UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 235-viii

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY SEVENTY-ONE

Wednesday 7 February 2007

Before:

Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair

Mr Philip Hollobone

Mrs Siān C James

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

Dr John Pugh

 

Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.

The Petition of Land Securities plc.

MR ROBERT FOOKES appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

 

19247. CHAIRMAN: We now move on to the Petition for Land Securities plc and Mr Fookes. Before you start, Mr Fookes, I wonder, Mr Mould, are you going to give us a preview?

19248. MR MOULD: Yes, I am going to try and give an overview of what the issues are today. We begin by saying, of course, that the Petitioner, Land Securities, as the Committee will be well aware, are one of the major commercial landowners within London and this Petition is in relation to their concerns about the impact on properties that they own freehold in Eastbourne Terrace in Paddington, the impact on those properties of the AP3 proposals to lower Eastbourne Terrace by some three metres.

19249. If we can put up, please, page 25 of the Environmental Statement. You remember Ms Lieven touched on this yesterday, but there is an aerial photograph to give a broad sense of what we are doing. Here is Paddington Station, an aerial view from the north, there is Eastbourne Terrace with departures road, which the Committee will be familiar with, going to the main taxi entrance to the station at the present time here, and here we have the Petitioner's properties and 10 through to 50 Eastbourne Terrace. I will show you some photographs of entrances in a moment, but essentially the issues today relate principally to numbers 20 and 40 Eastbourne Terrace and to proposals for temporary and permanent access arrangements to those properties arising out of our proposal to lower Eastbourne Terrace permanently by three metres.

19250. Yesterday Ms Lieven explained to you in the afternoon the public benefit of the permanent lowering of Eastbourne Terrace and just to remind you, for the benefit of the members who were not present, the photograph is at 04012, please. You remember that we pointed out that here is departures road and, in a nutshell, we propose now to lower Eastbourne Terrace, which is presently at that level, down to the same level essentially to departures road. The benefit which will flow from this is to eliminate the need for stairs and lifts here from the Crossrail station, which is to be constructed beneath the current line of departures of Eastbourne Terrace, providing an improved pedestrian environment, especially for persons of restricted mobility and an enhanced road crossing and obvious benefits in terms of interchange in relation to buses at the Crossrail station and Paddington mainline station itself, shorter journey times and so on. I do not want to go any further on that; Ms Lieven explained that yesterday and I just reiterate that to set the scene today.

19251. The Petitioners have confirmed that they agree with the principle of lowering Eastbourne Terrace. They recognise the public benefits that would flow from the permanent lowering of the road we propose, but they are understandably concerned that will have an impact on their premises on the west side of Eastbourne Terrace and, in particular, today they raise numbers 20 and 40 Eastbourne Terrace in that respect. Their concern is that those impacts which relate to access should be mitigated and provided for as far as is reasonably practicable. I will say straightaway that the position of the Promoters is that we entirely share that concern and the need to secure the best solution both temporarily and permanently as reasonably achievable. There have been negotiations between the parties which have continued until very recently in which those concerns have been ventilated and progress has been made towards a process through the instigation of a joint study in relation to number 20 Eastbourne Terrace with a view to realising an appropriate solution. I say straightaway we have no difficulty in principle with that process of joint study extending to embrace the other building which is of concern to them, which is number 40 Eastbourne Terrace.

19252. Sir, it may be helpful to see what the existing arrangements are in terms of access to those two buildings and first we will deal with number 20. Can we have number 3610, please. Here we see the entrance to Eastbourne Terrace, a view from the south. You can see this is the start of 20 Eastbourne Terrace and you can see here Eastbourne Terrace itself and the arrangement is there is an entranceway which comes in from here and then goes round and an exit point here, and this is the current main entrance to the building. I think almost all along this side of Eastbourne Terrace you find these areas of wells which extend from the front facade of the Petitioner's premises out to the point of the western point of the footpath or pavement and, as you can see, they are at a lower level broadly commensurate with the level to which Eastbourne Terrace is proposed to be lowered as part of the AP3 scheme. What you can see here is that beneath the current entrance to 20 Eastbourne Terrace is a very substantial area of plant and machinery serving the building which is actually located within those wells.

19253. Can we go to number 11, please. Again, this is just a view from the north. You can see we will be at that point and just you see here the point at which the current access arrangements are. You can see there is a ramp here which serves the property as well. The other point to note here, which may become relevant during the course of the proceedings, is that there is effectively two double levels of fenestration at and below the existing road level on the facade of 20 Eastbourne Terrace and one of the advantages that you may think will result from the lowering of the road is that natural lighting into that area will be improved.

19254. Can we then turn briefly to number 40, which is number seven, please. Here we see an example of the facade of number 40. This is a building that Land Securities themselves have recently completed a refurbishment scheme on to modernise it, and one of the features of that is they have a similar access arrangement across this area, or well area here, which I showed you in relation to number 20, and they have enhanced the main entrance by adding what I think is called an "atrium feature", this glazed feature here. Also, as I understand it, they have taken the opportunity to work with that double height fenestration to improve both the outlook and the appearance of the building you see with this new modernised fenestration we have here. This is an arrangement they have selected, which is effectively an atrium arrangement, improving what was previously the access point and there is a short flight of steps just here as part of the refurbishment which gives access from the pavement up to the atrium itself.

19255. Number eight, please. Again we see here, perhaps, a better view from the north, this is the atrium structure here. This is the current access arrangement with a ramp to serve people with restricted mobility and a short flight of stairs up to the front entrance and here is Eastbourne Terrace. That is the existing position.

