Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3520
- 3539)
3520. That is the work site, but do you know
whether there will be parking in Hanover Square afterwards, or
not?
(Mr King) From what we know of
the Crossrail scheme there would appear to be no reason why the
existing level of parking ... Or given the fact it is annually
reviewed anyway, whatever at that stage we think is appropriate
and necessary to put back into the Square.
3521. Do you say what type of user uses that
parking?
(Mr King) At the moment we would assume it
would come from a number of factors. In a post-Crossrail world
I would hazard the following: firstly, there would have been an
increase in the number of people who live in that area. We will,
therefore, if resident parking facilities continue anything like
they are at the moment, have more resident demand for parking
in the W1 area.
3522. Chairman: Mr Clarkson, just before
you go on. In Hanover Square you told us some time earlier that
there is only one resident.
(Mr King) Yes.
3523. You expect that to increase dramatically,
is that what you mean?
(Mr King) Yes, because if you look at the planning
permissions log we are receiving more applications for residential
buildings in that area than before, as well as from office development
pressure. We are talking about quite a period of time in Mr Clarkson's
question, and I would expect our normal planning policy to further
restrict the amount of parking made available for any other form
of development. Another major factor, which would tell us who
we should try and serve in this area, is the output from the Mayor's
West End Commission, which is due to report in various stages
in the next three months, and when he advises us will set the
tone for his review of the London Plan, to indicate the planning
policies he wishes to follow, really from 2012 through to something
like 2020. I mention that as being quite important because we
are perhaps for the first time in a generation or so on the cusp
of some significant change and further developments, certainly
for the Mayor's ambitions to be realised, and both Westminster
and Camden are fully taking part in that. That scheme envisages
a world where Crossrail has been constructed and is in operation,
but I do therefore suggest that the current pressures on parking
will be changed on one level by further decreases in parking provision
elsewhere—and, as we mentioned, some car parks are expected
to go. Car parks as car parks are losing money, so the tariff
will certainly need to be changed, and that might make them closer
or more applicable to on street parking. But it is hard to envisage
anything like a situation, even with congestion charging going
up—it is not going to go down—as a daily charge, the
demand for some vehicles to be in this area, and given the activity
of the number of users in the area it is perfectly reasonable
to assume—
3524. I am sorry, Mr Clarkson; I just want to
go into this slightly. There is only one resident at the moment,
one flat resident in the area, and even if it were to increase
it is my understanding, looking at the properties there, that
there are quite a number of underground car parks provided to
those buildings. Will they not accommodate the residents who might
move into the area because the car parks are under the same buildings?
(Mr King) We would expect most of those underground
car parks that exist relating to private buildings to be lost
on redevelopment. If you have a 1950s office building, say before
1957, you may easily expect it to have—as I think the James
Laing office in Hanover Square has—about 20 car parking
spaces. One of these days the owner will come in and ask permission
to redevelop and he will be lucky if he gets two spaces out of
it—you insist the rest goes—because that is private
parking.
3525. What I am trying to say is that, as I
understand it, there are four or five major, significant underground
car parking facilities for quite numerous amounts of cars. If
they do move into these buildings they are likely to have a car
parking space in the basement there?
(Mr King) No. I think the buildings will be
redeveloped and by the exercise of the policy pointed out by Mr
Elvin we would actually say, "I am sorry, you cannot have
that parking back again." If they wish to increase the amount
of gross office floor space they have over the existing they will
trigger other policies in the plan which requires them to provide
proportionate housing, both private and affordable on site. They
would in most cases not be able to meet that parking need either.
If we are to meet the Mayor's ambitions—and I mention the
Mayor in this context because he has put numbers both on jobs
and housing in the central area that he wants to see achieved—we
talk about trends and he talks about numbers, and that is the
only difference between us—then, frankly, more buildings
are going to come out, they are going to be redeveloped and some
of those private parking spaces that do exist will be lost and
they will not be replicated in buildings either he or we approve
because of the dint of our policies. Meanwhile, the activity levels
go on.
3526. Chairman: Mr Clarkson, for everybody
who is not in the same position as the briefs, the tea urn facility
that people are waiting for opened three minutes ago and will
continue until 12.10. Without causing a stampede, we will continue!
3527. Mr Clarkson: That is a very unfair
way, sir, of stopping my re-examination! Mr King, following on
from the Chairman's point, notionally, please, redevelop the west
side of Hanover Square, in your mind. The developer can do what
he likes on his own site or what you allow him to do on his own
site. What do you allow him to do in the public realm qua
the car parking and the meters?
