Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1000
- 1019)
1000. Sir Peter Soulsby: I do not think
it is for us to explore that right at this stage. Mr Mould?
Cross-examined by Mr
Mould
1001. Mr Mould: Mr Penfold, may we just
stay with 201 Bishopsgate for a moment and just take up, if you
would please, document A13, which is the bundle of documentation
in relation to that development. We may at least I think by glancing
at one or two paragraphs just pinpoint exactly what we do not
know, as it were, in answer to Mr Binley's question. If you turn
to the third page of the bundle at the clip, we have page 180
and you have that at the bottom of the page and I believe—correct
me if I am wrong—that this is an extract from the report
prepared by the City Planning Officer in relation to this proposal;
is that right.
(Mr Penfold) That is right.
1002. And if you look at paragraph 172 it touches
a little on the £2 million. What it says is "A development
of this scale is subject to the planning obligations considerations
set out in the UDP and Supplementary Planning Guidance agreed
by your Committee on 8 June 2004." I think Mr Wynne Rees
touched on those when he gave evidence last week to the Committee.
Then we see this: "This is an unusual case as effectively
the application site has been created by rafting over the railway
lines. Accordingly, measures are sought to mitigate the impact
of the entire new building as well as improvements in the area
to ensure a satisfactory development and local enhancement. The
applicants are willing to make the following financial contributions:"
and then there are number of financial contributions set out including
£2 million on improvements to Liverpool Street Underground
station. So it does appear, does it not, that this was a case
that was seen as having unusual characteristics? There is mention
there specifically of rafting over the station and it does appear
that that was a key driver in the feeling on the part of the planning
authorities that a substantial contribution was justified and
the willingness of the developer (yourselves) to make that contribution
as part of the overall development control process in this case.
Is that right?
(Mr Penfold) Perhaps I should explain why it
is an unusual case. The City of London Supplementary Planning
Guidance on section 106 agreements, contributions resulting from
planning applications, adopts a tariff which is payable on the
uplift of office space, so that if you have a building of, say,
100,000 square metres on your site today and you want to demolish
it and put a building of 200,000 square metres on your site, the
uplift is 100,000 square metres and the tariff which is £70
per square metre is applied to that 100,000 square metres, not
to the full 200,000 square metres. This is an unusual case and
probably even a unique case in the City of London because this
site has nothing on it at all. It has been built over a railway
line. We built a steel raft over the railway line so it is a completely
clear site, so every inch of office floor space that goes on to
that site is uplift, and we are putting something like 100,000
square metres of office floor space onto that site so that involves
a payment of something like £7 million in total. The City
of London SPG then breaks up that £70 per square metre into
component parts so 50% of that will go towards environmental improvements,
30% towards affordable housing, 15% towards transport and 5% towards
employment and training. The Mayor of London is not entirely happy
with the 15% toward transport. He believes it should be more because
of the great transport needs in London and that is where the disagreement
comes and that is where the pressure came for the £2 million
contribution to Liverpool Street Underground station.
1003. I do not want to labour this particular
point but just turn on, if you would please, two or three pages
on, we have internal page 9 of the Greater London Authority report,
paragraph 56, which records the offer of £2 million. Do you
have that?
(Mr Penfold) I have.
1004. And we can see that it is to be spent
on improvements to Liverpool Street Underground station which
is welcomed by Transport for London and then there is reference
to "London Underground is currently undertaking feasibility
work for enhancement schemes for this station, which will be complete
this autumn. In addition Transport for London may be seeking a
financial contribution to mitigate transport impacts of the TLRN
once it is able to assess the impact." One sees finally,
turning on to the obligation itself, two pages further on, paragraph
3.1 of the obligation, the reference to the £2 million being
"for the purpose of carrying out improvements to Liverpool
Street Underground Station, such works and improvements to be
determined following full consultation by the Corporation with,
and taking due account of representations from, the Developer."
It does seem to be in connection with enhancements with the station
rather than being focused on any particular transport capacity
issues. Is that a fair summary of the information that we do have
from this documentation, Mr Penfold?
(Mr Penfold) I think it is not clear what the
money would be spent on. We did have some conversations about
that and there were some conversations about ticket hall build
but I have no documentation of that and cannot be specific. So
that was the intention of the full consultation and taking due
account of the representations from the developer because of course
we are interested in the functioning and in the way in which that
Underground station and mainline station because of its effect
on our tenants and our development.
1005. I am not sure we can make much further
progress in relation to that point. Can we just come to one or
two questions that I have for you. First of all, to make clear
some points that I am not going to raise with you. First of all,
I am not going to debate with you the merits or otherwise of the
scheme that is to be spoken to by a later witness which you have
produced as exhibit 2 of document A14. That is the illustrative
proposal for additional dedicated access to Liverpool Street station.
