undertaken in conjunction
with experts of appropriate discipline appointed either jointly
or by the Petitioners themselves.
(Mr Garnier) I do, yes.
7893. And that the project has indicated that
it will meet the reasonable costs of the appointment and work
of experts of that kind?
(Mr Garnier) Yes.
7894. You have mentioned a number of measures
that in your judgment are likely to require consideration as part
of a conservation-led approach to further assessment and appraisal
of this building and the need for measures to be taken to protect
it in relation to the Crossrail scheme, and those are set out
in paragraph 4.4 of your statement. I do not think we need to
trouble their Lordships to make a judgment as to precisely what
should or should not form part of that conservation-led approach;
it is far better that that process should be undertaken by agreement
and negotiation between the Petitioner and the Promoter in conjunction
with the continuing assessment work that is to take place. Is
that fair?
(Mr Garnier) Could you repeat that, please?
7895. What I am saying is do we really need
to identify and commit to particular measures at this stage?
(Mr Garnier) I would say it is impossible
to do so.
7896. MR MOULD: Quite; that is the answer
to the question. Thank you very much.
7897. CHAIRMAN: We are certainly not
capable of choosing which of these is correct.
7898. MR MOULD: Just to be clear, there
is the precedent of St Dunstan's, Stepney, there is also of course
the precedent of Christchurch, Spitalfields, in relation to which
we have made a similar commitment as that set out in section 4
of your proof, and our position I think has been made clear to
the Petitioners that if you ask the question, "Are you prepared
to apply that precedent to our buildings?" the answer has
been and remains yes. You understand that?
(Mr Garnier)
I do, yes.
7899. MR MOULD: Thank you very much.
| 
