Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2440
- 2459)
2440. So that is the basic layout of what we
are proposing. There is a complication at Farringdon, which was
going to come up today directly with Islington's case on Thameslink
2000. As the witness is not capable of being here today the case
will not be presented, but I think it would still be most helpful
if I explain what is being proposed at the western end with Thameslink
2000 so that the Committee sees it all at the same time. If we
go back, this is now the western ticket hall with Thameslink 2000.[7]
As the Committee may know, Thameslink 2000 is a scheme promoted
by Network Rail, through the Transport and Works Act procedure,
which will increase the capacity on the Thameslink line. At Farringdon
what that involves is significantly lengthening the Thameslink
platforms in order to allow much longer trains. In order to do
that lengthening two things have to happen: one is that they have
to rebuild the platforms, which involves rebuilding Cowcross Street
bridge and knocking down buildings in Cowcross Street, including
a listed building; further, it involves closing the Moorgate spur
because it is not possible to extend the platforms with the Moorgate
spur of Thameslink continuing.
2441. As the Committee may know, or may indeed
have picked up from the name, Thameslink 2000 has had considerable
problems with its timing. The current situation is that it has
recently gone through a second planning inquiry, the Inspector's
report is awaited and following the Inspector's report there will
have to be a Secretary of State decision, so that decision is
expected some time this year, but it is not possible to pin down
an exact date.
2442. Because of the difficulties that have
arisen with the timing of Thameslink it has been considered necessary
to plan Thameslink and Crossrail so that they are capable of being
constructed separately, albeit there must be quality interchange
between them. So the clear intent of the Promoter has been to
have a Crossrail scheme which can be constructed without Thameslink
but equally which provides interchange with Thameslink. What we
have up now is the western ticket hall with Thameslink 2000 and
the blue is the Thameslink scheme. What Thameslink will do is
construct a new ticket hall on Cowcross Street, shown in blue,
come through to a concourse, as has been shown there, and then
drop down by stairs and lifts to the Thameslink level which is,
as it were, subsurface level rather than deep level at that location.
The interchange, assuming Thameslink goes ahead, which is part
of the Crossrail scheme, is that one you can see if you go through
the gateline in Crossrail, and you can then walk straight across,
which involves the demolition of a wall, into the Thameslink ticket
hall level and then drop down. So the interchange is simply that
you come up to the Crossrail ticket hall, you do not go through
the gate barrier but turn right, walk across the passive area
between the two and then drop down to the Thameslink levels. We
have a great deal more sketches on that but I do not think it
is necessary to show them to you in any more detail at this stage.
2443. Can I then turn to what I understand is
the issue that Islington will be promoting today, which is the
Fox and Knot Street shaft, and I just want to show the Committee
the visual image photo. The Fox and Knot Street emergency shaft
involves demolishing the buildings at 38-42 Fox and Knox Street,
which, if I can show you, is the entirety of that block—not
the building behind but the block in front.
2444. There is a concern in Islington that the
building makes a positive contribution—it is not listed—to
the conservation area, and there is a dispute, which Mr Honey
will take you through, as to the degree to which the entirety
of the building, the façade of the building or the features
of the building should be retained. I am not going to say any
more about that because this is an un-contentious opening and
I just wanted to show the Committee the picture.
2445. Before I finish could I explain to the
Committee that the Promoter has offered to Islington an undertaking
in respect of this building because there is a concern that the
building may not be commercially viable if it is demolished and
then a shaft is put back because a proportion of ground floor
level would be removed. So if we could put up the undertaking
that we have offered.[8]
I will read it out: "The Promoter is aware that concerns
have been expressed that the proposed over-site development in
the conservation area at 38-42 Charterhouse Street may be too
constrained to be commercially viable. In the assessment of viability
the relevant planning policies covering the site will be taken
into account. Should this site not, in the nominated undertaker's
opinion, turn out to be commercially viable, the nominated undertaker
will be required to work with the local planning authority and
English Heritage to seek an appropriate solution for the site
(such as erecting an appropriate façade), taking into consideration
the relevant planning policies for the conservation area concerned
and the quality of the buildings that existed prior to demolition,
and to meet the cost of any reasonable works associated with that
solution that he agrees are necessary. In recognition of the special
circumstances in respect of 38 Charterhouse Street, additional
undertakings are offered in respect of this site as follows. 1.
As soon as reasonably practicable and in any event no later than
two years after the commencement of construction of the Crossrail
works on the site, the nominated undertaker shall submit appropriate
planning applications for an alternative appropriate solution.
