Examination of Witnesses (Questions 2520
- 2539)
2520. No, but it goes a bit beyond that, Mr
Forshaw. This is the English Heritage report which makes it quite
clear that there is no historic interest in the interior of this
building.
(Mr Forshaw) Yes.
2521. Equally, there is no suggestion in this
report that there is any interest in the building as part of an
ensemble of Victorian architecture of that age. Just for the Committee's
purpose, you can get listing because you are part of an interesting
group, can you not?
(Mr Forshaw) You can, but
their conclusion is that "it is clearly of strong local interest,
linked to the nearby Smithfield Market and forming a strong component
of the local scene". The word "component" implies
that it is part of a group.
2522. It is part of a group but there is no
suggestion in this report that there is any historic or architectural
particular interest in it as part of that group.
(Mr Forshaw) Not that justified
listing.
2523. Next, what the interest in this building
does come from, I would suggest to you, is two things in this
report. One is its very shape at the apex of this corner, the
gridiron shape, yes?
(Mr Forshaw) Yes.
2524. And the second, and we might go back to
the photograph to make this point good—and I have to say
our photograph perhaps rather than yours because it is rather
better.
(Mr Forshaw) On a sunny
day!
2525. The other thing that this report highlights
as being of particular interest in this building is that corner
apex, the stonework, the pilasters coming down and the columns
at ground floor level.
(Mr Forshaw) Yes.
2526. That is the second particular feature
of interest. So far as the side elevations are concerned, the
report is entirely clear that these are an unremarkable bit of
architecture.
(Mr Forshaw) "Perfectly
respectable Victorian commercial architecture", it says.
2527. Respectable but unremarkable. In terms
of those two features that we have agreed on, first of all, the
gridiron shape at this prominent corner, a replacement building
over which Islington would have the control over the shape could
clearly maintain that interest, could it not? A quality modern
building at this location could take full advantage of that location
or position and shape?
(Mr Forshaw) Subject to
viability, you could provide something of the same footprint,
yes.
2528. Yes, but not just of the same footprint,
I suggest to you, Mr Forshaw. It is a bit more than that. You
could provide something of real interest on that corner.
(Mr Forshaw) Possibly, yes,
a modern building.
2529. So far as the features at the apex are
concerned, which English Heritage has said are of particular interest,
this (indicating), I think, is the Corporation of London thing,
is it not, and then the stonework and then the columns. If the
building was demolished it would be relatively straightforward
to retain those features, ie, take them down and put them away
in packing cases or whatever is appropriate, and store them, and,
where one is talking about plaster features such as the balcony,
to do mouldings on them.
(Mr Forshaw) There is a
substantial risk involved in taking something down and putting
it in packing cases and bringing it back again. The Promoter accepts
that there are risks there. There is also a considerable cost
involved. If you can come up with a solution so that you do not
need to do it, why spend all that money?
2530. We will come to money and risk with Mr
Morton. It is not by any means unusual with a building where particular
features are considered to be important to retain to take them
down as part of the demolition of the building, retain them and
then incorporate them in a new building on the site.
(Mr Forshaw) It could possibly
be done. You could do anything with enough money but there is
always a risk involved that something goes wrong when you are
doing it.
2531. If those two things were done, a building
was replaced that took advantage of the shape of the site to highlight
the apex and features which Islington believed were important,
such as the stonework and pilasters, were retained, then the two
most important features of the building highlighted by English
Heritage could be preserved, could they not?
(Mr Forshaw) Possibly, but
what I want to say here is you are focusing entirely on the listing
report. What we have here is an unlisted building, the whole of
which is of interest in terms of the conservation area. Conservation
area legislation was brought in to protect this sort of unlisted
building, that is what it is there for. We have got powers to
protect listed buildings, we had that before the 1967 Civic Amenities
Act. This building has qualities in its own right, maybe not up
to the standards required for listing, I accept that, but as a
perfectly respectable Victorian commercial building and we would
seek to try and retain the whole of the building.
2532. Can I ask you a few questions about that
as a general approach, if I may? Ultimately, I think it is trite
engineering that you can find a solution to almost any problem
if you throw enough money, time and engineering expertise at it.
It is possible to retain almost any building with sufficient resources
and so on, but those solutions may themselves have costs, not
just costs in terms of finance but costs in terms of programming
and costs in terms of safety implications, yes?
(Mr Forshaw) They may or
may not. Mr Morton will go into that in more detail.
2533. Assume they do, and how many is an assumption
I will put to Mr Morton, then it is always going to be the case,
is it not, that one is going to balance up the quality of the
building, the alternative methods of preserving the interest of
the building, such as the new building retaining certain features,
and implications in terms of cost, programme and risk of maintaining
the building. There is obviously going to be a balance. If you
are talking about a Grade I listed building, a 13th Century barn,
then the balance tips in one direction. If you are talking about,
say, and I am not saying this applies here, an unremarkable Victorian
building that is mildly positive in the conservation area then
the balance tips the other way. There has to be that balancing
exercise, does there not?
(Mr Forshaw) If you are
looking at costs you are putting some assumed value on to a 13th
Century barn. If you look at the costs themselves it may be that
you would save money by keeping this building and not having to
knock it down, not having to put up what is possibly going to
be an expensive and subsidised replacement, subsidised by the
Promoter.
2534. Can we just come back to the question?
Do you accept the premise that in deciding where the balance lies
the Committee, or any decision maker in these circumstances, has
to balance out the quality of the building with the various costs
of retaining it?
(Mr Forshaw) Yes, there is a balance to be
taken.
2535. If we are talking about retaining Big
Ben through the construction of the Jubilee Line then a very large
amount of cost in terms of money, programming and so on would
be appropriate to put into retaining the building, yes?
(Mr Forshaw) Yes, but where are those costs.
We have not got them.
2536. Have you carried out any assessment of
the cost of removing the interesting features of this building,
the features at the apex, and storing them?
(Mr Forshaw) No.
2537. My instructions are—I have to say
I do not know whether this figure has been put to Islington, we
can find that out during the course of the day—the cost
of doing that is something in the region of £200,000 to £300,000.
Does that sound to be in the order of magnitude you would be used
to?
(Mr Forshaw) I would need
to see confirmation from expertise on that.
2538. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
Mr Forshaw.
Examined by The Committee
2539. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Can I ask
a couple of questions. You may not be able to answer this. Has
any work been done on moving the ticket hall out from the emergency
exit underneath the market out through the basement?
(Mr Forshaw) I do not know.
| 
