Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1700
- 1719)
1700. This is not as it appears today.
(Mr Chapman) This was before Broadgate was
created. The ticket hall is under this box here. There are two
reasons why it was dismissed. The first one is I believe the ticket
hall was built in 1913 to serve quite a small station so the capacity
of the box is very small. You are right. There is a box there
and there is some space in it but I would imagine the Promoters,
if they wished to build a new ticket hall, would build a substantially
larger facility than to process the people we have spoken about.
Secondly, currently it is full of EDF equipment. We visited it
and it is full of fully functioning electronic transformers.
1701. You have spoken to Mr Berryman about that,
have you not?
(Mr Chapman) I know he has a view but I have
seen no evidence about it.
1702. We have looked into it and, as I understand
the position, the equipment is close to the end of its operational
life. Something is going to have to be done in any event and it
can be moved.
(Mr Chapman) Where would it be moved to?
1703. I am told that a location could be found
to move it to.
(Mr Chapman) I know how constrained the area
is. In time over the three month period Mr Laurence suggests we
would be very happy to look through that.
1704. Unless directed otherwise by the Committee,
we are not offering any undertakings about three months. The undertakings
we are offering are over the designing of the scheme which will
take place over the period until the scheme starts work.
(Mr Chapman) Okay.
1705. Assuming the equipment can be relocated,
you could have an entrance onto the street in much the same way
as you are proposing in Eldon Street.
(Mr Chapman) There are land purchase rights
because the land is owned by a private individual.
1706. As indeed is the land that is required
in order to carry out the Eldon Street works.
(Mr Chapman) Not correct. The Eldon Street
land is wholly on the public highway. It involves remodelling
of the private land. It is under private land.
1707. The subsurface of public highways is vested
in the adjoining land owner, is it not?
(Mr Chapman) You are probably right.
1708. You would require the cooperation of private
land owners, as you would, coming up through the EDF box. The
EDF box is at least comparable in scale, if not larger than, the
ticket hall you are proposing on the Eldon Street proposals.
(Mr Chapman) I have not scaled it but I do
not believe it is. You need a long straight to process passengers.
If you overlay the ticket hall, I do not think it would fit. You
would need a new facility. It is a 1913 ticket hall, not one that
people would like to use.
1709. We are not suggesting there should not
be any change. We are saying that there is an option to create
a new street entrance with a new ticket hall which would not involve
disruption to the existing Crossrail project because it could
be bolted on to it, which would be available for exploration should
it be found necessary at some stage as the project is being designed
in detail over the coming years, so that there are options other
than option one and option six which remain open to be explored
should it become necessary.
1710. Sir Peter Soulsby: If the Promoters
are suggesting that there is an option around the EDF power transformer
box as it now is, we perhaps need to know more about it than what
is being said now in your cross-examination of this particular
witness. Is this part of something the Promoters are putting in
front of us?
1711. Mr Elvin: No. I am exploring this
witness's evidence which we only heard for the first time before
lunch.
1712. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think you
are going beyond that. You are suggesting that there might be
at some stage an option to develop an entrance on that site. That
is a little beyond exploring the witness's evidence.
1713. Mr Elvin: With respect, the witness
says there are only two options that were discussed. That is not
correct.
1714. Sir Peter Soulsby: He said it was
not an option. You are now telling us that it might be an option.
1715. Mr Elvin: I am suggesting it might
be an option.
1716. Sir Peter Soulsby: It might be
quite significant for the Committee were there to be a serious
suggestion from the Promoters that there was an option around
in that area. It goes further than simply exploring the evidence
of the witness.
1717. Mr Elvin: The witness is not surprised
at my putting these questions to him because this is something
that was discussed, was it not, Mr Chapman?
(Mr Chapman) It was an option that we considered
initially before we spoke to CLRL, but because of the cost of
moving the power equipment and finding a new location for it we
dismissed it. CLRL at the time dismissed it because they felt
the cost of moving the power equipment would be too high. The
important thing is to get the capacity in a way that is advantageous
for the scheme.
1718. Mr Elvin: Can I ask what the Committee
would find helpful rather than putting questions which you may
find less than helpful?
1719. Sir Peter Soulsby: I am finding
it a little frustrating that it is being suggested to us very
late in our consideration of the options around the Liverpool
Street end of this station that there is a third possibility here
that we are not going to get an opportunity of exploring and that,
as I understand it, the Promoters are not going to put in front
of us.
| 
