Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17000
- 17019)
17000. Ms Lieven: I think it is important
that the Committee understands that what is being got at here
is that there be provision for the Crossrail project, infrastructure
railway, and when it says "LRT" it means the sub-surface
lines of the Metropolitan and Circle Lines. It is an operational
provision, it is not making any legal point between Crossrail
and LRT. There had to be provision both for the Met and Circle
Lines to keep running and Crossrail down in a deep basement.
17001. Mrs James: I just have to ask
you, 6.16 on page 15 has a heading "Cross Rail" and
there is a whole section referred to as "Cross Rail"
and all the points from 6.16 through to 6.19 refer several times
to "Cross Rail".[14]
17002. Ms Lieven: I am sorry, I was not
clear and I should have been. The project that was promoted in
the early 1990s was called "Cross Rail" and it was a
project in this area very similar to what the Committee knows
as Crossrail. It had differences elsewhere but here it is very
similar. There is no doubt at all that it was Cross Rail, that
was what it was called, but as a legal entity it was a joint promotion
of LUL, possibly LRT (one never knows with LUL what it called
itself legally at any particular moment), call it LUL, and British
Rail.
17003. Mrs James: You can see why Mr
Saunderson has made this assumption.
17004. Ms Lieven: Totally, and I totally
accept that in terms of what Mr Saunderson saw on the ground,
which was a railway going underneath his land, it was a railway
in a very similar form but legally there is a very important distinction.
17005. Chairman: It is a different legal
entity.
17006. Ms Lieven: Absolutely, sir.
17007. Mr Saunderson: I must say I would
be surprised if the Department for Transport sought to push forward
an argument to you that they had nothing to do with Crossrail
in 1990.
17008. Chairman: I never sought to say
that and I do not think Ms Lieven has either. What we are saying
is it is about the legal entity both now and then. What we have
now is a different legal entity entirely, it is the Government
now and before it was mainline railway companies basically under
a private bill. This is an important fact of law because on your
petition you are seeking redress and, as I say, we have to look
to see who has responsibility.
17009. Mr Saunderson: I am seeking redress
from the Department for Transport who existed then and who exist
today. If Crossrail would like to pay the bill that is fine, I
do not mind who pays, but I think it would be disingenuous to
suggest that there would be a distinction from a legal point of
view. We would have to come back on that if one was trying to
run an argument technically trying to get the Department out of
the line of fire.
17010. Chairman: Let me give the distinction.
Let me put it down on the record as a distinction. What we have
now is a Government Bill called Crossrail which is supported by
a private entity set up by the Government and that is the entity
which exists at the moment. The previous Cross Rail was not that,
it was a private bill without the Government. Yes, it encouraged
it, I do not think there is any doubt at all about that, and there
is enough evidence for everybody to assume that was the case,
but the fact of the matter is it was a private bill run by private
partnerships of groups of people coming together, so there is
a distinction in law between the two. If we could move on.
17011. Mr Saunderson: I completely understand
and accept that it was a private member's bill. Paragraph 1.3:
"That I be instructed to inform the London Borough of Islington
of your views on the matter and that a copy of this report be
sent to the Borough raising no objection to that part of the scheme
within their authority.[15]
2.1 Paragraph 5 of the safeguarding directions for development
affecting the route proposed by London Regional Transport and
the British Railways Board for the Cross Rail project . . . .provides
that applications which authorities are minded to approve against
London Regional Transport's advice, must be referred to the Department
of Transport. 2.2 The purpose of this report is to seek your views
. . . ." We move on to four, the proposal, that is outline
planning permission to demolish the buildings on the site and
erect a new building with a ticket hall for Cross Rail/LRT. Level
one is to be used for Cross Rail, in 4.2, and level two will be
Cross Rail plant and ancillary plant. "4.3 The building provides
a total of approximately 8,614 square metres of floor space",
some 90,000 square feet, and 1,496 square metres is for Cross
Rail/LRT use and it goes on about plot ratios and so on.
17012. 5.1 is what the Cross Rail Project Team
stated: "The above proposed development site falls within
the safeguarding limits in respect of the Cross Rail Project for
which the Secretary of State for Transport has issued directions
under the General Development Order 1988. To safeguard the Cross
Rail Project, we recommend that the application be refused on
the grounds that the current ticket hall arrangements are inadequate,
and further refinement is required in connection with this scheme
which fails to address several outstanding ticket hall issues
regarding the Cross Rail works. Accordingly, an objection to the
outline application must be registered at this stage to safeguard
the operational requirements of the railway undertaking."
[16]London
Transport have commented, and they then make a point about the
use of Farringdon East ticket hall and they require flexibility
to handle 12 car trains up from eight car trains, and you have
probably heard about that in the course of your hearings. So there
is a comment on the size of the ticket hall which is addressed
later in a revised scheme.
