Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1060
- 1079)
1060. Sir Peter Soulsby: The Committee
has given some consideration to the evidence we received yesterday
and to the directions that we might usefully give to counsel and
Petitioners in the light of our experience so far. There are two
things I would like to say on behalf of the Committee, first of
all that we are agreed that it would be improper to receive written
evidence which the Committee have not heard during the meeting.
Such papers would have no status before the Committee and counsel
would have no formal rights to reply and the Committee is unlikely
to read such papers given the large amount of work before it.
The second is that the Committee is directed to hear the objections
raised in petitions and will hear arguments which support these
objections. However, the Committee does not wish to hear extensive
historical policy decisions or to be referred to public policy
documents. Inevitably such will be referred to incidentally in
other evidence but I think, in the light of what I said at the
end of yesterday's session, you will understand the point that
we are trying to summarise in that direction. I hope that is clear.
1061. Mr Laurence: Sir, I thought Mr
Cameron would be more on the ball than I am in this, as in other
respects. I did not entirely follow whether you were saying that
you would not on reflection be prepared to receive, eg, Mr Spencer's
proof of evidence.
1062. Sir Peter Soulsby: Yes, I am advised
that any written document that has not been discussed in front
of the Committee will not be received.
1063. Mr Laurence: Sir, could I just
pursue this for a moment because in the light of what Mr Elvin
said by way of response to that yesterday there is plainly a good
deal of common ground between counsel as to the desirability of
placing before the Committee material which would enable the witness
not to have to address the Committee on at great length on difficult
subjects. (After a pause) If I could finish the point, as you
know, sir, there is not only no objection to the production of
material by way of exhibits but the Promoter for his part is frequently
putting in papers giving the Committee information about material
matters which is in many cases indistinguishable from evidence
and objectionable in a sense on the ground that there is not even
necessarily anybody there to be cross-examined in relation to
material of that sort. We are suggesting what one would have thought
was a totally unexceptionable method of shortening the proceedings
before the Committee by giving you as an additional exhibit, if
you like, the evidence which the witness would have wished to
give if he had been able to do so in extenso, and I am
bound to say that as a method of enabling you not merely to listen
to the witness but also to follow on the printed page what it
is that the witness is wanting to say to you it is an enormous
aid to comprehension. I would add that I see no difficulties purely
as an advocate about getting my witness to adduce his evidence
in the normal way and without this aid to the Committee but I
wonder, sir, whether, with the aid of your Clerk, it would not
be helpful for you just to consider whether you would not in the
end be assisted by the process which we briefly discussed yesterday
and which, I think I understood, Mr Elvin might enthusiastically
endorse. I have certainly done it before over the last 20 years
and I would suggest, sir, as a method of avoiding any suggestion
that the Committee has treated itself as having received evidence
which it has not really received, that perhaps the Chairman could
direct the Committee to concentrate primarily on that which emerges
as a result of the ordinary process, feeling free at the same
time to have a look and see what the witness would have wished
to say, bearing in mind that the document is one upon which the
Promoter will have the opportunity to cross-examine and, of course,
vice versa if we proceed in that way. I can tell you, sir, that
I have done it before, not only without objection from the Chairmen
of various committees that I have been in front of over the last
20 years, but with positive enthusiasm given the potential of
that way of proceeding to assist the Committee in its deliberations.
I am in your hands, sir.
1064. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you, Mr
Laurence; that was very helpful. I have to stress that, of course,
the purpose of giving the direction that I was issuing on behalf
of the Committee earlier on is not to shorten our hearings. It
is to enable us to focus on the issues that are of most significance
to the Petitioners and to the Promoters and to enable us to ensure
that matters that are perhaps already accepted or somewhat extraneous
do not cloud our considerations. It is also, I think, of considerable
importance to the Committee if we are able effectively to listen
to the arguments, to focus on those issues but also to ensure
that issues are properly explored here and that counsel have the
opportunity to explore the evidence that is put in front of us.
