Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13100
- 13119)
13100. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: You
say that there was no way you could build a station under a highway,
but what was the exclusive reason for Crossrail to take that view
because surely the London Underground has done that in a number
of places? Why could they do it and not you?
(Mr Berryman) The London Underground stations: the first
thing to say is they are on a very different scale to our stations.
The second thing is that the requirements for ventilation and
escape provisions are much more onerous now than they were at
the time when most of the Underground was built. The two exceptions
to that are the Victoria Line and the Jubilee Line.
13101. It sounds like tomorrow's Daily Mail
headline: "Crossrail claim all London Underground stations
are unsafe".
(Mr Berryman) I do not think you would find
any objections from London Underground perhaps with the exact
wording, but the principle I think would —- If you could
put the other drawing up, please.[9]
This is a larger scale drawing of the area immediately to the
east of Liverpool Street Station. This building here (indicating)
is the Heron Tower. This building is the site where there is also
an application for a 47-storey block which is currently in process
and we were aware of both of these schemes at the time.
13102. MR ELVIN: What does the red show?
(Mr Berryman) Well, the red represents a piled building.
This line C, the one that we rejected because there was no possibility
of a station at Whitechapel, that goes right through the Heron
Tower. Line B virtually touches the foundations of Heron Tower
and, on this alignment, would probably be impossible to build.
The alignment could have been refined a little bit probably to
clear that if there had been the prospect of a station at Whitechapel,
but it also conflicted with this proposed building here (indicating)
and also a number of other buildings in this area, whereas with
this alignment which was selected, we are aware of the depth of
the piles in this building and they are relatively shallow. There
is a car park building here (indicating) which has got deep foundations,
but we can miss that, so, generally speaking, it was a better
alignment in terms of underground obstructions. As I said earlier
on, the main argument was about the Whitechapel Station and the
possibility of building a station at Whitechapel which was a mayoral
and a Tower Hamlets ambition.
13103. CHAIRMAN: But there were not the
development opportunities?
(Mr Berryman) To the best of my knowledge, my Lord, there
are no development opportunities at Whitechapel.
13104. MR ELVIN: Can we just put up briefly
one section of the March 2001 report. This is the section which
Mr Horton referred to on Day 11 or Day 12.
13105. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Before
we leave that, do I not recall that some of the residents argued
that some were opposed to a Whitechapel Station, but, if they
had a Whitechapel Station, some argued that there was an alternative
location for it?
(Mr Berryman) Well, I have never heard a cohesive argument
to that effect, my Lord. I have heard lots of people say, "Couldn't
you find another place for it?", but it is quite a built-up
area. As you recall, the very first site visit we had was to that
site and it is a question of finding either buildings which are
ready for demolition which could be used as sites or sites which
are already open, and that is what we have endeavoured to do with
all the stations.
13106. So that was the only site, as you saw
it, for the station?
(Mr Berryman) That was the most appropriate site. You can
never say that there is only one site because there are always
alternatives.
13107. MR ELVIN: If we could just turn
to the section of the report, we can see in the second paragraph
reference in the middle, "The site is directly over the westbound
tunnel of alignment B. A further site immediately to the south
is the subject of a proposed 50-storey office development. This
is directly over the westbound tunnel of alignment C, but is almost
entirely the limit of the land subject to consultation and the
safeguarding direction".[10]
What is that a reference to, Mr Berryman?
(Mr Berryman) As I think members of the Committee
are aware, the Crossrail safeguarding direction was initially
introduced in 1992 and what that required was for local authorities
to inform us of any planning applications which were built within
the safeguarded area and it gives us or, strictly speaking, gives
the Secretary of State the power to order that planning consent
is not granted. Sorry, I have forgotten the correct term now,
but the basic idea is that we can object to schemes which are
going to obstruct the tunnels in the safeguarded area. Any building
that is built outside our safeguarded area we would not have knowledge
of, but we would only have knowledge of what is built inside.
13108. Do we know which building is being identified
as subject to a proposal?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, on the previous plan that was the dark
shaded area and I understand it is this site here (indicating).
I believe that that planning application has now been revived
and there is now a possibility that that development will go ahead.
13109. MR ELVIN: My Lords, that was all
I wished to put on the record just to clarify the reason for the
rejection of option B back in 2001. I do not know whether there
are any questions for Mr Berryman arising from that.
13110. CHAIRMAN: Not, as far as I can
see, from us.
13111. MR ELVIN: My Lords, can I then
deal with the remaining points in the letter. Point 3 deals with
the same points with regard to option B. Point 4 makes the suggestion
that, since option B was only made available at the hearing on
31 January before the Commons Select Committee, it was not available
to Members of Parliament.[11]
My Lords, that is simply wrong. Whilst, as I said the other day,
it was not available on second reading, it was made available,
and it was known to Members of Parliament, on third reading, and
I have already referred your Lordships on Tuesday to the Crossrail
overview report which included the whole run of correspondence
with Mr Carpenter and the Woodseer and Hanbury Residents' Association
which dealt with matters, including the alternative alignments.
That was laid before the House in time for third reading, so,
whether or not it was available to the House at second reading,
it was certainly available to the House along with all of Mr Carpenter's
submissions for third reading, and, as I said, in any event—
13112. CHAIRMAN: What about the Select
Committee?
13113. MR ELVIN: It was debated on 31
January and, moreover, on the occasion when I made the inaccurate
statement which is referred to and which I have now corrected,
which is Volume 5 of the Select Committee Report, it was Tuesday
20 March 2007, so that was three months later, and indeed Mr Whale
of 4-5 Grays Inn Square chambers was representing the Association
on that occasion, and Mr Schabas was called and expressed his
views about option B and the alignments, and I will give your
Lordships the reference. It is volume 5, pages 1998 to 2002, paragraphs
21105 to 21140, and the association presented, through Mr Schabas,
their evidence on option B and the alternative alignments, so
it is wrong to suggest that the matter was neither before the
Commons Select Committee nor before the House. It was on at least
21 March last year and before the House on third reading.
13114. My Lords, finally, reference to the consultation
rounds and the foreign language versions, well, that is not our
understanding of the matter. We are happy to provide copies. If
the Committee so wishes, we will provide specimens of foreign
language information provided to the various communities, including
in Bengali. If the Committee would like copies of that material,
we can make that available.
13115. CHAIRMAN: If that is what happened,
we will take your word for it.
13116. MR ELVIN: I did show some of it
to the Commons Committee and I recall specifically doing that.
I think it can be made available to the Clerk electronically.
13117. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think it would
be better if we saw it.
13118. MR ELVIN: I will make sure that
it is copied to the Association as well as to your Clerk. My Lords,
that is all I propose to say in response to that letter. I am
sorry for dealing with it in this way, but, rather than correspondence
after the hearing has concluded, I thought it was better to deal
with the matter in open committee.
13119. CHAIRMAN: Certainly it is.
9 Crossrail Ref: P80, Crossrail Tunnel Alignments
between Liverpool Street and Bow Triangle showing deep-piled buildings
(SCN-200805098-010) Back
10
Crossrail Ref: P80, CrossRail Eastern Portal-Bow Triangle Option
CrossRail Tunnel Alignments between Liverpool Street and Bow Triangle
showing deep-piled buildings (TOWHLB-19-05-003) Back
11
Committee Ref: A69, Woodseer and Hanbury Residents' Association
Hearing Submission (SCN-20080508-011) Back
|
