Examination of Witnesses (Questions 19260
- 19279)
19260. Chairman: Mr Fookes.
19261. Mr Fookes: I wonder if I could
start by identifying what the four areas of concern are. It is
quite right, we have not been root and branch against Crossrail,
we have been working all the way along with the Promoters, but
unfortunately we have come to this point where there are important
matters which we have been unable to agree on. In the clip of
papers I have prepared is LS1, which is a summary of our concerns.[8]
It seems to me if I went through them very quickly everybody will
know exactly what we are saying.
19262. Chairman: Can I list it is A219.
19263. Mr Fookes: The first point concerns
the buildings 10, 20 and 30 which have been described and what
we said is that, together, we should commission a joint study
to formulate proposals for the alteration of the entrances of
10, 20 and 30 that are acceptable to both parties and Crossrail
should bear the full cost of the joint study. Let me explain very
quickly why I say that. It is not just number 20, it is 10, 20
and 30 that need new accesses because the new road will be at
a different height and each one has its own access. 10, 20 and
30 are the subject of a planning application, which, in the slow
ways these things happen, by complete coincidence, is due to be
determined by Westminster tomorrow, but we have been working to
refurbish those three and what we want to do is get down very
soon and Crossrail to come and tell us what they need us to do
to alter that refurbishment so we can presumably get our planning
permission or modify the planning permission so we can go ahead
and do it without having to wait until the end or until work starts;
we can plan ahead. We have a perfectly good scheme. The changes
are all required by the scheme and all we say is that Crossrail
should fund the study to tell us what it is that Crossrail wants,
it is as simple as that.
19264. The next two points I take together.
First, Crossrail should submit proposals for the alteration of
the entrance of number 40 Eastbourne Terrace to Land Securities
and to take into account any reasonable requirements of Land Securities
and, secondly—it is number three on this—in the event
that Crossrail's proposals demonstrate that Crossrail's works
will render number 40 Eastbourne Terrace "unoccupiable",
the Promoter should compulsorily acquire the whole of number 40,
or not carry out the proposed works to lower Eastbourne Terrace.
I will come back to these two.
19265. The last one on the sheet, Crossrail
should be encouraged to stand by the terms that were previously
offered and accepted in June 2006 in relation to guaranteeing
the retention of pedestrian access at all times unless otherwise
agreed in writing by Land Securities following consultation to
the front of the properties during the carrying out of the works.
I have heard my learned friend describe there has been a misunderstanding
here. It was clear in the agreement, it was taken out of the agreement
for number 7 Soho Square, which it was originally included in
and has gone ahead, to be put into a separate agreement for these
properties. Unfortunately, when we came to draw up that agreement,
then matters changed. In order to meet the point made—that
circumstances changed, they should not be involved at all if they
cannot keep to it—what we have said here is, unless otherwise
agreed in writing following consultation, the important point
is that these are important frontages of important office buildings,
we cannot just suddenly be told on a morning, "By the way,
you cannot come in", particularly if there is a delegation
coming for a meeting, et cetera. The occupiers want to know a
little bit in advance. It does not seem to be asking terribly
much that there should be some forward planning, so the principle
is that there is access to the front of the buildings, which are
for not only the staff but also for visitors, and should be able
to guarantee that potential and if there is a difficulty to agree
in advance in writing when those alternative arrangements can
be made.
19266. If I can come back then to number 40,
if I may. In order to do that, we have put in an extract from
the amendment provisions and it is LS3.[9]
This is an artist's impression. Just looking at that, if you look
at where the bus is in the foreground and go past the first building
to the slightly greyer second building which says at the top,
and has a kinked out line to it, "40 Eastbourne Terrace".
In front of it is what looks like a hoarding. Actually that is
the artist's impression of what the effect of the change of the
scheme will do to that refurbished building. Unlike 10, 20 and
30 it was ahead of its refurbishment, it was ahead on the plan
and it was carried out and completed at the beginning of last
year, so that is, as we see from the photograph, a brand new building.
That is the artist's impression of what the building looks like.
What has effectively happened is, if you remember the old photograph
I think Ms Lieven showed you yesterday, and we saw it briefly
earlier on, what we are trying to do is move away from that wall
underground outside Paddington Station. What has actually happened
is it is being pushed back in front of our buildings, that is
the problem that needs to be solved. At the moment there is no
joint study, at the moment there is no solution to the problem
and that is why we are particularly concerned. We are concerned
(a) that there should be a joint study and it should be entered
into now so we know well in advance what has got to be done, but
(b) if it turns out that that so affects the building and the
appearance of the buildings to the tenants there under the terms
of their lease or otherwise it becomes unlettable in the existing
statement. We would like that there would be someone to check
what we would require. That is the point, because that is going
to be very seriously affected.
