Examination of Witnesses (Questions 980
- 999)
980. Thank you. I would like to ask you about
a different point but it is also one of your own developments
that you might be able to help the Committee on. I think 201 Bishopsgate
and Broadgate Towers are your developments; is that right?
(Mr Penfold) It is all one site and it is our
development and it is on site at the moment, as I explained earlier.
981. And you explained when you referred to
your exhibit 1 where it is. It is north of Liverpool Street station;
is that right?
(Mr Penfold) It is. In many ways it is the
final part of the equation of Broadgate, if you like.
982. And during the course of Mr Rees' cross-examination
he was asked whether the City Corporation requires developers
of buildings like that to make a contribution to public transport
infrastructure and he was asked specifically about contributions
towards Liverpool Street station. Do you remember those questions?
(Mr Penfold) I do.
983. And what happened when you were put forward
this proposal an 201 Bishopsgate, were you expected to make any
contribution toward transport infrastructure? Perhaps you would
like to take up, sir, document A13.
(Mr Penfold) We were and it was not particularly
Mr Rees' or the City Corporation's instigation, it came from the
Greater London Authority, who did require and put very strongly
to us that we ought to make a contribution to Liverpool Street
Underground station because of issues of congestion that are there
now and as a result of that the section 106 agreement, which is
an agreement between ourselves and the City Corporation and Network
Rail who are the freeholders of the site, includes provision of
that £2 million which are payable towards improvements to
Liverpool Street Underground station, and that is payable at a
particular point in time which is likely to be within the next
two months, so we will have to pay £2 million to the City
Corporation in about two months' time, which we are assured will
be spent on improving Liverpool Street Underground station.
984. So if you look at this document and if
we start at the back—we are not going to trawl through every
page of it, I can assure you, sir—unfortunately it is not
numbered pages but four pages in from the back you will find a
deed of planning obligation and then on page 7 on the numbered
pages is an entry for transport improvements and the £2 million
that is there expressed as being for what purposes?
(Mr Penfold) "... to improve passenger
movement within the Underground Station and connectivity between
the Underground Station, Liverpool Street Mainline Station and
adjoining developments in the City of London proximate to Liverpool
Street Station, with particular reference to the Broadgate Estate."
985. And if there was no concern about passenger
movements in Liverpool Street Underground station, would you expect
to be asked for a contribution towards improvements relating to
passenger movement within the Underground station?
(Mr Penfold) No I would not, and the letter
from the Greater London Authority dated 30 June 2005 makes it
clear that there was concern at that point, particularly if one
goes to page 9 of that letter, which I think is another two pages
in on your to document, sir, paragraph 56, where it states that:
"The developer has offered £2 million to be spent on
improvements to Liverpool Street Underground Station. TfL welcomes
this. London Underground is currently undertaking feasibility
work for enhancement schemes for this station, which will be complete
this autumn." It then goes on to talk about the road network.
986. Thank you. We will put that document to
one side, A13, and can I ask you to go back to your exhibits bundle
and go to exhibit number 11 and there there is an extract from
a marketing brochure. Is this one of your schemes?
(Mr Penfold) This is the 10 Exchange Square
scheme that I mentioned just now.
987. And why have you put this extract in?
(Mr Penfold) It is just one of the marketing
brochures that we produce for our development in the City and
elsewhere and it shows, I think, how important we regard public
transport, and in this case particularly rail and Underground
accessibility, in the marketing of our buildings. Of course, we
regard it as important because we think our tenants do when we
are looking to rent space to our tenants. So we draw attention
to the accessibility and that is the intention of that. It is
a two-page spread within the marketing document.
988. And if you look at that document you can
see where the development is in relation to Liverpool Street station
but in your summary of transport accessibility in the top right-hand
corner you mention Moorgate and Bank as well. No doubt it may
be said to you well you would not mention Moorgate if it was not
considered to provide access to this area. What is your view on
that issue?
(Mr Penfold) Moorgate provides Northern line
accessibility which Liverpool Street does not. It provides heavy
rail accessibility through Thameslink and another provider and
it does also provide some of the range of services that Liverpool
Street provides. We draw attention to Bank again because it provides
Waterloo and City and Northern Line and DLR access to Canary Wharf
so we are drawing prospective tenants' attention to the range
of transport that there is in the area.
