Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2480
- 2499)
2480. Can I ask you please just to sum up the
issue in this objection?
(Mr Forshaw) The Bill provides
provision for 38 Charterhouse Street to be demolished and the
borough contends that it is not necessary for the construction
of Crossrail. We believe that the building contributes very positively
to the character of the conservation area and should not be demolished
without very good reason. We do not think that reason is there.
2481. I would like to turn now to deal as briefly
as we can with the procedures involved under the Bill and contrasting
with the procedures as they occur in the real world just so that
we can see precisely what is being lost in this case. Can you
please explain what existing protection the building enjoys at
the moment even though it is not listed?
(Mr Forshaw) The building
is in a conservation area and has been since 1994 when it came
within the London Borough of Islington following transfer of the
boundaries of the City Corporation and was immediately added into
the Charterhouse Square conservation area. Following the designation
of conservation area and after public consultation we added this
building to the list of buildings which we considered to contribute
positively to the character and appearance of the conservation
area which, because of their merit, should in normal circumstances
be kept. We have policies which state that conservation area consent
would not be given for the demolition or part demolition of these
buildings unless there were special reasons which overrode the
normal requirement to preserve and enhance the character of the
conservation area. We have also, because Charterhouse Square is
part of the Clerkenwell/Smithfield special policy area, put it
within our Unitary Development Plan. These policies have been
through additional public consultation and public inquiry which
have been supported by the Secretary of State, so the policies
for 38 Charterhouse Square and its retention carry particular
and special weight in this circumstance.
2482. What overall degree of protection is given
to this building from demolition in normal circumstances?
(Mr Forshaw) We have very
strong powers at the moment to resist demolition. Demolition would
require conservation area consent from the local planning authority.
When faced with an application for demolition we would consult
widely on it in public and with special amenity societies like
the Victorian Society and the Islington Society. If we were minded
to grant conservation area consent we would also normally put
conditions on where we would not allow demolition before we had
agreed the design of a replacement building and also we would
put a condition on requiring the contract to be let for the construction
of that replacement building before the existing building is demolished.
2483. Looking at that normal planning regime
can you briefly outline what statutory protection applies to buildings
in conservation areas as far as demolition is concerned?
(Mr Forshaw) The Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 contains provision
for protection of unlisted buildings in conservation areas. Section
74 of that requires that a building in a conservation area should
not be demolished without the consent of the local planning authority.
The guidance for how you deal with that is set out by the Government
in its Planning Policy Guidance Note number 15 on planning and
the historic environment. That states that there is a general
presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive
contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation
area.
2484. Within that guidance are there particular
criteria that the Secretary of State expects to be taken into
account when deciding whether to demolish conservation area buildings?
(Mr Forshaw) The Secretary
of State sets down in PPG15 that he expects the proposals for
demolition of unlisted buildings which make a positive contribution
to be assessed against the same broad criteria as proposals for
demolishing statutory listed buildings. There are basically three
criteria set out that we need to consider. First is the condition
of the building, the cost of repairing it. The second is whether
there are adequate efforts made to find a use for the building.
Those do not really apply in this situation. It is the third which
does, which is the merits of alternative proposals for the site.
That is the criterion that we would need to look at here. Again,
on that, the Secretary of State gives clear guidance. He says
that there may very exceptionally be cases where the development
would bring substantial benefits for the community which have
to be weighed against arguments in favour of preservation. However,
even here he says that it will often be feasible to incorporate
existing buildings within new development and that this option
should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining
buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative design to accommodate
them. Those are the Secretary of State's words.
2485. Assuming that conservation area consent
for demolition were given, what safeguards would normally apply
in the event of demolition?
(Mr Forshaw) The Secretary
of State recommends that the local authority will need to have
full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition.
Consent for demolition should not be given unless there are acceptable
and detailed plans for any redevelopment. In a situation where
the demolition is being carefully scrutinised, either in terms
of its necessity or in terms of the desire to salvage for reuse,
then it would be normal practice to require a detailed method
statement for demolition as part of conservation area consent.
2486. You have mentioned there plans for redevelopment
and a method statement. Do we have any of those in this case?
(Mr Forshaw) No, we do not.
2487. In addition to those are there any other
safeguards which would normally be put in place to ensure satisfactory
replacement?