19267. If we could go back to the photograph,
which I think is 36-008 which we saw earlier on.[10]
Bearing in mind, if we just remember that hoarding, if you see
the steps in front of the atrium on this photograph there will
be a drop of between 2.7 and 3 metres right from the bottom step.
It will go straight down and that is the hoarding effect which
is being shown and then the pavement, instead of being at that
level, will be at the lower 2.7 metres The problem with that,
of course, is it will have to be walled or fenced off to stop
people coming out of the ground floor level falling over and there
is no room to get around between the protection and the point
on the atrium. That is the first point. The second point is that
is all built below a plant and it would be a massive undertaking
to remove that plant, even if you had somewhere else to put it,
which there is not in the building. The whole building would be
disrupted, a newly refurbished building would be disrupted. Within
the light wells there is not room to make a suitable entrance
for a building of this type. That is the problem and that is what
needs to be resolved. I think the combination of the artist's
impression and that photograph demonstrates why really we are
here and why we are asking for these items I have set out.
19268. Mr Fookes: That is what I wish
to say in introducing the case. I would like to call Mr Stephen
Barton who is the architectural adviser to Land Securities first,
if I may.
Mr Stephen Barton, Sworn
Examined by Mr Fookes
19269. Mr Fookes: You are Stephen Barton,
you are the Practice Director of the architects Fletcher Priest
and you have for a number of years been advising Land Securities.
How long have you been advising Land Securities?
(Mr Barton) Six years.
19270. And on what have you been advising?
(Mr Barton) Entirely on
office development and office refurbishment for Land Securities
in London, on Eastbourne Terrace for the past four years, on these
buildings 40 and 10 to 30 currently.
19271. What has your involvement been? Have
you been involved in the refurbishment of 10, 20 and 30?
(Mr Barton) Yes, I am the
senior architect in charge of the planning application which is
currently being submitted to Westminster and is under consideration
and recommended for approval in the latest draft report.
19272. You are speaking principally to the second
point that we identified on the list of matters of concern, that
Crossrail should submit proposals for the alteration of the entrance
to number 40 Eastbourne Terrace to Land Securities to take into
account any reasonable requirements of the company, and you are
going to speak to our document, LS10, which is a summary of our
points.[11]
(Mr Barton) It is interesting
in that 10, 20 and 30 have not been developed yet but 40 has and
I think that is where the crux of the problem is with the entrance
and the current sketch proposals from Crossrail. The picture that
you saw previously, if we could have that back up. The image shows
a small podium that we put in place on 40, designed two years
ago and before we were aware of the proposal to lower the road.
We tried to drive out the need for a podium at the entrance level
because it is undesirable for simple regulation reasons in terms
of accessibility for disabled people and the like but also for
the free flow of people into and out of the building and safety
and security issues and the like. Even this small podium we were
keen to try and mitigate. Because it is an existing building,
we were only able to do that to a limited way. The number of people
going in and out of the building, the occupancy currently is nearly
700 people plus visitors, so it is a quite a substantial movement
in and out each day. I think taking the points on LS10, the current
proposal is to lower the level of this entranceway effectively
by its storey, nearly three metres, so you effectively make the
entrance on what would become the first floor, which is not something
you would choose to do in the normal course of events. If we were
back where we were two years ago and presented with that problem
we would not do it that way, we would drive it in on the level
from the lower ground floor level. Also, we would be keen to get
a level area of pavement in front of our building, so that you
have as small an incline in the sidewalk as possible. It is all
about people coming and going, stopping, preparing themselves
to enter and leave the building in a simple and casual way. Points
three and four deal with the proposal that you might choose to
drop the reception to the lower ground floor level as part of
the remedial solution to Crossrail's proposals, but in doing that
you do need to drive through what are currently some major areas
of plant, including the EDF electrical intake room and the main
area having been a plant for the whole of the building. Its position
there is that is where it was in the original building, it is
a convenient place for it, away from the office areas and we were
restricted on what we could put on the roof because of the existing
conditions and the residential mews behind. We are also a little
bit concerned about lowering the road and the implications that
might have on the new glass atrium. This is a very delicate and
lightweight structure and is susceptible to any movements. All
of that could and would need to be carefully managed. The EDF
substation I mentioned to you earlier, that is a primary piece
of kit which belongs to EDF, formerly London Electricity, which
is not easily moved. There is underneath the existing podium the
main intake of services on data and the like coming in at that
point. I think the proposals that we have seen so far from Crossrail
are very sketchy and they have suggested external staircases up
onto the existing podium from either side. These would have to
occur within the curtilage of the existing building, so within
the existing light well. Even if these were desirable, and we
do not think they are, you are going to affect the light and they
would have quite a high impact upon the existing lower ground
floor offices adjacent which would have their light blocked and
constrained at that point.