2. The nominated undertaker shall ensure that the alternative
appropriate solution is completed in accordance with planning
consents granted as soon as reasonably practical and shall use
reasonable endeavours to ensure that it is completed no later
than four years after completion of the Crossrail works at the
site. 3. The nominated undertaker shall meet all reasonable costs
associated with completing the alternative appropriate solution
and all reasonable costs associated with maintaining any such
solution. Alternative appropriate solutions will not include the
erection of a building unless proposed by the nominated undertaker."
Can I explain that last rather elliptical sentence? There are
other sites where there are similar arguments about over-site
development not being viable, and one that springs to mind is
in Bloomfield Street. In Bloomfield Street there is a very small
façade and a very big building behind, and we are concerned
that we would not be required to rebuild the entire building;
we would only be required to rebuild the façade, which
is the bit that is important in townscape purposes. That is why
we have put that caveat in at the end, to make it clear that in
all the circumstances we will not be required to rebuild an entire
building. When we come to cross-examination and so on I will come
to the degree to which that applies at Fox and Knot Street.
2446. That was all I was going to say in opening
as I have very deliberately sought to keep it factual. I do not
know if there is anything with which I can help the Committee
at this stage?
2447. Chairman: Mr Honey.
2448. Mr Honey: Thank you, sir. Sir,
the London Borough of Islington has responsibility for the control
of development within the borough and the protection of the interests
of all of those who live and work within the borough. Sir, as
you have seen, the Crossrail line passes through the borough north
of the City of London and in particular passes through the borough
at Farringdon. The borough supports Crossrail but is concerned
to see that it produces the best possible transport system available
and indeed does the least environmental harm within the borough.
2449. The borough has petitioned this House
about a number of matters. We anticipate satisfactory arrangements
being in place with the Promoter in relation to a number of those
and I do not propose to trouble the Committee about those matters,
but for the sake of the record I do reserve the borough's position
to petition in another place, if necessary. There are two matters
of concern, however, remaining unresolved and it is about these
that the borough petitions the Committee today. The first is in
relation to the building you have seen at number 38 Charterhouse
Street. The Bill seeks the power to demolish that building. It
is a building in the Charterhouse Square conservation area, which
the borough thinks is a very fine building which contributes positively
to the character and appearance of the conservation area. The
Bill includes the power to demolish the building without seeking
the usual conservation area consent for demolition from the borough.
It is important to note, sir, that this building is not to be
demolished for any of the permanent works being built on the site
but merely to provide additional working space for the construction
of the escape shaft. Sir, the borough considers that because the
building is so fine it should not be demolished unless absolutely
necessary. The borough has appointed its own engineer to examine
matters in some detail and his conclusion is that it is not necessary
to demolish the building at all. Even if the Promoter is not willing
to make the few slight amendments that are necessary to preserve
the whole of the building the scheme can be built precisely as
intended and safely whilst leaving number 38 substantially intact.
The borough's concern about losing such a fine building is, as
you have heard from Ms Lieven, exacerbated by the fact that the
site of number 38 may not be viable for redevelopment for a high
quality replacement building, and that is in particular because
of the small size, awkward shape of the building and indeed the
need for a high quality design in order to fit in with a conservation
area. As I say, this exacerbates the borough's concerns because
there is a real danger that if this building is demolished a gap
will be left in the conservation, if not permanently at least
for some considerable time to the real detriment of the area.
2450. Sir, the borough will call evidence today
from two witnesses on this issue. The first is Mr Alec Forshaw,
who is Conservation Manager for the borough; and secondly from
Mr Brian Morton, who is the expert engineer, experienced in both
civil engineering and heritage matters, retained to advise the
borough.
2451. Sir, I will deal briefly, if I may, with
the second issue about which the borough petitions the Committee,
with which we will not deal today but just to put the issue before
you. That is in relation to the western ticket hall at Farringdon.
At the moment, as you will be aware, there is an existing London
Underground Station, Farringdon Station, at Cowcross Street. Thameslink
2000, expected to be the subject of a decision by the Secretary
of State later this year, is proposing a new separate station
in Cowcross Street, and so is Crossrail. It is likely, therefore,
that we are going to end up with three separate stations at Farringdon,
in Cowcross Street, all with different entrances and in different
locations. There is no reason, in our submission, why the two
new stations for Thameslink 2000 and for Crossrail cannot be accommodated
together. Sir, you have seen a proposed drawing this morning which
shows the plan to integrate the two buildings for Thameslink 2000
and Crossrail if they go ahead, and in essence all that is required
is that the wall between the two is knocked through. In the borough's
view that is simply not good enough. If these two stations are
not properly accommodated together then Crossrail is going to
be an example of how London almost had a world-class transport
system but how it fell at the last hurdle, and this is going to
cause harm, we say, not just for London as a City but for those
who live and work in the borough and who need to use these stations.