19256. We turn then briefly just to run through and summarise the proposals that we have to accommodate access permanently and temporarily. If we can turn, please, to plan 04002. This is a plan showing Eastbourne Terrace and summarising the Crossrail AP3 scheme. Here we have Paddington and this is Tolstar House at Paddington Station. Here we have the western side of Eastbourne Terrace and you can see a number which is number 20, and the access point I showed you a minute ago and number 40 with the refurbished and modernised access point here, and we have shown that with this elevation plan, number 20 and number 40. What we have shown here is essentially what we propose as the permanent solution, to provide access to the lowered Eastbourne Terrace from that lowered road up to the existing entranceway and you can see what we are proposing is what is known as a "podium solution", which would provide stairs and lift access from the lowered road to the existing entrance and, likewise, a similar solution proposed in relation to number 40. I did not stress that this is, if you will, an early stage of design and, clearly, there is a good deal of room for working on detailed design, for example to embrace the kind of atrium glazed covered feature that, in relation to number 20 we showed you a minute ago, has already been installed in number 40, but it does represent what we have in mind as being likely to deliver the optimum permanent solution to gaining access to these buildings in conjunction with the lowering of the road. That is what we had assessed and is provided for in the Environmental Statement.

19257. Before I move on primarily to the temporary position I reiterate that we believe this is the best way forward, but our position is not that we are irrevocably wedded to that, and we have agreed to initiate a joint study in relation to number 20 to look at possible alternatives and, indeed, we are prepared to extend that to number 40. I think Mr Fookes will explain this to you in a moment, but as far as alternatives to the podium solutions are concerned what Land Sec have in mind is, if you like the alternative they would best wish to examine, is to relocate the entrance of this building, certainly number 20 and possibly number 40 as well, so that it is at the same level as the lowered road, do you see the point? The difficulty we see with that is, something which is going to be investigated by the joint study, that, as I showed you, there is a substantial amount of plant located beneath the existing access at number 20 and the same at number 40. We see that as presenting a particular challenge if one is to relocate that plant elsewhere within the building if one was to open up a new access at what are currently basement levels at number 20 and, indeed, number 40. The other point I draw attention to is, number 40, following recent refurbishment, has now been let on a 15‑year lease, so one would need to take account of disruption caused by major and substantial internal works to the tenant who occupies under that lease. But that, as I understand it, is what Land Sec wish to examine further as part of the joint study that I mentioned.

19258. Turning then finally from the permanent to the temporary, plainly access needs to be maintained to these buildings throughout what will be a very challenging construction phase in Eastbourne Terrace and we have recently committed ourselves to that, including access for fire and emergency services, as you would imagine. The issue here relates to the ability to maintain pedestrian access to the existing entrances continuously throughout the construction phase and that we know is Land Sec's aspiration. Our position is, and Mr Berryman will explain this to you later, we simply cannot realistically maintain continuous access throughout the construction of the lowering of the road and the construction of the Crossrail station in Eastbourne Terrace to the existing entrance of numbers 20 and 40 Eastbourne Terrace. There will be what we expect to be a relatively short period during the construction phase where that simply is not possible to achieve, but what we have said is that, as far as we reasonably can, we will seek to maintain access to those entrances during the period of construction. The other point I should touch on here before I sit down is this: in recent weeks there has been a misunderstanding and Land Sec believed that they had secured from us an undertaking that we would maintain continuous access to the front. I should say straightaway, having investigated that, I can see as a result of a recent meeting how that misunderstanding arose and I regret it. I apologise to them for the fact that misunderstanding arose, but I want to make it clear we immediately made clear to them in correspondence that it was a misunderstanding and the position was we simply could not maintain access continuously on that basis. I hope they will accept that and the Committee will accept that we have come clean on that and we move on. I have explained the position to what can be achieved and undertake a few moments ago. I have been asked to emphasise, as I made clear a minute ago, we will maintain access to the buildings at all times, but there will be, I hope, short periods of time during the construction phase when that access will be in the mews to the rear of the buildings to which access is already available albeit on a secondary basis.

19259. MR FOOKES: That is, I hope, a relatively brief overview of the facts and the issues I think lie between us. I will now sit down and over to Mr Fookes.

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. 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. Ten, 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 they came to draw up that agreement, then matters changed. In order that meets the point made, that circumstances changed, they should not be involved at all. 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. That comes 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. 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 so affects the building and the appearance of the buildings to the tenants there under the terms of their lease or otherwise it becomes unletable 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 3608 which we saw earlier on. 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 three 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 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 recommendations 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.

(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 story, 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 on 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 on to the existing podium from either side. These would have to occur within the curtilage within 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 the quite 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 3608 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. If we go back to 3607 the proposal would be to fit some steps, about 20, or 24 steps?

(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. 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?

(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.

19280. You have heard me say in opening that the Promoter is willing to embrace finding a solution to that challenge in relation to number 40 within the joint study that has already been agreed to between the parties in relation to the other properties?

(Mr Barton) That is right.

19281. And that joint study would be able to embrace that challenge and all those various more detailed aspects of that challenge which are set out on the remainder of this page, would it not?

(Mr Barton) Yes.

19282. You showed us the artist's impression on page 27 of the Environmental Statement. You do appreciate that that is a very early stage of design?

(Mr Barton) It is, and it is worth noting that it is not our artist's impression, it is one created by yourselves.

19283. It is ours, but the Environmental Statement makes clear, and I have reiterated the point today, that we of course understand that there would have to be substantial detailed design work to come up with an acceptable solution. Yes?

(Mr Barton) That is right. I think the principle I was trying to establish is that, given our chance to redesign this, a podium option is not an option. We would want to get in off the new reduced level.