The only point one might just note is this: you did say in evidence-in
chief you were asked the question what the consequences for British
Land's tenants and other occupiers would be if adequate capacity
was not provided for at Liverpool Street station in conjunction
with the Crossrail scheme and your answer was confined, I think,
to Broadgate, was it not? You referred to that as a prestigious
office estate and you explained some concerns you had about existing
congestion and overcrowding and so on. It is a fact that the illustrative
scheme that you have put forward would to a significant extent
in practice operate almost as a dedicated pedestrian access to
the Broadgate estate, would it not?
(Mr Penfold) No, I do not think so. I think
it would serve a much wider area than just the Broadgate Estate.
If one were to look at the choice that somebody might have arriving
at the tunnel through to ticket hall B or going up into the street
and moving on from there, there is a wide area around Broadgate
which would also benefit from that new dedicated street access.
It certainly was not our intention to provide a dedicated Broadgate
access. I am sure Mr Chapman will explain the constraints and
the process that led him to him selecting this as his favoured
option at that particular time. It was not direction from us to
achieve a Broadgate ticket hall.
1006. Kelvin Hopkins: Could I ask how
many other businesses in the area have come in behind your suggestion
strongly in support of the additional entrance?
(Mr Penfold) I think, if you go back to my
exhibit 1 and look at where that entrance would be, it is just
to the north of the kink in the upper green line, if you are with
me on exhibit 1. And you could see, I think, that the immediate
area around the corner of Eldon Street and Blomfield Street, which
is what we are talking about, to the south and to the south east
would benefit, and I believe that a lot of people to the east
of Bishopsgate would use that route rather than having to go into
ticket hall B, which would be their other option, and into the
main Network Rail concourse and battle their way through there.
I suspect they would prefer to work their way up into Exchange
Square, which is the square immediately to the north of Liverpool
Street, and that would lead through into Bishopsgate and into
Northgate and that major opportunity area that I talked about.
1007. Kelvin Hopkins: I appreciate that
many companies in the area could stand to benefit in the same
way that your company could, but how many have come in behind
you and said "We are strongly with you"?
(Mr Penfold) Hammerson have petitioned on the
same point. Hammerson are the developers of the Bishopsgate Goods
Yard and the area immediately to the south. I have to take you
to the exhibits. We are on exhibit 10. The whole of that red area,
within the red hatched area, Hammerson is the development company
who are promoting the planning applications and taking forward
the development of that area. As I say, they have separately petitioned
on the point and left us to appear before you but are strongly
supportive. Our key tenant, who has probably been most involved
in discussions about Crossrail because they are so close to the
proposed new station, is UBS, our major tenant at Broadgate, who
are supportive of our position and have said as much in conversation.
Because I anticipated I might be asked this question we have obtained
a letter from them to that effect and I am quite happy to have
that letter circulated.
1008. Mr Mould: Another matter I am not
going to ask you about is figures and modelling, that is a matter
which I think is going to be addressed by Mr Spencer later on.
It begs the question perhaps what you and I can usefully talk
about, but perhaps we can cover one or two points. You have very
helpfully provided the Committee with an extensive survey of national
strategic and local planning policy documentation in relation
to the City and the City fringes. You have also gone to the trouble
of examining draft policy documentation which is in preparation
for the Borough of Tower Hamlets and so forth. One thing that
is clear from this survey is this, is it not: nowhere do we find
an expression of policy which identifies Liverpool Street station
as a station that requires additional provision to be made in
order to address existing or projected capacity difficulties during
the lifetime of the current London plan?
(Mr Penfold) I think that is probably true.
I cannot think of any policy document that would do that, that
would specifically refer to capacity difficulties at a particular
station. I think the commitment in policy to Crossrail, which
is very strong, is based on the assumption that it will improve.
This is in the context of Liverpool Street station because I am
referring to a number of policy documents that refer to Crossrail
in that context, particularly the City of London UDP. The assumption
there is that Crossrail will provide better accessibility to Liverpool
Street, to the area and will relieve congestion.
1009. If we turn back to a document to which
you did refer briefly. This is in Bundle A12, divider four, which
is a series of extracts of pages from the Mayor's transport strategy.