(Mr King) In relation to the public realm we
will need to see where the Crossrail proposals meet—
3528. Forget that. I am talking about a specific
notional development of the west side. Forget the Crossrail; what
would a developer have to do about the parking that he sterilises
in some way?
(Mr King) If 18 to 19 were to come forward
for redevelopment without Crossrail and they were to take parking
spaces away they would be required to pay for the period that
those bays were suspended.
3529. Postulate now a public works exercise,
is a four-year period usual for utilities?
(Mr King) I can think of no utility work that
has lasted for that period of time and served its interest.
3530. Taxis and motor cycles and deliveries,
under a compendious heading: is there any policy London-wide or
City UDP that in any way seeks to restrict access to those vehicles
to such as Hanover Square?
(Mr King) No, there is no policy to restrict
that precisely.
3531. Do they have to stop on occasions?
(Mr King) Yes, certainly.
3532. Mr Clarkson: Thank you, Mr King.
Sir, that is our case.
The witness withdrew
3533. Mr Elvin: Sir, we are in the Committee's
hands as to what the Committee would find most helpful. I am not
going to produce any evidence to deal with the car parking revenue
because it is a very straightforward issue and you know what the
points are, and unless you feel the need for assistance I do not
think there is anything else to deal with on the car parking revenue.
I do have Mr Colin Smith on an issue which you are not being asked
to determine at the moment, which is the issue of over-site development
on the view that it might assist the Committee if we gave you
a little more information as to why there were difficulties with
it. We are in your hands as to whether you want to hear that now
or at some future date.
3534. Chairman: I think we should move
straight to final statements and then conclude. We can come back,
even this afternoon if we can liaise with the clerk, and we can
just discuss that outside.
3535. Mr Elvin: It is just that we wondered
whether you would find it helpful to have a little more information.
3536. Chairman: It might be helpful but
I would rather have final statements first.
3537. Mr Elvin: Sir, I am only addressing
the car parking revenues issue for the reason it is the only matter
put before the Committee now by Westminster for your decision
at this stage. There is no issue between us that there will be
some loss of revenue from metered spaces because although Westminster
is content with the use of Hanover Square for the works, given
the way that they have been restructured by negotiation, their
concern is about the loss of revenue because the spaces for priority
users will have to be adjusted and moved on to metered spaces,
hence the loss of revenue. It is clear from what Mr King says
that you are looking at the loss of about 0.02% of the total metered
spaces that Westminster has, of which the bulk, it seems, lie
within the central activity zone. As I have said, no issue that
there will be some loss of revenue, but the question for the Committee
is whether that is justifiable, given that there are massive public
benefits arising from Crossrail, which Mr King of Westminster
accepts, and whether this really stands in the position of a private
developer rather than others who carry out works to the public
highway in the public interest in order to carry out those works
and disrupt parking spaces and the like and cause inevitable loss
of revenue. Hand in hand with that you have the Council's own
strategy, which is in line with the Mayor's strategy, to tighten
up the use of car parking spaces, although to give priority to
those who clearly have need of spaces—residents, doctors,
local businesses and the like, and those priority spaces will
be relocated. Where there is not need, that is the general metered
spaces, Westminster policy is to tighten up on them, and therefore
they can have no expectation that their revenues will continue
in any event. We say that the public interest effectively ought
to trump this particular issue as it does in the case of normal
street works. Of course, Crossrail is taking longer in Hanover
Square than normal street works, but it is also delivering a scale
of public benefit to Westminster and other parts of London, which
are unprecedented in terms of public transport provision. So perhaps
the balance, we would suggest, is not an unfair one in favour
of Crossrail.
3538. Finally, so far as the points that were
raised in re-examination about what goes back, that is entirely
within the control of Westminster. Westminster is the Highways
Authority and whether it needs more residential spaces, tightens
up on metered spaces, redistributes local business delivery spaces,
is entirely a matter for Westminster. We do not dictate what Westminster
does with the highway once Crossrail is complete; they will have
their policies to apply and determine what is best in the public
interest at that stage. So all the points that came out in re-examination
do not really seemed to go anywhere because that is entirely within
the control of Westminster when Crossrail completes.
3539. Sir, I end by saying that, as you know,
the Secretary of State sticks, so far as the Committee will support
that, to the National Compensation Code, which Parliament has
applied again and again to major projects. That Code does not
make provision for compensation in this case. This is a public
interest case with an overriding public benefit and there is no
reason, we suggest, for departing from the general fairness which
Parliament has seen in the National Compensation Code in the case
of Westminster losing some 0.02% of its parking revenue spaces
for a limited period of time. Sir, those are our submissions to
the Committee on that issue.
|