19284. You have told us that you do not think that a new entrance at the lower level, directly off the level, is likely to be realistic because of the presence of the plant and so forth. I have indicated that we agree with you on that.

(Mr Barton) The options are very limited.

19285. So we are looking at the challenge which is set by line one on LS10, are we not ----

(Mr Barton) Yes.

19286. ---- and a joint study to look into finding a solution for that?

(Mr Barton) Yes.

19287. MR MOULD: Thank you very much.

19288. MR FOOKES: I have no re-examination, thank you.

 

The witness withdrew

19289. MR FOOKES: Could I call my next witness, Mr Matthew Harrington.

 

MR MATTHEW HARRINGTON, sworn

Examined by MR FOOKES

19290. MR FOOKES: You are Matthew Harrington. You are the Sales Director of Land Securities with responsibility for co-ordinating the company's response to the Bill and your particular involvement is in the letting side of the business. Is that correct?

(Mr Harrington) Correct.

19291. Perhaps you could describe the building to us in terms of the size and the number of people employed and the type of tenants you have in the building?

(Mr Harrington) Certainly. Numbers 10, 20 and 30 Eastbourne Terrace are three separate buildings comprising approximately 20,000 square metres which also incorporates 30, 40 and 50, so 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 are complete holdings, that is 20,000 square metres, and the whole of Eastbourne Terrace employs approximately 1,500 people. Those individuals are split between 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 and we have heard from Stephen that there are about 700 in number 40 and about 800 people in 10, 20 and 30, so quite a few people. Numbers 10, 20 and 30, all of those were constructed in the 1960s and, as we have heard, 10, 20 and 30 are the subject of a planning application as we want to bring those up into the modern era. We have done that with number 40 and it has been very successful in order to retain companies in the Paddington area because CBI, who are the tenant, would have moved out of Paddington, but because we offered them a new building, they stayed in the area and obviously secured the 700 jobs that exist today. All we are trying to do is replicate that exercise in 10, 20 and 30.

19292. Do the CBI hold meetings and have visitors coming as well as their full-time employees there?

(Mr Harrington) Yes, CBI are an engineering company with a global presence, their headquarters being in Houston, Texas. They have numerous meetings involving their projects, this is their UK headquarters and, therefore, yes, there are numerous visitors there to Paddington.

19293. If we go through the four points of our concern in order, perhaps we could turn to the first one on LS1 and would you like to give the company's position on this.

(Mr Harrington) Yes, we have heard this morning that the joint study has been proposed and I think both parties subscribe to that and it is a very positive way forward. We have always had a fairly healthy relationship with Crossrail in trying to reach some mutual agreement, but I think where we have fallen to one side on this particular proposal is with the costs involved of such a joint study. In fact it is our concern that the AP3 Environmental Statement obliges Crossrail to further detailed design affecting landowners and that they should be paying the cost. So far they have offered us 50 per cent of the cost capped to £20,000 and you have got to remember that those consultants will be engaged by Land Securities and that, therefore, the charge will remain with us, irrespective of how the eventual charges or costs end up. We do not think that £20,000 is sufficient, certainly not if it is capped, to cover the exercise, particularly as ----

19294. The £20,000 relates to what?

(Mr Harrington) The £20,000 is a figure that Crossrail have put forward as a capped amount that they are prepared to pay to cover the costs of involving architects, mechanical and electrical engineers and numerous consultants required to validate the effect of the podium entrances on our buildings.

19295. This joint study is to examine Crossrail's proposals for altering our existing plans?

(Mr Harrington) Yes.

19296. Would that cap then apply if number 40 were included in this joint study, as has been suggested just now?

(Mr Harrington) I would presume so. Number 40 has so far been excluded until this morning from that study and, therefore, to include it would only strain further the amount of work to be paid for out of that £20,000.

19297. The second point, that Crossrail should submit proposals for the alteration of the entrance, do you have any comments on the access to number 40?

(Mr Harrington) Well, my comments from the commercial point of view are that the podium that is being proposed, and I think we have heard that this morning, is not something that a commercial developer would wish to incorporate in any design primarily because it would not attract a modern occupier to the building. I struggle, I have been struggling and I have asked around within our corporation of any other buildings which have been designed like this in recent times with an external podium and we have failed to come up with any examples.

19298. Number 3, can you explain what number 3 is about and also the reference which I made earlier to 7 Soho Square, also known as 2-4 Dean Street?

(Mr Harrington) Yes, I can. Our concern here is, and we are not quite sure because Crossrail have been unable to tell us, exactly what the impact of constructing a podium at number 40 will entail and the degree to which it will impact on the plant and the EDF substation which sits below. Our concern is that if they disturb these elements of the building, then the occupiers will not have cooling, they will not have electricity and, therefore, CBI will be unable to function and carry out their business. This is a similar scenario to where we were in June 2006 with another one of our properties, number 7 Soho Square or 2-4 Dean Street, where tunnelling works underneath would have the consequence of possibly encroaching on the plant in the basement of that building and in that scenario we came to the agreement with Crossrail that there would be a put option, and a put option is an option to buy our interest, should such an event happen at a future date, at market value. That is all we are trying to replicate on number 40, so the precedent has been set, we think the circumstances are the same and we cannot understand why they are being regarded as different. Purely what we are asking for here is that Crossrail recognise the precedent and would buy our building in the event that our occupier was unable to occupy it.