17013. In 5.2 on page ten, about the middle
of the page, you will see that in London Regional Transport's
submission they comment: "Further matters such as joint venture
arrangements also require to be discussed. I am hopeful that agreement
can be reached on these matters which will not prejudice LUL's
powers and ability to construct, operate and maintain Cross Rail
and the station facilities at this location and which would therefore
avoid the use of the veto. In these circumstances LUL are willing
to withdraw conditionally their objection to this application
on the limited basis that a section 106 Agreement which unequivocally
safeguards LUL's ability to exercise a veto over this scheme must
be in place before planning permission is issued". If we
move on, the rest of that is just a report with various other
parties commenting on the scheme, health and safety and so on.
We come to the conclusion on page 16, item seven, the City Planning
Officer's conclusion: "Having regard to the above, I am of
the opinion that, subject to appropriate conditions, the scale
and bulk of the building and the mix and range of uses is acceptable.
Given the terms of the safeguarding directions for Cross Rail,
Members' views are sought on the scheme. 7.2 It is recommended
that in view of the outstanding objections from Cross Rail, the
application be referred to the Department of Transport for their
comment or a direction, and that the Department of Transport be
advised that the Corporation of London is minded to raise no objections
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions."[17]
17014. We then move on in May 1995 on page 18
to 10 Hayne Street.[18]
This is a renewal of the planning permission which was unimplemented
on the smaller site. The City Planning Officer writes to our architects,
Noel Isherwood Associations: "I refer to your application
for the renewal of planning permission. I would normally be able
to recommend that planning permission be granted. However, as
you are aware, the site is within the route proposed for the Cross
Rail Project and I have received a comment from the Cross Rail
Project Property Manager, recommending that the application be
refused. I therefore intend to report the matter to the next available
meeting of the Planning & Transportation Committee for their
views, and if they are minded to grant planning permission, I
propose to refer the application to the Secretary of State for
Transport as required by the Cross Rail Safeguarding Directions
issued on 5 November 1990." You are beginning to form a picture
of what is happening and the various entities that are involved
in this situation. "I will let you know the outcome . . .
" Then he writes on 4 January 1996: "The Common Council
of the City of London hereby refuses . . . .to permit the development
referred to in the undermentioned schedule", which you will
see at the bottom of the page is 10 Hayne Street, renewal of the
planning permission for the smaller office building of 600 square
feet.[19]
So in January 1996 we get a refusal notice from the City Planner
for the renewal of something that had already been renewed twice
in 1984 and 1990. In 1996 it was refused.
17015. You will see on page 20 he goes into
the details in the report associated with the decision.[20]
In the middle of the page: "(A) 10 Hayne Street, EC1—Redevelopment.
We have received an application for the renewal of planning permission
for the redevelopment of 10 Hayne Street, EC1, to provide 714
square metres of offices..." A little bit further down: "Since
planning permission was granted by the London Borough of Islington,
the Secretary of State has issued the CrossRail Safeguarding Directions
and 10 Hayne Street is one of the properties identified as being
likely to be required for the construction of CrossRail. In accordance
with the Directions, the CrossRail Project Team were consulted
and they have advised that planning permission should be refused
on the following ground: `That the site, which is the subject
of the application, lies within the route proposed for the CrossRail
Project and is likely to be required for the construction of that
Project.' We were advised that the lies directly over the proposed
Crossrail ticket hall..." and so on.
17016. Chairman: Mr Saunderson, following
that refusal, it was refused by the Committee, was it?
17017. Mr Saunderson: It was refused
and the refusal notice was on page 9.
17018. Chairman: Did you then appeal
to the Secretary of State?
17019. Mr Saunderson: I did not appeal,
no, because we had had the Order from Crossrail.
14 Committee Ref: A192, City Planning Officer Report
to the Planning Committee of the City of London, Cross Rail, p15,
9 June 1992 (SCN-20061012-010). Back
15
Committee Ref: A192, City Planning Officer Report to the Planning
Committee of the City of London, Paras 1.3-4.3, 9 June 1992 (SCN-20061012-009
to -013). Back
16
Committee Ref: A192, City Planning Officer Report to the Planning
Committee of the City of London, Para 5.2, 9 June 1992 (SCN-20061012-014
to -015). Back
17
Committee Ref: A192, City Planning Officer Report to the Planning
Committee of the City of London, Para 7.2, 9 June 1992 (SCN-20061012-016). Back
18
Committee Ref: A192, Correspondence between the City Planning
Officer and Noel Isherwood Associates, 2 May 1995 (SCN-20061012-017). Back
19
Committee Ref: A192, Correspondence between the City Planning
Officer and Noel Isherwood Associates, 4 January 1996 (SCN-20061012-018). Back
20
Committee Ref: A192, City Planning Officer Report, 10 Hayne Street,
EC1-Redevelopment (SCN-20061012-019). Back
| 
