Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
240. The reason I say that is because they are
not planning to propose a new ticket hall at the Liverpool Street
end of Livergate but they are proposing to, to put it crudely,
knock a hole in the wall of the existing ticket hall and direct
passengers into that existing ticket hall, ticket hall B.
241. The planning, transport and economic policies
promoted by the Mayor of London are also designed to maintain
the continued attractiveness of London to world business with
a phased supply of appropriate floorspace for international business
activities and the specialist services that supply them.
242. The importance of Crossrail is acknowledged
in the Mayor's transport strategy and of particular importance
to this case which your Committee is considering the link between
the Crossrail project and future growth opportunities is identified.
It is noted that Liverpool Street is close to the key development
opportunity at Bishopsgate Goods Yard.
243. If Crossrail is to achieve its objectives,
it is vital that it provides the necessary transport infrastructure
to serve the offices which are needed to facilitate the growth
in the financial and business services sector which is in turn
essential to the maintenance of London's world city role and its
continued substantial contribution to the health of the UK economy.
244. These planning policies are not just promoted
by the Corporation of London and neighbouring authorities; they
are promoted by the Mayor of London. They indicate where growth
in employment needed to sustain London's role and to provide jobs
for its residents is to take place. Businesses such as British
Land that provide office accommodation for the international financial
and business service sector users rely on those policies in making
investment decisions, as one would hope and expect. If Crossrail
is to achieve the stated objectives it is essential that it provides
the capacity to serve the development that is envisaged by the
policies. The Mayor of London's policies envisage considerable
additional employment growth in London for 2016. Of the 636,000
additional jobs anticipated in the period between 2001 and 2016,
it is expected that the financial and business service sector
will contribute 463,000. The London Plan, in planning for that
growth, assumes that 93,000 jobs will be added in the City of
London by 2016. In addition the London Plan identifies two significant
opportunity areas adjacent to the City at Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch,
where it anticipates 16,000 jobs and 800 homes by 2016 and Whitechapel/Aldgate
at 14,000 jobs and 700 homes by 2016.
245. You will ask why do we need to know these
precise figures. In due course you will hear evidence as to the
location of those areas and their proximity to Liverpool Street.
That is the relevance. The City of London's unitary development
plan seeks to promote the City as the world's leading international
financial and business centre. The plan identifies Bishopsgate/Spitalfields
as a major development opportunity. It also identifies an eastern
cluster of high buildings and it sets a policy framework which
envisages further tall buildings where they would enhance the
City's skyline.
246. That eastern cluster, you will hear, is
closer to the Liverpool Street end of the proposed station than
it is to Moorgate. That is of significance. The job growth in
the eastern cluster is expected to take place closer to Liverpool
Street than Moorgate.
247. The Corporation estimates that the pipeline
of permitted developments and other identified sites could add
over two million square metres of gross office floorspace by 2016
which is likely to be sufficient to accommodate the 93,000 additional
jobs envisaged by the Mayor. It is not only the City that is planning
for this growth. The neighbouring boroughs of Islington, Hackney
and Tower Hamlets also envisage office and business related development
in the area surrounding the City, the City fringe.
248. It is not only planning policy which envisages
this growth, but it is happening. The existing office stock in
the City is 7,540,000 square metres as of June 2005. There are
412,000 square metres of offices under construction and an additional
1,049,000 square metres has the benefit of planning permission,
but construction has not started. On top of that, sites under
discussion have further potential for an additional 280,000 square
metres of office floorspace.
249. Analysis of employment distribution in
the City of London—not taking account of employment distribution
in the City fringe—within 800 metres of Moorgate and Liverpool
Street Stations indicates that the bulk of existing employment
floorspace is closer to Liverpool Street Station than to Moorgate.
The relative proportions are 39% closer to Moorgate and 61% closer
to Liverpool Street.
250. To illustrate that, you should have a bundle
of documents, a blue bundle with the City of London's logo on
the front.[4]
If you go to tab nine, you will see this point illustrated. You
will find the figures that I have just mentioned in the first
bar. You will see that two circles have been drawn showing an
800 metre radius from Moorgate Station and Liverpool Street, a
line drawn down the middle where they meet. You will see that
the area outside the City of London is shown white but you will
know that it is not green fields but intensive development.