19299. Just looking at that mechanism which was agreed for number 7, it is LS11, what happened there was that the Promoter entered into this agreement to "acquire the whole of the freehold of...[the] property at 7 Soho Square in the event that it proves unlettable due to Crossrail's works". Then the mechanism is set out: "The Promoter must deliver to Land Securities the final design plans for the works in the vicinity of the property. If [they] show that the works will either require the Promoter to", and we do not need to worry about the first one because that relates to a Tesco store on the first floor, but if the works require the relocation of "the plant room or the communications room so as to prevent it from being serviced or occupied in a manner commonly accepted and required by commercial property landlords and tenants, then Land Securities can serve a 'put-option' notice on the Promoter requiring the Promoter to acquire the whole building. The Promoter must then acquire the whole building at open market value, subject to referral to expert determination in the event of any disagreement as to value". That is the mechanism. Do you see any reason why that mechanism should not apply equally to this building?

(Mr Harrington) No, none whatsoever.

19300. Any other comments on point number 3?

(Mr Harrington) No, thank you.

19301. Then point number 4, the question of maintaining access to the front of the building.

(Mr Harrington) This has been described as a misunderstanding. We all have misunderstandings and I think everyone knows what a misunderstanding is. In this particular instance, when wording is drafted and accepted and agreed by both parties and it is very clear in that wording that access will be maintained to the front of the buildings at all times, full stop, we fail to understand how that can be regarded as a misunderstanding six months later.

19302. Could we look at LS12. That sets out the chronology. Broadly speaking, in June we were scheduled to appear before the Committee. Prior to that, there was an agreement. Then, "One of the...important terms agreed which persuaded Land Securities not to appear was that the Promoter would guarantee to provide pedestrian access to and from the front of the Eastbourne Terrace properties during construction of Crossrail's works. Upon deposit of AP3, both parties agreed to separate out the provisions of an agreement relating to Eastbourne Terrace, but on the basis that all the terms which had previously been agreed in relation to Eastbourne Terrace would be transposed to a new Eastbourne Terrace specific agreement". A meeting on 17 January "confirmed that this provision relating to access would be incorporated", and then when the draft heads came along on the 29 January, it had been removed. Therefore, the position is that we have modified, I think, the wording we are seeking in order to include a reference to agreement in advance in writing to recognise that Crossrail have difficulties. Is that correct?

(Mr Harrington) Correct.

19303. Any more comments on that access? Why do you need access to the front of the building or at least to know when you have got it?

(Mr Harrington) I think there are two points. You have heard today how many people use the front of these buildings, a substantial number, and in these days of security and security provision, what we are trying to preserve is proper visitor management and proper security. That can only be achieved by visitors coming to the front of the building. That is for the benefit of the customers we have in our building and obviously to ensure that we are delivering the right service to those customers. If visitors were to come to the back of the building, to the rear entrance which is effectively the fire exit, they are arriving into the body of the building on what we call 'airside', ie, they are not going through any security provision, they are not going through any visitor reception provision, and that compromises the security of the building and obviously compromises the way in which they can operate and manage the visitors they have arriving at their building. The buildings have not been designed for visitors arriving at the back and that would take substantial consultation, as we have heard, to facilitate that. We have recognised that visitors cannot be expected to bridge vast gaps and, as such, we have tempered the wording to ask that there is some consultation should they wish to restrict visitors to the front.

19304. Are there any other comments you wish to make?

(Mr Harrington) No.

19305. MR FOOKES: Thank you.

Cross-examined by MR MOULD

19306. MR MOULD: Firstly, as a general point, I take it that Land Securities would acknowledge that the value of its properties on Eastbourne Terrace is likely to be substantially enhanced as a result of the provision of the Crossrail station immediately next door?

(Mr Harrington) That is correct, and we have never objected to a Crossrail station being next door.

19307. Just picking up on the point that you made a moment ago about access, you have said that you would wish to have as much advance notice of any temporary withdrawal of access to the existing front entrances to your buildings during the construction phase as possible. I can certainly tell you that we have no difficulty with agreeing to give you advance notice, as far as we reasonably can, in that respect. I trust that will be good news to you.

(Mr Harrington) That will go part way to solving this, yes.

19308. I hear what you say about the sequence of events in relation to the misunderstanding. You have heard me publicly express an apology to you for the misunderstanding which took place. We do not necessarily agree with you on the history of this matter, but, having received that explanation, that apology, and having heard from me that, for engineering reasons which Mr Berryman can explain in a moment if necessary, we simply cannot guarantee continuous access, are you prepared to accept that that is the end of the matter?

(Mr Harrington) I accept that it is the case, but I would not go as far as saying that it is the end of the matter in terms of reaching a solution to this particular point.

19309. But you accept our apology, do you?

(Mr Harrington) I will always accept an apology, yes.

19310. Thank you very much. In relation to the joint study, I have indicated that we would be content that the joint study that has been discussed already in relation to numbers 10, 20 and 30 Eastbourne Terrace should also extend to number 40, and I take it that that is good news to you?

(Mr Harrington) That is the first time it has been said.

19311. But it is good news to you nonetheless?

(Mr Harrington) Positive news, yes.

19312. I am also told that our position is, and we can ask Mr Berryman to explain the detail behind this in a moment, that we would extend our willingness to meet half of the reasonable costs of that extended study, that that commitment is made to you also.

(Mr Harrington) Sorry, can you repeat that?

19313. We would extend our commitment to meeting half of the reasonable costs of this joint study and that would extend obviously to the study embracing number 40 as well as those other buildings.

(Mr Harrington) To clarify it, does the cap remain?

19314. I have said "reasonable" costs. Finally, the general point that you made about the impact of the Crossrail scheme on the commercial value of these buildings of which you are the freeholders, essentially that value is realised in their letting value, is it not?

(Mr Harrington) Yes.