As I said in giving that direction on behalf of the Committee,
I am very keen to avoid further mountains of paper coming to members
of the Committee that we are not really able to delve into. Mr
Laurence, having heard what you have said, we will proceed with
your witness this morning and perhaps see whether, when the Committee
has an opportunity later on to discuss this matter in private,
there is anything further we may wish to add to what has already
been said. I hope that we can proceed with the witness this morning
in the light of the direction that has already been given and
perhaps return to the issue if necessary at a later stage.
1065. Mr Laurence: Thank you for that
indication for the matter to remain potentially under continuing
review, sir. Could I just ask Mr Cameron to begin by making one
suggested amendment to the transcript from yesterday for those
members of the Committee who have had an opportunity to read it
at some point? I have noticed numbers of grammatical and other
minor infelicities of the sort that are obviously inevitable,
but I am not going to trouble you with any suggested amendments
today, sir. The context makes it clear what has been said.
1066. Sir Peter Soulsby: If I could just
remark on that final point about grammatical and other minor errors,
I think it is possible for those just to be fed through administratively
as it were and for them to be taken account of without the need
for them to be drawn to the attention of the Committee.
1067. Mr Cameron: Sir, this is not a
grammatical error but at paragraph 1004, page 58, Mr Penfold,
giving an answer about the two million pound contribution which
was required on the development of 201 Bishopsgate, in the second
line of his answer he says, beginning at the first line, "We
did have some conversations about that and there were some conversations
about ticket hall"—and it says "build" and
it should say "B". It is a substantive point, sir.
1068. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you. Mr
Laurence?
1069. Mr Laurence: In the light of the
guidance that you gave, sir, I need to begin by asking that Mr
Spencer's exhibits alone be now circulated to the Committee, that
is to say, his technical annex to his proof and also the document
headed "Exhibits to the Proof of Evidence of Mr Tim Spencer".[1]
The technical annex which is being handed round at the moment,
you will recognise from tables 1-15, is the same as the tables
which you were previously shown. There is, however, additional
material at tables 16-30.[2]
1070. Sir Peter Soulsby: For the record,
these documents will be A16 and A17.
Mr Timothy John Spencer, sworn
Examined by Mr Laurence
1071. Mr Spencer, are you Tim Spencer and a
Director of Steer Davies Gleave, independent transport consultants
and advisers to British Land Company plc?
(Mr Spencer) I am.
1072. The Committee do not in the event have
the advantage of seeing set out in detail your experience and
relevant qualifications. I think the sensible thing to do is to
summarise those in any event and to tell the Committee, if you
would please, what you really think would be necessary and interesting
for them to know in the light of the evidence you are going to
give today.
(Mr Spencer) I have been a consultant
for 25 years and have probably worked on hundreds of projects
but I will only touch on three or four in giving my first introduction
to myself. I joined my present company in 1988, which is 16 years
ago. Prior to that my last major project for my preceding employer
was actually work related to the redevelopment and remodelling
of Liverpool Street station which occurred in the late 1980s in
association with the construction of the Broadgate development
which both sat on top of and surrounded Liverpool Street station.
I did that work on behalf of the British Rail Property Board,
not for the developer, so it was for the owner of the station
and it did relate to addressing a range of capacity issues at
Liverpool Street station in terms of the main concourse predominantly
but also in terms of the construction of the mezzanine and the
connections between the main concourse and the upper level within
the station. Having touched on the detail for the first time,
the model is outside and the model is the very best way to understand
it. I have a whole series of figures in my exhibits which to me
are capable of being understood but they are complicated maps
and drawings and if I can assist in any respect in explaining
any further details to you using the model I would be absolutely
delighted to do that, but obviously we cannot be walking in and
out all the time.
1073. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much for that offer, Mr Spencer. I entirely take the point that
you are making. It may be that at some stage it would be helpful
for us to be talking with the model in front of us but I can assure
you that members have had the chance to have a look at the model
and have visited Liverpool Street and seen some of the issues
on the ground as it were. If need be at some later stage we will
go and have a look at the model.
1074. Mr Laurence: What I have in mind,
sir, is that if Mr Spencer himself finds it possible not to have
to invite the Committee to go out into the corridor there may
come a time when Mr Chapman, the next witness, would in effect
be conducting the same sort of acceptable, non-evidential tour
in the corridor as was previously conducted when you went to Liverpool
Street itself simply by pointing out features shown on the model
equivalent to features on the ground. I think that probably would
be helpful before Mr Chapman gave his evidence.