(Mr Forshaw) Again, the
Government's guidance is, as I have said before, that conditions
should be imposed that conservation area consent should have a
condition to provide that demolition should not take place until
a contract for the redevelopment has been made and planning permission
for those works has been granted. In the Secretary of State's
words, this is to avoid ugly gaps which have sometimes appeared
in conservation areas as a result of demolition far in advance
of redevelopment.
2488. Moving on to look at the provisions of
the Bill could you please explain for the Committee briefly what
the position is under the Bill and what is being lost by comparison
to the normal statutory regime?
(Mr Forshaw) Under Schedule
8 of the Bill number 38 Charterhouse Street could be demolished
without the need for conservation area consent. The only opportunity
to consider that is here under the provisions of the Bill. No-one
would consider the merits of the case after this stage. The nominated
undertaker would simply be able to demolish 38 if it wished. This
means that all the requirements sought by the Secretary of State
in PPG15 are overruled as well.
2489. Having regard to the undertakings that
have been put forward, both generally in relation to over-site
development and also in particular in this case, what approach
is the borough likely to take to planning permission for a replacement
building?
(Mr Forshaw) The borough
would be able to refuse unsuitable proposals for a replacement
building which it considered to be harmful, or it could grant
planning permission for an appropriate replacement building, but
the borough would not have the power at all to ensure that a replacement
building was actually built or that we would fill the gap side.
2490. Is there anything else that you wanted
to say in relation to the planning regime?
(Mr Forshaw) In terms of
the western ticket hall, there is some concern that the Bill,
whilst it allows some aspects of the external appearance of the
operation of the buildings to be considered by the local authority,
does not give powers for the local authority to consider how the
station is integrated with Thameslink 2000. The restrictions under
Schedule 7 of the Bill place the borough in a weak position in
that respect.
2491. On what grounds does the Bill allow a
borough to object to a design in relation to a building?
(Mr Forshaw) It is really
the external appearance of the ticket hall. It is very limited
in terms of how the plan actually works in terms of its integration
with adjoining buildings or adjoining stations.
2492. What particular issues would give grounds
for Islington to object to a design that was being put forward
under Schedule 7?
(Mr Forshaw) The borough
is concerned that the scheme is not well integrated with Thameslink
2000. We feel that Schedule 7 does not give us enough powers to
be able to influence that.
2493. Can I ask you please now to sum up in
conclusion your concerns in relation to what is proposed at number
38 Charterhouse Street?
(Mr Forshaw) We consider
that the complete demolition of 38 Charterhouse Street would be
a very great loss to the character of the area around Smithfield
Market. We believe it is not necessary. In our view we feel that
every effort should be made to retain 38 Charterhouse Street as
part of the Crossrail proposals in order to preserve the character
and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the
nearby statutory listed buildings, particularly the Smithfield
meat market.
2494. So what are you seeking from this Committee
by way of relief?
(Mr Forshaw) We say that
the Bill should be amended to delete number 38 Charterhouse Street
from the table in Schedule 8 of the Bill so that the existing
and normal requirements of conservation area consent for demolition
are not removed for number 38 Charterhouse Street.
2495. What, if any, effect would that have on
the Promoter's ability to realise its scheme for the escape shaft
there?
(Mr Forshaw) We believe
that the shaft can still be satisfactorily constructed safely
and the escape shaft can operate subsequently with number 38 Charterhouse
Street being retained in place.
2496. Mr Honey: Thank you, Mr Forshaw.
I do not have any further questions for you.
Cross-examined by MS
Lieven
2497. Mr Forshaw, on that last subject, whether
or not the shaft can still be constructed, I am not going to ask
you about that. You are not the engineer. The appropriate person
is Mr Morton, is it not?
(Mr Forshaw) Correct.
2498. As I understand it, your evidence goes
to two concerns. One is that a void is left in the streetscape
if 38-42 is demolished and the second is that the quality of 38
justifies its retention?
(Mr Forshaw) Yes, and the second point is where
I would start.
2499. If I can start with the first, because
that is simpler to deal with in its totality, so far as the void
being left is concerned, can we go back please to the undertaking
that I referred the Committee to a few minutes ago? That is P31.[12]
If one goes to the second part of that, what it requires the Promoter
to do is, in subsection (1), to require the nominated undertaker
to submit an appropriate planning application for an alternative
appropriate solution within two years?
(Mr Forshaw) Yes.
12 Crossrail Ref: P31, Undertaking to London Borough
of Islington (ISLNLB 20804-010). Back
| 