19315. I think we can agree, can we not, that you and the Promoter, you as landowner and we as the Promoter of the scheme, share a common interest in seeking to mitigate, as far as possible, any impact whether during the construction phase or permanently that the Crossrail works will have on access to your buildings? The reason for that is that you want to mitigate it because you want to reduce, as far as possible, any reduction in the letting value of your properties and we want to mitigate it because the more we mitigate it, the less we have to pay you ultimately in land compensation. That is fair, is it not?

(Mr Harrington) Yes.

19316. If there is a dispute between us about that matter, then the Lands Tribunal is there to resolve it, is it not?

(Mr Harrington) Yes.

19317. We do not really think this is a realistic worry, although we understand that you have concerns about it, but that extends to any argument that there may be that the impact of the works has been so severe as to cause what we call 'material detriment' to number 40 and you can take that to the Lands Tribunal and ask them to adjudicate on it.

(Mr Harrington) I do not see the difference, but if that is what you say.

19318. Well, you have the remedy and the Committee can take that into account in deciding what it needs to do in relation to your Petition. Is that fair?

(Mr Harrington) Well, the same circumstances apply in 7 Soho Square and the remedy was not put forward on that building, so I do not understand why you are suddenly putting that remedy forward on this building.

19319. That is my final point really, that at Soho Square the Crossrail scheme involves tunnelling beneath your property, does it not?

(Mr Harrington) Part of it.

19320. And the construction of an escalator which comes within a few metres of the basement of the property?

(Mr Harrington) Yes.

19321. In the case of number 40, Crossrail proposes no works beneath the building at all, does it?

(Mr Harrington) They have not proposed anything in terms of the works they propose to do, no.

19322. MR MOULD: That is all I wish to ask.

 

Re-examined by MR FOOKES

19323. MR FOOKES: There are just a couple of questions. First of all, what you are offered in respect of the access point is notice and the concern that point 4 talks about is agreeing to access. Is there a difference between being told that you are not going to have access at some notice, unspecified, and agreeing in advance when it is that there might not be access?

(Mr Harrington) Sorry, can you repeat that?

19324. What you have been offered is advance notice and what you have asked for is consultation and agreement over when the works will take place. Are the two the same?

(Mr Harrington) No.

19325. Why do you want to be involved in consultation and agreement as to when?

(Mr Harrington) It gets back to my point about the fact that we have customers in the building and their interests are important to us because they pay us rent and, therefore, we need to take their concerns in hand and ensure that it does not cause such disruption to them that it would render them unable to carry on their business.

19326. For example, the notice that is being offered relates to restricting access for a "short period". Do you have any idea what a "short period" is without having some form of consultation or agreement?

(Mr Harrington) I have no idea, no.

19327. On the offer made for the study, can we just understand the position. As far as 10, 20 and 30 are concerned, the position at the moment is that Crossrail already would pay 50 per cent, but that it was capped to £20,000?

(Mr Harrington) That is correct.

19328. As I understand it, what is being said now is that there would be no cap on the half.

(Mr Harrington) That is my understanding.

19329. There would be no cap on half for number 40, an offer of doing a study which has not been made before, but is there any reason why for the works necessary for the Crossrail scheme Land Securities should pay anything towards that study to be told what we have got to do?

(Mr Harrington) No, none at all.

19330. Finally, on the question of the material detriment notice and compensation from the Lands Tribunal, is there anything in what you have seen that obliges Crossrail to take any of your land, thereby triggering any right to compensation?

(Mr Harrington) We have seen their Environmental Statement and their potential acquisition of two plots of land, 113 and 118, which would front up to our buildings. We have not seen, and this is my point, any detail on the design of the podiums which may or may not have a material impact on the plant which sits below us.

19331. As far as the station box and then refilling over the top of the box and reinstating the road and pavement are concerned, does that take any land of yours?

(Mr Harrington) No.

19332. MR FOOKES: Thank you.

 

The witness withdrew

19333. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, would you like to sum up?

19334. MR MOULD: I was going to call Mr Berryman to deal with one or two points which have arisen, if that is convenient to you.

 

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled

Examined by MR MOULD

19335. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, just one or two points have been made, first of all, the question of maintaining access to the existing front doors of the buildings during the construction phase. Can you just explain, what can we commit to in terms of advance notice and so forth?

(Mr Berryman) Well, we can certainly agree to consult with the Petitioner. We do in reality consult with all landowners who are adjacent to the works as we go along, we have to do that and, as a result of those consultations, we can try to accommodate as best we can the needs of the Petitioner, as we would with any other landowner alongside us. What we cannot do unfortunately is give the Petitioner a right of veto over our works for obvious reasons, but obviously we would always agree to act reasonably.

19336. So just looking at number 4 on the list, the prior agreement point or, as you put it, the right of veto, that is the point at which we part company?

(Mr Berryman) That is the point to which we could not go. Consultation is fine and we would expect to set up again, as I said, with all the landowners alongside the project a formal consultation mechanism to do that.

19337. Can we just turn to the position in relation to Soho Square. First of all, insofar as the buildings in Eastbourne Terrace are concerned, can you help the Committee with the extent to which the proposed works in Eastbourne Terrace will directly involve land of the Petitioner?

(Mr Berryman) The works for the actual station do not involve land from the Petitioner at all. It would only be any accommodation works that we needed to do to their buildings where we would require to enter on to their land.

19338. This is the podium that we talked about?

(Mr Berryman) The podium or alternative solutions, yes.

19339. Do you think that the comparison which Mr Harrington seeks to draw between number 40 Eastbourne Terrace and number 7 Soho Square is a fair one?

