Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11580 - 11599)

  11580. The next two on page 1, Eastbourne Terrace and Westbourne Terrace, there is an agreement between you and the Promoter.[2]

  (Mr King) Yes.

  11581. Over the page, on page 2, "Paddington Station—Construction Method".[3] We should also go forward, keeping our finger on that, to page 5 and the box "Paddington New Yard—construction traffic", 53b and 53d.[4] The short point there is that an undertaking has been given in respect of the construction method and Westminster involvement, am I right, in respect of Paddington Station? Or is it the other way round? But not at New Yard.


  (Mr King) That is correct. I should say that in relation to all the matters at Paddington Station we have flipped through the undertaking because we thought the scheme that is outside in the lobby was coming. We did not know, and still do not know, what it means; we have yet to see the reports justifying the scheme in the lobby. However, that is why we are happy to continue to discuss how that will work. What that conversation led to, though, was a clear understanding, I think, by the Promoter and all the other agencies who have a role in this, that the actual traffic management of these issues—construction traffic management—was going to take a more Herculean effort than just passing a few notes around to make this work in a dynamic and complex environment. For some of the reasons listed previously, we think a similar problem exists at Paddington New Yard. We do not say this exists in W1, we are happy to take in the great scope of the limits there, but at Paddington New Yard, because of the congestion charge we think there are similar problems and we are at a loss to understand why at Paddington Station the Promoter agreed with, frankly, the inevitable and at Paddington New Yard is reliant much more on a general power in information paper D20. So we think that one is quite simply addressed. I should say, just by explanation, the mechanism we use to try and co-ordinate Crossrail, which is only one project (it does not control any other station) is that we convened meetings which are held on, more or less, a six-weekly basis on the Paddington Station Review Group, which has TfL and all its agencies—BAA, London Underground and everyone else responsible for transport issues—to at least agree and discuss areas and projects of joint concern. That process has worked pretty well now for well over 15 years and is the reason why you have that bridge at Paddington in front of you and is the reason why other things are being worked through. So we do think that that, as a mechanism, works, and it is a testament to something of importance that it will quite often have 50 people attending it, because they have issues they need to bring to bear on it.

  11582. Let us go to the bottom of page 2, the second box on page 3 and the top box on page 4, which, for the record, are "Span 4 and Red Star Deck" "World Heritage Designation" "Operational railways—Westbourne Park".[5] This is, in varying degrees, more of the earlier cries de coeur, I believe, saying there is going to have to be more information and more consultation, and then you can form a view once it is forthcoming. Is that right?

  (Mr King) That is correct.

  11583. Then, page 4, concrete batching plant and we have explained that (bottom of the page).[6] Page 6, second box is Great Western Studios, and you have explained that.[7] Just for completeness, the Westbourne bus garage. What you are saying, in the last box: "CLRL's letter states that these works will be subject to paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 of the Bill. This requires the Local Authorities approval of a scheme for works and would allow the City Council to impose any necessary mitigation measures. If CLRL agree to this position the City Council would be satisfied that this mechanism would allow them to deal with the impact of any such proposal. If not the issue will be raised by the City Council at committee." Is that live?


  (Mr King) This is the top of page 7, Westbourne Bus Garage, Paragraph 53k.[8] We had agreed a fully conditioned, ready-to-approve plan, and on the day of the committee the Promoter withdrew the planning application, so it does not rest with us any longer. There are two matters, I believe, outstanding at the time: one is we have suggested in assessing the scheme, through public consultation, that how the double-decker bus garage faced the canal side (you remember the canal side is much higher than the New Yard site) required some landscaping. The Promoter seemed reluctant to agree that as it was not on their land, although British Waterways, whose land it was on, were happy to facilitate it At that stage, because it was a planning application, we suggested the existing City of Westminster code of construction practice and its attendant revisions should apply. If this is to be carried out under the Bill, then the codes will apply and we will be happy to abide by that. It is just this matter of landscaping, which I think came to the tune of £30,000, that would not be agreed—I was told by the Department of Transport, but I do not have that in writing. They would not agree to that because it was outside their ownership. We said it is quite a simple matter to impose by way of a legal agreement to duty for that matter to be properly landscaped or for British Waterways to be given the funding to do it. None of this was acceptable, again for reasons never fully explained by those promoting the Bill.