In relation to this the borough proposes to call evidence from
Mr Murray Woodburn, who is the Transport Leader for Partnerships
and Projects for the council who is, as I have indicated, unfortunately
unavailable today.
2452. Sir, in conclusion we do not think that
the two points of principle we are putting forward in this case
are contentious; they are merely calling for what we hope is commonsense
and joined up thinking, and if the principles are accepted it
is simply a matter of finding acceptable solutions which work.
The borough has carried out considerable work of its own analysis
and planning to be able to consider what is possible and believes
that practical solutions are readily available, and the borough
hopes that this Committee will provide the will to make those
solutions happen. That was the opening I propose to make. If you
are content I will move now to call the first witness, who is
Mr Alec Forshaw.
Mr Alec Forshaw, Sworn
Examined by Mr Honey
2453. Mr Honey: Mr Forshaw, can you begin
by giving the Committee details of your qualifications?
(Mr Forshaw) I am a Member
of the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Institute of Historic
Building Conservation. I hold an MA and a Diploma in Town Planning
and Civic Design. I have worked at the London Borough of Islington
for 30 years and I hold the post of Conservation and Design Manager,
and my job is to advise the borough on building conservation and
urban site matters.
2454. Could you identify by way of introduction
what you are going to deal with in your evidence?
(Mr Forshaw) I am giving
evidence in support of the London Borough of Islington's objections
to the proposal to demolish number 38 Charterhouse Street as part
of the construction works of Crossrail. The borough does not consider
that this building should be or needs to be demolished.
2455. On what is your evidence based?
(Mr Forshaw) Based on the
architectural and historic value of number 38 and the contribution
it makes to the character and appearance of the Charterhouse Square
conservation area and the setting of nearby listed buildings.
2456. Could you go on to explain briefly the
historic background to the building at number 38?
(Mr Forshaw) 38 Charterhouse
Street was built in 1876-77, following the construction of the
new Smithfield Meat Market by the City Corporation, which opened
in 1868 and the consequent realignment of Charterhouse Street,
and my map, which is figure 1, shows that.
2457. That is tab 1 in the bundle and I understand
that that is document number A35.[9]
Please highlight on there the area we are talking about.
(Mr Forshaw) It is outlined in
red and that shows number 38 and 40-42 Charterhouse Street, at
the junction of where Charterhouse Street splits. The upper part
of Charterhouse Street is the ancient, medieval street which ran
into Charterhouse Square and towards the medieval Charterhouse.
The Victorians provided a new east-west Charterhouse Street on
the north side of the market, leading out of the south side of
Charterhouse Square, and the site we are talking about sits at
the apex of where the two bits of Charterhouse Street divide—quite
a narrow and acute angle, as you can see.
2458. What is of particular interest as far
as the building is concerned, given its position on the site there?
(Mr Forshaw) It occupies
a pivotal position on this triangular site; it has a very distinctive
wedge shape and flat iron design. It might be worth putting up
a photograph, which is exhibit 2 and 2A, which shows the corner.[10]
2459. So starting with Islington numbering afresh
these will be Islington documents 2, 3 and 4, and in sequence
they will be tab 2, tab 3 and tab 4. Mr Forshaw, please briefly
explain what we see in these photographs and what is of interest.
(Mr Forshaw) What you are seeing
is a sharply rounded corner which faces the market buildings,
elaborately decorated and it includes the crest of the Corporation
of London. If we look at some of the other photographs following,
2B, that is the elaborate corner, highly decorated stonework.
That is the ground floor with the portico of granite columns and
carved stonework balustrading.
7 Crossrail Ref: P29, Farringdon Station 3D axonometric
view Western Ticket Hall with Thameslink 2000 (ISLNLB 20804-008). Back
8
Crossrail Ref: P31, Undertaking to London Borough of Islington
(ISLNLB 20804-010). Back
9
Committee Ref: A35, Site location plan (SCN-20060207-002). Back
10
Committee Ref: A35, Photographs of Charterhouse Street (SCN-20060207-001
to -007). Back
|