(Mr Berryman) Not at all. The Soho Square property actually fronts on to Dean Street. It is immediately adjacent to our Dean Street ticket hall and we have an escalator which goes underneath their building and passes very, very close to the building to the extent that, as I think we have already agreed, there is certainly a possibility, I would not put it as strongly as a probability, but a possibility that the building will not be occupied because the escalator shaft will be constructed so close to it. We may have to go in there and actually put props inside the building while we tunnel because we are that close. It is marginal whether we ought to demolish it, but certainly I can see an easy case why we should make provision for what happens if the building cannot be occupied.

19340. Whereas here, the works we are proposing are in relation to the provision of the permanent access arrangements?

(Mr Berryman) That is correct, yes.

19341. That brings me then to the question of the joint study. We have indicated that we would extend the study to include number 40 as well as numbers 10 to 30, yes?

(Mr Berryman) That is correct.

19342. I understand the Committee have been considering the evidence which has been given by Mr Harrington in relation to the costs of that. Could you just help the Committee with our position in relation to meeting the costs of that study, first of all, in relation to number 40?

(Mr Berryman) In relation to number 40, we do accept that the costs should fall to us. After all, it is their building and we are proposing to alter it gratuitously.

19343. So we would meet 100 per cent of the reasonable costs for number 40?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

19344. In relation to 10 to 30, our position has been that we would meet 50 per cent of the costs, subject to a cap, and I have said that we would meet 50 per cent of the reasonable costs.

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

19345. And that is our position?

(Mr Berryman) That is our position. The cap sort of got enshrined in the history of this thing, but the £20,000 was originally what we thought would cover the costs of the study, but there is not a cap to the costs, but of the reasonable costs we would pay 50 per cent.

19346. Can you just help the Committee finally as to why 50 per cent and why not 100 per cent in relation to those three buildings?

(Mr Berryman) Well, in the case of those three buildings of course, the Petitioner is in any event planning to modify the buildings and there will be some aspects of that study which I think would be of benefit to the Petitioner as well as dealing with the particular problem to do with Crossrail.

19347. This issue, I think, has arisen elsewhere, do you remember, in relation to the Paddington Churches Housing Association and in relation to the Ham and Wick sewer?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

19348. What is the general position in relation to planned development and the need to modify them in order to accommodate the Crossrail works?

(Mr Berryman) The general position is that the cost of amending the plans to fit in with the Crossrail works actually falls to the developer. The examples that you have mentioned, Paddington Churches Housing Association is one and the property at Farringdon Road is another one and I think there are several, but I cannot call them to mind just now.

19349. So with Land Securities, in this case we are prepared to go as far as 50 per cent?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is right.

19350. MR MOULD: Thank you.

Cross-examined by MR FOOKES

19351. MR FOOKES: Mr Berryman, first of all, on the consultation point, what you are saying is that the company cannot be given a veto, but it is entirely possible to deal with that in any agreement by saying that the agreement is not to be unreasonably withheld or to provide arbitration, or whatever you like.

(Mr Berryman) Absolutely, yes.

19352. So there is no real difficulty in our proposal, as long as there is some wording to allow us not to be unreasonable in agreeing a solution.

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

19353. Number 7 Soho Square. As you have indicated, there is no certainty that any land would be taken from Land Securities for these buildings, therefore no right of compensation would follow. For example, if the study on number 40 could not provide a scheme which would satisfy the planners and everybody else, for example, there would be no accommodation works and, therefore, there would be no right to go to a Lands Tribunal, which is precisely why we need the third matter we have identified. In other words, the put option. It is because you are not taking any land for the main works.

(Mr Berryman) I, as the Committee will know, am not an expert in land compensation matters. Mr Smith, I think, would be much more knowledgeable to talk about that point.

19354. MR MOULD: Mr Smith is here.

19355. MR FOOKES: It would only be if there were accommodation works to be carried out that you would be taking land from Land Securities.

(Mr Berryman) Yes. Just on the general point, I have to say that accommodation works of some sort are inevitable in the location of number 40. There is no other way of dealing with it. If the road levels change, something about the design of the building has to change.

19356. Accommodation works do not require an interest in land to be acquired.

(Mr Berryman) Not always, not always. There are different ways of doing it.

19357. You can understand why we are concerned.

(Mr Berryman) Indeed I do.

19358. At number 7 Soho Square, the point there was that the works might interfere with the plant. That was the problem, was it not?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is the problem.

19359. The fear here is that the accommodation works might interfere with the plant.

(Mr Berryman) I do not see that as a particular matter in this area. There is no question of the accommodation works causing settlement or movement of plant or anything of that sort, I am sure you would agree. Any interference with plant would be planned interference and would be mitigated by dealing with the phasing of the works and so on.

19360. Exactly the same effect on number 7 would take place because the accommodation works would have caused the disruption of the building, if they did agree with the owner (?), which is of course a qualification that has to be satisfied.

(Mr Berryman) Do you mean the mechanical plant and so on?

19361. Yes.

(Mr Berryman) I do not think that is the case at all. We are talking about a difference here between designing something and constructing it in accordance with that design, and that includes the phasing of the works so that there is no interruption to power supplies and so on.

19362. We are talking about if you have a ground entrance to either number 30 or number 40.

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

19363. But if you have to remove the plant.

(Mr Berryman) You do not move it until you have got something to put - you do not just disconnect the power and take the substation away; what you do is you put a new substation, connect that up and then take the old one away. We are talking about two different situations. What I am talking about in the case of Eastbourne Terrace are planned works which are phased properly in order to avoid interruptions of the occupants' amenity. What I am talking about at Soho Square is an entirely different matter; it is the possibility of major impact on a building which cannot be planned for and cannot be ameliorated (?) by providing alternative sources of power. What we are talking about at Soho Square, as I understand it, is chillers and the like for the food store.