If we turn to page 31 of that you will recall that you referred
us to this page which deals with the Mayor's commentary in the
context of his strategy on Crossrail and his commentary on what
it will deliver in terms of benefits. We can see what he identifies
as being the advantage in relation to Liverpool Street station
in 4Q.11, can we not? He says: "Crossrail will significantly
reduce overcrowding on several Underground lines and also reduce
congestion at a number of busy stations. Many passengers will
no longer need to interchange to and from National Rail services
at Paddington and Liverpool Street". That is the express
change that Crossrail will achieve in relation to Liverpool Street
according to the Mayor in promulgating his transport strategy.
It is the advantage that was spoken to earlier of removing from
the total number of passengers interchanging at Liverpool Street
at the present time and in the future and in advance of Crossrail
being constructed, who will, once Crossrail has come into operation,
be able to travel straight through.
(Mr Penfold) That is one of the aspects but
it also refers to reducing congestion at a number of busy stations,
and I assume Liverpool Street would be one of those stations,
and it refers to a direct link from the City to Heathrow Airport,
which is important, as referred to elsewhere in the policy document,
meeting the urgent demands of the City and business in supporting
London's World City role. I cannot see how that would happen with
somebody arriving at a Crossrail station where they had to take
five and a half minutes to get from the platform to the station,
to the ticket hall, and then battle their way through a congested
ticket hall and a congested mainline concourse. Perhaps it is
a matter of perception and a subjective assessment of what is
being provided, but I find there is a tension between those two
things.
1010. You there touched upon perceived impacts
which your colleagues are going to be dealing with in terms of
the degree to which there will be additional congestion in 2016
and beyond. My point is a rather more modest one. The Mayor has
identified a general advantage flowing from Crossrail in relation
to the Underground and that is it will reduce overcrowding and
also reduce congestion at a number of busy stations, and in that
respect the particular advantage that he has identified in relation
to Liverpool Street is the reduction of the need for passengers
to interchange. We can agree on that, can we?
(Mr Penfold) No. The reduction in interchange
I entirely accept but I do not think that automatically leads
you to the conclusion that there is a reduction in congestion.
1011. I did not put that. I am simply asking
you to agree that the Mayor has identified that particular advantage
in relation to Liverpool Street station.
(Mr Penfold) Yes. That is one of the things
the Mayor has identified but he has also identified a number of
other aspects. I think anyone reading that would expect a reduction
in congestion at Liverpool Street underground station and also
significantly improved accessibility from Heathrow which presumably
would have an arrival point which was of an appropriate standard
for a World City.
1012. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Mould, I
think the Committee has got the point. Perhaps we can move on.
1013. Mr Mould: I am very grateful, Sir.
Perhaps if I will be permitted just to move down the page to 4Q.13
and again it is a short point. Mr Penfold, this deals specifically
with the opportunity areas on the City fringe, does it not?
(Mr Penfold) It does.
1014. Again, just to make good the point I put
to you earlier, Crossrail is seen as having advantages in the
regeneration process but there is no mention there of any particular
constraints that would need to be resolved in relation to Liverpool
Street station either in advance of or following the construction
or operation of Crossrail.
(Mr Penfold) No, but it is not unusual for
a policy to set the context and then the detailed assessment work
to analyse whether or not there is an acceptable impact from the
proposed development on the existing network, in this case on
the existing station. I think that was what I was referring to
in chief when I was talking about the criteria that should be
applied to new or redeveloped railway stations being appropriate
to assessing this proposal.
1015. Just touching on another point you raised
in evidence which arises in relation document A14, exhibit 8.
This is the list of planning permissions and applications and
so forth. We just need to remind ourselves of this, do we not,
that in promulgating the London Plan and the Transport strategy,
which is founded upon the policies of the London Plan, the Mayor
makes assumptions as to the scale of business and employment development
that will take place during the course of the London Plan period.
(Mr Penfold) Yes.
1016. His policy for transport infrastructure,
and in particular the needs for new and improved transport infrastructure
to serve the needs of businesses both now and in the future, is
based upon those assumptions.
(Mr Penfold) That is right.
1017. Thank you. Your company, as you told us
at the start of your evidence-in-chief, is a strong supporter
of Crossrail and sees significant advantages to business in the
City and thereabouts flowing from its introduction and operation.
(Mr Penfold) We do.
1018. We need to bear in mind that whilst Crossrail
is indeed an important improvement to the existing infrastructure,
or it will be when it comes into operation, it is not a panacea
for the City's and City Fringes' transport needs, is it?
(Mr Penfold) No, not a panacea but I would
regard it as being a significant improvement, a significant uplift
in the transport quality and capacity for the City.
1019. It is part of an integrated transport
strategy as you pointed out with reference to policy documents
earlier.
(Mr Penfold) Yes, but in terms of new provision
it is by far and away the largest part of what is likely to be
provided over the next 15-20 years, as I think you heard from
Mr Weiss.
|