989. I would like to come back from those exhibits
to your particular concerns about Liverpool Street station and
the Crossrail proposals. You say that you have taken advice from
SDG and Mr Spencer, you have taken advice from Ove Arup as to
a potential solution but you are not sold on any one solution.
You have also said that you have spent time engaging with Cross
London Rail Links in order to seek a solution. Have I correctly
understood your position?
(Mr Penfold) That is correct.
990. Can you go to tab 17 in your bundle of
documents please, document number 68, and what is this document
here?
(Mr Penfold) This is a report produced by Crossrail
CLRL giving a detailed technical response to the Arup option proposal
which is the Eldon Street/Blomfield Street proposal.
991. So this is a detailed response and you
have highlighted part, page 129. What is the particular point
you want the Committee to draw from that part of the document?
(Mr Penfold) Mott MacDonald who undertook this
work had knowledge that if our figures are correct or more correct,
let me read it. "If the assumption is correct that the substantially
higher forecast figures of passenger movements presented by BLC
(that is British Land) are realistic then an extra concourse might
be necessary."
992. And if Cross London Rail Links are convinced
by your figures or if indeed the Committee are convinced that
further work needs to be done, will British Land continue to engage
with Cross London Rail Links and to co-operate in that work?
(Mr Penfold) We would be happy to.
993. And if that work suggests that there is
a solution other than the one that you have promoted through Mr
Chapman and Arup, would you still pursue and co-operate in that
work?
(Mr Penfold) That depends on what the solution
is and what it delivers, but we are not attached to the Arup scheme.
As I have said earlier, there have been discussions about other
options which Arup have been involved with with CLRL and we are
happy to pursue those discussions and work co-operatively with
the City Corporation as well to achieve a solution which fits
the bill.
994. And just before I sit down and let Mr Mould
ask you questions, why is it that British Land are so concerned
to achieve better access at Liverpool Street at the eastern ticket
hall?
(Mr Penfold) Because it is such an important
location. Clearly it is an important location for us because of
the level of investment that we have there, but we believe it
is also an important location for the City of London and what
has been referred to as UK plc, and that the second-best solution
is really not acceptable here. The proposals that have been put
forward for all the other central London deep stations involve
two dedicated ticket halls, as I understand it, and I find it
impossible to understand why Liverpool Street should be the only
exception to that rule.
995. Is there anything else you wish to add
before cross-examination?
(Mr Penfold) No.
996. Mr Cameron: Thank you.
997. Mr Binley: I would like just to
clarify two things. These may have been talked about this morning
for which I apologise, and you may tell me that. From your discourse
this afternoon, I am still not quite sure how many extra people
over and above those we have already been told about as a Committee
will come from the fringe areas outside the Corporation boundaries.
I am also not sure what you paid the extra £2 million for
in actuality in terms of Liverpool Street. Can I have an explanation
of those two questions because that would help me?
(Mr Penfold) The first question I think is
probably much better answered by Mr Spencer. He is the technical
expert.
998. Sir Peter Soulsby: We will bear
that in mind.
(Mr Penfold) The second question we do not
know. All we know is that Transport for London through the GLA
expressed serious concerns about the capacity of that station
in terms of our planning application at 201 Bishopsgate and wanted
that amount of money, £2 million, to improve the capacity—I
cannot say capacity—but to improve that station. I assume
it is capacity but it was never specific, just that there were
real problems with the station and they wanted a contribution
to it.
999. Mr Binley: Just to clarify you handed
over £2 million without really knowing why you were doing
so?
(Mr Penfold) We handed over £2 million
and insisted on provisions within the agreement that there be
discussions and we would be involved in the discussions about
improvements to the station. The context for this is probably
worth understanding. The Mayor of London has power to directly
refuse planning applications where he is not satisfied. He was
clearly referring to his London Plan policies which link development
to the capacity of the transport infrastructure to cope with that
development. If you ask me do I believe that the strong technical
case was made, I would have to agree, no, I do not think it was
but we were put in a difficult position.
| 