19364. Can I draw you back to the point? You do not know, because no study has been done, as to what works will be necessary.

(Mr Berryman) No, we do not know, but it is a general principle when you are modifying a building that you do not just disconnect the services until you have got another way of providing those services. You do not just cut them off and say: "Sorry, we had to cut your electricity off for three weeks" or something like that. That is not the way it is done.

19365. Going on to the cost of the number 30 study, the only work required to alter the planning permission that is going forward is to accommodate your scheme. Where is the distinction you draw between paying all for number 40 and only half for number 30?

(Mr Berryman) Number 40 exists; it is already there. We will have to alter the entrance significantly, not the whole building, obviously. It is something which arises totally as a result of our actions. I think the situation is different at the other three buildings because they are still in the design process for a refurbishment and alteration which is going to take place in any event.

19366. But if the plans exist and the cost is purely related to the alteration of the plans - 100 per cent related to the alteration of the plans ----

(Mr Berryman) The costs relate to the alteration of the plans but the Petitioner will also benefit from that. It is worth remembering, of course, that these buildings are safeguarded in the Crossrail scheme so we could, in theory (we would not want to but we could) object to the alteration plans.

19367. MR FOOKES: T\hank you very much.

 

Re-examined by MR MOULD

19368. MR MOULD: Mr Berryman, I want to clarify one point, if I may, relating to the question you were asked about the temporary access arrangements and consultation. You were asked about an arbitration arrangement. Can I just be clear: is the Promoter prepared to accept arbitration with Land Securities on the sequence of construction works in Eastbourne Terrace?

(Mr Berryman) No, I do not think we are prepared to accept arbitration on that point. It was the "not unreasonably withheld" part which I think was of more interest. The problem would be arbitration takes time. The period of time we have got between making the decision to do a certain piece of work and actually doing it is probably relatively short - maybe a month or two at most. I think if there were to be any arbitration provision like that it would need to be based on the premise that it would be very, very quick - very quickly done.

19369. So far as the timing of the construction work programme is concerned, the same question to you. Is that something that the Promoter can agree to and to arbitrate with?

(Mr Berryman) No, I do not think that is - unless I am misunderstanding the Petitioner - what they are asking for. They were talking purely about the entrance to their buildings, unless I have misunderstood the question.

19370. MR MOULD: Thank you very much indeed.

 

The witness withdrew

 

19371. MR MOULD: I say, with the usual hesitation when we come to questions of compensation, there was a point left hanging there. Mr Smith is here, we can ask him to deal with that, and then I can move to my closing, which will take about a minute and a half, I think.

19372. CHAIRMAN: We will time you!

 

MR COLIN SMITH, recalled

Examined by MR MOULD

 

19373. MR MOULD: Mr Smith, just to remind everybody, you are giving evidence on behalf of the Promoters in relation to property and land compensation matters. I think the point that was being raised with Mr Berryman was this: the premise was that if we failed to find a solution in terms of providing a replacement permanent access arrangement for, say, number 40 Eastbourne Terrace (what we call the accommodation works) then there would not be any right to take matters to the Lands Tribunal for adjudication. What do you say about that?

(Mr Smith) That is wrong. As I understand the position, Land Securities buildings in Eastbourne Terrace will have no land directly acquired from them by the Promoters for the works but they are adjacent to the works and they can claim under the Compensation Code even though they have no land taken; they are perfectly entitled to claim for losses that they may suffer as a result of the execution of the works. They have full rights. If there is disagreement on any loss they suffer, they can go to the Lands Tribunal through an independent third party who will adjudicate. So I would disagree entirely with that statement.

19374. Let us put it absolutely starkly: we do not accept this is realistic but let us take the extreme situation where we cannot find a permanent access solution to number 40 so, effectively, it no longer has a viable access and it is rendered, technically, unrentable. What would be the land compensation payable to Land Securities?

(Mr Smith) It would be considerable. It would be a very high percentage of the value of the building, I would have thought, and something the Promoters would want to avoid at all costs.

19375. MR MOULD: Thank you.

 

Cross-examined by MR FOOKES

 

19376. MR FOOKES: Mr Smith, the point of the Compensation Code is that if some land is acquired the person whose partial interest is acquired has the right to serve a notice for the whole of the property to be taken by the acquiring authority. Correct?

(Mr Smith) If it can demonstrate it suffers material detriment, yes.

19377. If no land is taken you are thrown back on to Section 10 damages, are you not?

(Mr Smith) Yes, absolutely.

19378. There is no right for the owner of the property to require the whole of his land to be taken by the acquiring authority.

(Mr Smith) That is correct.

19379. In those circumstances, our suggestion three makes sense, as I think the previous witness agreed. That is the situation we would be in; we would have no right that compensation would grant if you were not taking the land.

(Mr Smith) No, you do not have a right, that is absolutely correct, in terms that as no land is taken, I am afraid, that does not apply. It is totally different to the situation in Soho Square, where, of course, we do take land.

19380. MR FOOKES: Thank you very much.

19381. MR MOULD: Thank you, Mr Smith.

 

The witness withdrew

 

19382. MR MOULD: Sir, I will work to the Land Securities' summary on the screen. Insofar as one and two are concerned, we have indicated to you that the joint study that is already signed up to in relation to numbers 10 to 30 should also extend to consideration of number 40, and that would deal with point 2 on the screen.