19273. Just to go back on that point to 36-008
and we can see that at the moment you walk up, you have got this
wide expanse of three steps you can walk up either side of the
atrium.[12]
If we go back to 36-007 the proposal would be to fit some steps,
about 20, or 24 steps?[13]
(Mr Barton) It varies on each
side because of the scope of the road, but it is about 20 steps
and they would have to occur on the left-hand side of those railings
within that light well, from the new lower reduced level onto
that existing podium where the glass stops at the moment. You
would never choose to do that if you had that imposed on you,
you would want to get people inside the building first and then
manage the vertical circulation so you get people across the threshold.
It is a barrier effectively at the front of the building to have
that many steps, particularly as they are arranged in a staircase
way. I think on the previous photograph you saw that we had three
steps. If your entrance level was a storey below, you might say,
"Well, let's have a cascade of steps", but obviously
we do not have the opportunity to do that because of the boundary
line which is along the railings there at the moment.
19274. Then your points 9 and 10, and point
9 is the point about tenants currently having full-height windows—
(Mr Barton) Yes, that is
right.
19275.—with daylight and views being obliterated,
and then the last point is on air intake positions. Where are
they?
(Mr Barton) If we go back to the previous photograph,
the black band below the existing podium, they are all air intake
grille points for the air intake for the whole of the building
which is currently off the lightwell.[14]
You can see that if you lower the road, then the air intake positions
become directly off the road which is not desirable at all. It
also may well get obstructed by the new structure.
19276. Do you have any other points you wish
to make?
(Mr Barton) No. I think
the issues that we have on 40 are critical in that it already
exists. We are looking at 10, 20 and 30 which may be manageable,
but the solutions for 10, 20 and 30 are all about introducing
the reception at the lower level and I think the point on 40 is
that it is almost impossible to do that now.
19277. Mr Fookes: Thank you.
Cross-examined by Mr Mould
19278. Mr Mould: There are really just
one or two points, Mr Barton. Picking up on that and looking at
LS10, your position is, item 1, that the solution that Crossrail
have proposed in relation to number 40 in the Environmental Statement,
that is to say, the provision of a podium, you say that that is
a difficult solution to achieve in relation to number 40?[15]
(Mr Barton) Yes.
19279. So, to put it another way, it represents
a challenge to architects and designers to come up with a solution
which is acceptable?
(Mr Barton) I think the
existing condition was a challenge. If we were presented with
the proposal of entry at a storey above street level, we would
say that that has to be done internally within the building.
8 Committee Ref: A219, Summary of Land Securities'
concerns (SCN-20070207-001). Back
9
Committee Ref: A219, Extract from Crossrail Environmental Statement
AP3, Artists impression of Proposed Works at Eastbourne Terrace,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (SCN-20070207-002). Back
10
Crossrail Ref: P141, 40 Eastbourne Terrace-Entrance viewed from
the north (WESTCC-AP3-36-04-008). Back
11
Committee Ref: A219, Summary of architect's concerns in relation
to 40 Eastbourne Terrace (SCN-20070207-003 and -004). Back
12
Crossrail Ref: P141, 40 Eastbourne Terrace-Entrance viewed from
the north (WESTCC-AP3-36-04-008). Back
13
Crossrail Ref: P141, 40 Eastbourne Terrace-Entrance viewed from
the south (WESTCC-AP3-36-04-007). Back
14
Crossrail Ref: P141, 40 Eastbourne Terrace-Entrance viewed from
the north (WESTCC-AP3-36-04-008). Back
15
Committee Ref: A219, Summary of architect's concerns in relation
to 40 Eastbourne Terrace (SCN-20070207-003). Back
|