1075. Sir Peter Soulsby: That may well
be the case.
1076. Mr Laurence: It will not be evidence
as such.
1077. Sir Peter Soulsby: No, but it will
be enough for us to understand the inter-relationship of the various
areas within Liverpool Street station.
1078. Mr Laurence: I am sorry to have
interrupted you, Mr Spencer. Was there something more about your
qualifications that you would like to say?
(Mr Spencer) Yes, there are there other points
I would like to make finishing off the Liverpool Street station
point. The station that was constructed at that time implicitly
had something in the region of 100 per cent future-proofing. The
level of demand at Liverpool Street station today as against the
late eighties is broadly speaking twice the level that there was
at that time. As you have seen on the site visit, the station
on the whole is still operating within its design capacity but
clearly there is congestion which is becoming increasingly prevalent
within the station. The next point is that I worked for a solid
seven years on the Canary Wharf project in Docklands. I played
an instrumental role in the uplift of the planning consent at
Canary Wharf to add the best part of an extra ten million square
feet of office accommodation, which is sufficient to accommodate
some 50,000 employees. I was also heavily involved and my company
was heavily involved in the initiation of the Jubilee line extension
to Canary Wharf and my company was also involved in the demand
forecasting appraisal design of Canary Wharf station which is
the highest capacity ticket hall within London and is a cathedral
to London transport. It is an absolutely magnificent building
which has been extraordinarily successful. The third point is
that in my spare time I design exit systems for stadiums. I am
on the Wembley National Stadium project team and you will see
my latest major project which is the new Arsenal Football Club.
I have worked on dozens and dozens of stadium projects and my
expertise relates to understanding what is required in terms of
stadium exit systems and satisfying the green guide code of practice
for safety at sports grounds. That might seem somewhat unrelated
to Liverpool Street station but fundamentally the challenge that
I have to satisfy in doing that work is that I have to move 10,000
people a minute. In this instance we are talking about something
like 10,000 in three hours, so I think you can understand that
the level of my knowledge in these matters is quite considerable
but not predominantly related to stations. It is much more to
do with stadium projects.
1079. Mr Spencer, I am going to ask you the
first of what will no doubt be a number of questions to which
I do not know the answer but this is going to be a proper debate
in front of the Committee and so I am going to risk asking the
question. You made reference to the green guide a moment ago and
I have seen in some note or other in a document that the green
guide and the 35 per cent design life criteria are in some way
linked with each other, and I think you mentioned that implicit
in the planning for the 1980 Liverpool Street station development
was a higher degree of future-proofing than has been discussed
in these proceedings up to now. I would just like you to comment
as to whether there are any green guide implications that the
Committee ought to be aware of in approaching the whole question
of what proper design life for this project ought to be contemplated.
(Mr Spencer) The matters that are dealt with
in stadium design and station design are exactly the same but
the people are totally different. There is a big difference between
football spectators or rugby spectators and City commuters. It
may be that most of them are the same—it is their day job
and their weekend leisure. The issues do relate to the basic principles
of how you design exit systems and how you appraise exit systems.
In terms of a stadium it is absolutely inconceivable that I would
tolerate any contra-flow movements within a stadium exit system.
In stations clearly because the complexity of the stations is
on a small scale it is inevitable that there are significant contra-flow
movements. It is extremely difficult to judge the significance
and impact of those contra flows that exist within stations and
the pedroute model, which has been discussed already and which
I will touch on in my evidence, is an aid to understanding how
these things are operated. It is not in any sense the means by
which you assess; it is the means of assisting the assessment
of what future situation will be. Clearly, what drive pedroutes
are the same sorts of things that drive my assessments of stadium
exit systems in terms of the ability of people to move through
spaces at certain speeds and the significance of information that
you provide for the stewarding. I do not know if I have answered
your question.
1 Committee Ref: A16, Exhibits to the Proof of Evidence
of Mr Tim Spencer, Steer Davies Gleave. Back
2
Committee Ref: A17, Technical Annex to the Proof of Evidence of
Mr Tim Spencer, Steer Davies Gleave. Back
|