19383. Insofar as the costs of that study are concerned, Mr Berryman explained to you we would accept that we would pay 100 per cent of the reasonable costs of the study in relation to number 40. He has explained why that is our position and he has explained why the position is different in relation to the current redevelopment proposals that Land Securities have in mind in relation to numbers 10, 20 and 30, and how, in fact, our agreement to pay up to 50 per cent of their reasonable costs in relation to that aspect of the study is actually more generous than is usually the position.

19384. Insofar as item 3 is concerned, Mr Smith has just explained that if what we think is an unrealistically extreme scenario arose where we simply were not able to find a way of providing a satisfactory permanent revised access to number 40 Eastbourne Terrace, if that were the situation, then effectively the building would have been rendered virtually valueless to the current owners, and land compensation would be assessed on that basis by the Lands Tribunal, if it could not be agreed beforehand. So that is the current right that these proprietors have under the Land Compensation Code in those circumstances. We say there is no reason for this Committee to look to make any changes or to extend that existing right in the current circumstances. I do stress, what we are talking about here is a situation where we have put forward for consideration in the Environmental Statement a podium solution as a way of resolving the needs to provide access arrangements to accommodate Eastbourne Terrace, and we believe that that will, subject to detailed design and negotiation, provide a solution which enables that building to continue to be effectively and properly let.

19385. Finally, in relation to number 4, which relates to access during the construction phase, we have indicated that we will maintain access to the buildings throughout, including for fire and emergency. We cannot guarantee to maintain access to the current front door of each building throughout, but what we will do is to consult in advance in relation to what we expect to be relatively short periods of disruption in that respect, and look to give Land Securities as much notice as we reasonably can so that they can organise themselves as best they can to accommodate that temporary disruption. That is all I want to say in closing.

19386. MR FOOKES: I will not limit myself to a minute and a half! Can I ask LS8 to be put on the screen? This is just to explain the context of the matters we have been raising. This is from the Environmental Statement, 3.5.25, Mitigation and Residual Impacts: "Further detailed design will be required in discussion with businesses occupying properties at 10, 20, 30 and 40 Eastbourne Terrace in order to agree options for maintaining temporary access during the construction of the station box and lowering of Eastbourne Terrace, and permanent access arrangements." The principle of identifying environmental impacts in the Environmental Statement is that the decision maker, before approving the development consent, has to be satisfied that the impacts identified can be delivered at that time, not deferred until later. That is the principle of general environmental impact law.

19387. Therefore, what we say is these matters that we have raised need to be sorted out before, and any improvements granted (?), rather than left over. We do not want to be left with access in the air, as it were, with these buildings having to jump down on to the new pavement level.

19388. If we then turn to my list, LS13. These are the specific requests that we are making. I will take them in turn. First of all, we request the Committee to require the Promoter to pay the full costs of a joint study in relation to 10, 20 and 30. We are very grateful that the cap has been removed but we still say that all this cost relates to modifying our current planning application, a perfectly good application, going in with a perfectly good design of the building. If it needs to be modified for the scheme it is purely the cost of modification. There is no distinction in principle between number 40 and numbers 10, 20 and 30; it should be all the costs of the works that Crossrail require us to do to the application - the modified drawings required.

19389. Secondly, to submit proposals in relation to the alteration of the entrance to number 40. That has been agreed, and we are grateful for that, but the third point still stands. This is the put option. We have heard that, first of all, they are right to be concerned because it is not necessarily the case that land would be taken; therefore, we do not have the right under the Compensation Code to serve a counter-notice requiring the whole building to be taken if there were an insuperable problem in finding a permanent access solution. So we are right to be concerned, Mr Berryman agreed that.

19390. As far as the compensation is concerned, Mr Smith agreed I am right that we do not have, in those circumstances, the right to serve that notice. All this does is give us the same right as we would have had if the land was being taken. The distinction he drew with number 7 Soho Square was a completely false distinction because in that case land was being taken. So not only did number 7 have the right to serve a counter-notice under the Compensation Code for the whole land to be taken but they were given a back-up agreement in respect of a put option. We are saying we are in a worse position in the Compensation Code than number 7, but the circumstances are similar in that it could be that the solution, if one is found, to the access of the building disrupts the building so substantially that it becomes unletable. We hope it will not come to that but it could do and it would be prudent to seek that, and it would be fair for that to be granted, given that we are at a stage where no scheme has been put forward by the Promoters for how they are actually going to deal with the access. There is no study, there is no scheme. If one turns it back on to the Environmental Statement at the beginning, the only way that can be satisfied is by giving these undertakings which show how they are doing something here and now to deal with the impact identified, rather than leaving it with no real solution reached.

19391. Lastly, the access question. Being given unspecified notice - it could be ten minutes, it could be tomorrow - is not going to address the problem of how people get into the front of the buildings. What we are saying is we need to be involved in the consultation but, also, to be able to say and agree when these works take place and how long they take place for and that if it is required to add some words to the words we are seeking, that we should not take an unreasonable stance or unreasonably refuse such a request, that would be perfectly acceptable. It does not give us a veto, and it deals with the only criticism that has been made on this particular point.

19392. Those are our concerns and that is what we request you to do, and I will sit down.

19393. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. That concludes the hearing this morning. There are a couple of announcements I have to make. The planned visit by the Committee to Romford tomorrow is now cancelled. The Committee will resume tomorrow morning to hear further Petitions at 10am in this room. Before we go, just to announce that the Committee will visit Bond Street Station, Brewers Court, Paddington Station and Old Oak Common on Thursday 22 February. Any Petitioners who are involved and wish to be on that, if they could either contact the Clerk or look on the website, it will be a very exciting day indeed.