  11584. Is that something that, in due course, could be resolved by local authority approval of a scheme of works?
  (Mr King) Yes.

  11585. To that extent, it is not a live issue we need concern the Committee with. Am I right?
  (Mr King) That is correct.

  11586. I think that is the sum of it. Those are the issues on A130.
  (Mr King) Given that which the Promoter revealed in opening this morning, I believe that is as far as we can take our concerns today.

  Examined by Ms Lieven

  11587. Ms Lieven: Mr King, could I start on this issue about promotion. I do not want to spend long on this and I do not want to get into any kind of post-mortem, but can we see whether we can agree that there have been a vast number of meetings—and I think you used the word "innumerable"—in respect of what has been going on at Paddington Station.
  (Mr King) There have.

  11588. At the end of the day, the only issue in relation to the station that you have felt the need to bring before the Committee is the Hammersmith and City subway issue.
  (Mr King) Before the Committee at this stage, yes.

  11589. Miss Lieven: So far as issues such as the design of the light spine and the impact on a Grade I listed building, those listed building issues will have to be agreed under the provisions of the Bill with the Council under Schedule 7, will they not?
  (Mr King) That particular detail will but I must say that I am afraid the way you phrase your question leads me to worry again that the Promoter is again failing to understand how you deal with a Grade I listed building. You do not just worry about what the conservatory is going to look like; you worry about why you are adding a conservatory in the first place. Therefore, you must always go back to first principles on listed building consent, not just take for granted a general principle which has not been properly and fully assessed against PPG15, the Council's UDP or advice from English Heritage. You start from first principles, not from the assumption that the light box is okay as long as you know what colour the glass is.

  11590. As far as first principles are concerned, I do not think there is any issue. Westminster Council is in favour of Crossrail, is it not?
  (Mr King) Absolutely, and has been for a long time.

  11591. And Westminster Council is in favour of Crossrail serving Paddington Station.
  (Mr King) And we nominated the Eastbourne Terrace as the key site. We have waited for a worked-through scheme showing how you do that with a Grade I listed building. We obviously do not have that as of today.

  11592. As well as powers under schedule 7, there will be a listed building agreement drawn up between the Council and Crossrail and the Promoter, will there not?
  (Mr King) Which we have played a major part in drafting—which is silent; however, on what scheme it is that you are putting through that system.

  11593. May we take one example, which Mr Berryman will come back to later: the Hammersmith and City link. One of the options we have looked at is knocking through the wall of MacMillan House to put in an escalator and an enhanced link to the Hammersmith and City Line. We have rejected that because we think the impact on the Grade I listed building is far too great, but, just say that we wanted to do it, then that is a matter that you would have to agree under Schedule 7.
  (Mr King) Again, I come back, I am afraid, to my first point: you are not a responsible authority for discharging listed building consent. That rests with English Heritage and the local planning authority. It is our judgment that matters—and I do mean that quite politely. Therefore, having been over all Macmillan House—and it is true that we have said this for some time and it is in the draft planning brief—there is an extensive amount of operations you may well be encouraged to carry out in Macmillan House and for all we know that might be the lesser of many evils, but, unless that information is supplied to us, it is very hard for us to judge and it is for the Promoter to supply information not us. I should also point out that until we received this seven million byte e-mail on Tuesday night from the Promoter there were diagrams submitted there that we had never seen before. We assume those diagrams again purport back to other technical work which, if we had seen it, we may well agree with it. We have not been shown it. We have not even had that discussed in those innumerable meetings with, occasionally, the right people present or even when only some of those right agencies have been present.