251. For the purpose of this exercise, it is
just the City floorspace that is looked at. These are 2003 figures.
You have the 39% closer to Moorgate and 61%. The permitted shows
similar proportions and under discussion again it is all biased
in favour of Liverpool Street. The City fringe is not based on
the plan on the left.
252. Sir Peter Soulsby: Can you explain
why 800 metres and why the area outside the boundary is drawn
as envisaged?
253. Mr Cameron: 800 metres is given
as a convenient walking distance. We also have figures of 400
and 600 metres. The 800 metres is the distance people might be
expected to walk from a station to a place of work. The answer
to the other question is because we have access to detailed employment
figures for the City. We do not have access to detailed employment
figures for the areas outside the City. That is why this table
has been produced in this form.
254. Sir Peter Soulsby: Surely for us
to make a realistic assessment of the situation we do need to
see the wider picture.
255. Mr Cameron: Yes, sir, and during
the course of the evidence I anticipate you will do. This is just
a graphical illustration based on the best information available
because the City has detailed employment figures for areas within
the City. We have not ignored outside the City, this is just an
illustration on the basis of the best figures we have, but we
will come back to the City fringe.
256. Turning to paragraph 41, significant tall
or large buildings which are being proposed in the vicinity of
Bishopsgate would be more accessible from Liverpool Street Station
than from Moorgate. Buildings with planning permission include
51 Lime Street, the Heron Tower, 201 Bishopsgate, 122 Leadenhall
Street, the Minerva Building and the former Stock Exchange.
257. British Land owns a significant quantity
of offices in the City of London and elsewhere. They have significant
experience of making development decisions and of tenant requirements.
Tenant requirements are of particular importance as they have
a significant bearing on the ability to let or relet premises.
Consequently, developers are unlikely to provide buildings to
accommodate growth in the financial and business services sector
unless those buildings meet tenant requirements. It is British
Land's experience that a key factor in the continuing appeal of
their Broadgate development is its proximity to public transport
facilities. One of the first considerations for a city business
considering relocation is how the change of premises will affect
their existing staff's commuting patterns. The ability of existing
staff in locations such as Broadgate to access Liverpool Street
Station is an important factor for tenants occupying that space.
Similar considerations are likely to apply to tenants considering
occupying space in offices developed in the Bishopsgate/South
Shoreditch area of opportunity and the eastern cluster of tall
buildings. Unless landlords are able to offer buildings with good
public transport access they are unlikely to be able to provide
the new office space required to facilitate job growth in the
financial and business services sector.
258. The Promoter's decision, late in the day,
to alter the project by removing the proposed eastern ticket hall
at Liverpool Street Station will undermine Crossrail's ability
to provide the enhanced public transport capacity required to
serve the growth in financial and business services employment
in the vicinity of Liverpool Street Station and thereby jeopardise
the proposals for growth set out in the planning policy documents
and, as a result, both undermine London's ability to meet the
challenge posed by international competition. Sir, on that part
I hand back to Mr Laurence.
259. Mr Laurence: Thank you for that.
It follows from everything that Mr Cameron has been saying and
what I said before that, as frequently happens between the best
of friends, something of a squabble—really, quite a serious
one—has broken out. Fortunately, your Committee is here
to help resolve it. I am here on behalf of the Corporation to
call two main witnesses to explain why there must be a proper
ETH at Liverpool Street Station for Crossrail passengers. They
are Mr Peter Rees, who Mr Cameron will call first, and Mr Joe
Weiss, who I will then call, each hugely experienced in his field.
I do not intend, as was once common in proceedings such as these,
to steal their thunder by summarising any further their evidence
before they have actually given it. It is enough for me to tell
you, sir, what the Corporation says should be your attitude while
you consider that evidence. But before I do that I would wish
to say something more about the position of British Land.
4 Committee Ref: A2, Exhibits produced by the City
of London. Back
| 
