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
|