  11594. Under the Act, it is ultimately for you to agree under Schedule 7, is it not, on these issues? We cannot blast holes in a listed building without you agreeing to it.
  (Mr King) I am sorry, I am afraid the gulf in understanding persists and I am not prepared to move away from our policy or national legislation on this matter. If you are promoting change within a listed building, you carry out an assessment, you consider the options, you discuss with the relevant authorities. You do not wait until a later power under Schedule 7, which puts the City Council and English Heritage in the interesting position in which you are placing us in two years' time of saying, "I am very sorry, but we do not think that is the right way." We are trying to get things sorted out now, particularly where it goes to the provision of actual pieces of infrastructure which your Bill would authorise.

  11595. Thank you, Mr King. Before I come to the two specific issues which you have raised, could I deal, in the final going through of the schedule you have mentioned, with the point on traffic to New Yard. This may be one that, to be honest, we could discuss outside and get to the bottom of, but I would like to make one point so that the Committee understand. There will be a traffic management plan in relation to New Yard, as there will be to other construction sites and that will be subject to extensive discussion with the Council once we have got to the stage of contractors being appointed. New Yard is very different from anywhere else in that respect.
  (Mr King) I think New Yard is more complicated than many other areas, not least because of other transport provision on site and this complication that we have of the concrete batching plant which is now to be entirely road-served for a period of time.

  11596. Can I touch on the Great Western Studios for a moment. I think you yourself in evidence in chief pointed out that throughout the period that the building has been used for studios it has been safeguarded for Crossrail.
  (Mr King) That is correct, yes.

  11597. The inevitable effect of the Crossrail safeguarding has been that there have been reduced rates. It has been let to the studios at below market rent because it is a building which everybody knows will ultimately be used for Crossrail.
  (Mr King) I assume that is one key factor, yes.

  11598. In your evidence in chief you used the word that the studios had effectively had a "windfall". They have been able to take advantage—to use it in a non-technical sense—the "blight" of Crossrail to operate very successfully in a cheap environment.
  (Mr King) That is correct, yes.

  11599. So far as the Promoter's position is concerned, the Promoter has made it entirely clear that they will establish an agency at the Promoter's expense to assist existing businesses, including those at the studios, which face the prospect of displacement from existing premises, and the purpose of that is to help those businesses with their property requirements and obviously in doing that they will take into account, as you put it, that TFL is the co-sponsor, has a particular expertise and that will be fed in. We are taking steps to help these businesses, are we not?
  (Mr King) You are beginning to take those steps and that is welcome.


2   Committee Ref: A130, City of Westminster's position in respect of the Petitioning Points made by the City Council in September 2005 in Response to the Crossrail Bill proposals, p1 (WESTCC-32105-009). Back

3   Committee Ref: A130, City of Westminster's position in respect of the Petitioning Points made by the City Council in September 2005 in Response to the Crossrail Bill proposals, p2 (WESTCC-32105-010). Back

4   Committee Ref: A130, City of Westminster's position in respect of the Petitioning Points made by the City Council in September 2005 in Response to the Crossrail Bill proposals, p5 (WESTCC-32105-013). Back

5   Committee Ref: A130, City of Westminster's position in respect of the Petitioning Points made by the City Council in September 2005 in Response to the Crossrail Bill proposals, p2-4 (WESTCC-32105-010 and -012). Back

6   Committee Ref: A130, City of Westminster's position in respect of the Petitioning Points made by the City Council in September 2005 in Response to the Crossrail Bill proposals, p4 (WESTCC-32105-012). Back

7   Committee Ref: A130, City of Westminster's position in respect of the Petitioning Points made by the City Council in September 2005 in Response to the Crossrail Bill proposals, p6 (WESTCC-32105-014). Back

8   Committee Ref: A130, City of Westminster's position in respect of the Petitioning Points made by the City Council in September 2005 in Response to the Crossrail Bill proposals, p7 (WESTCC-32105-015). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007