London Underground (Camden Town station) Order

Print Print page   Download PDF PDF image

Messrs Winckworth Sherwood
Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents
35 Great Peter Street
Westminster
London SW1P 3LR

Ellis Harvey
Head of TWA Orders Unit
Department for Transport
Zone 9/2 Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DT

Direct Line: 020 7944 4506
Fax: 020 7944 2479
E-mail: transportandworksact@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Website: http://www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: TWA/03/APP/05
Your Ref: PFI/27044/3

20 June 2005

Dear Sirs,

Transport and Works Act 1992 : Application for the Proposed London Underground (Camden Town Station) Order

  • I am directed by the Secretary of State for Transport ("the Secretary of State") to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Mr K D Barton BA (Hons) DipArch DipArb RIBA FCIArb, concerning the application made by your client, London Underground Limited ("LUL"), for the London Underground (Camden Town Station) Order to be made under sections 1 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the TWA").
  • The Inspector held a public local inquiry into this application between 10 February and 12 July 2004. The Order applied for would, if made, authorise the construction of a new Camden Town Underground Station, to be linked to the existing Northern Line tunnels and platforms. The works would initially involve the demolition of buildings on and adjoining the site of the existing station and excavation to the level of the existing platforms and running tunnels. Thereafter, it is proposed to construct a new ticket hall at street level together with new concourses, escalators, lifts, stairs, traction sub-station and cross passages, to divert an electricity cable and to provide a new pedestrian road (Reunion Street). A temporary ticket hall and escalators would be provided while the works were being carried out. The proposed Order would, amongst other things, confer on LUL powers to compulsorily acquire land for the scheme, to stop up streets and execute street works, and to safeguard buildings in the vicinity of the works.
  • Concurrently with the inquiry into the Order application, the Inspector held a public local inquiry into your client's related appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal of planning permission by the London Borough of Camden for the reconstruction of the existing station to provide a new station with mixed use development above; and into your client's application for consent under section 10 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to demolish buildings within a conservation area. (A further appeal against non-determination of a planning application for a new station and mixed use development above was withdrawn during the inquiry). A separate decision letter on the planning appeal and the conservation area consent application is today being issued on behalf of the First Secretary of State.
  • As the related planning appeal sought planning permission from the First Secretary of State for the proposed station development as well as for the mixed use development above it, your client did not separately seek deemed planning permission from the Secretary of State under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act for the development provided for in the Order.
  • A copy of the Inspector's report of the inquiry is enclosed. His conclusions are set out in section 29 of his report.

Summary of the Inspector's recommendation

  • The Inspector recommended in section 30 of his report that the Order should not be made.

Summary of the Secretary of State's decision

  • The Secretary of State has decided, for the reasons given in this letter, not to make the Order.
  • In the separate decision letter referred to at paragraph 3 above, the First Secretary of State has decided to dismiss your client's planning appeal and to refuse the related application for conservation area consent.

Secretary of State's consideration

  • Careful consideration has been given to all the arguments put forward by or on behalf of the parties. The Secretary of State's consideration of the Inspector's report (insofar as it relates to the station proposals which are the subject of the Order) is set out in the following paragraphs. The relevant paragraph numbers of the report are given in brackets.

Procedural matters

  • The Inspector noted that some modifications had been made to the draft Order since the original application but he did not consider that the changes, taken together, would amount to a substantial change in the proposals (29.1.1-29.1.4). Furthermore, he considered that the Environmental Statement and the Addendum ES of October 2003 were adequate and complied with statutory requirements (29.1.9-29.1.11).
  • The Secretary of State agrees with the above assessments. He confirms that, in coming to his decision, he has complied with the procedural requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 14(3A) of the TWA.

Need for, and objectives of, the proposed station reconstruction

  • The Inspector noted that LUL had identified 7 objectives for the scheme, as set out at 29.2.12. These related to relieving passenger congestion, reducing journey times from the street to the train, upgrading safety for passengers to meet current standards, improving accessibility to all parts of the station for the mobility impaired and others, providing added safety improvements and improved staff accommodation, upgrading the quality of interchange with other transport modes, providing environmental improvements to adjacent highways, better serving the local community and meeting long term needs presented by future growth in demand.
  • The Inspector concluded, for the reasons given in paragraphs 29.2.1-29.2.14 of his report, that there was a compelling need in the public interest for improvements to bring the station up to modern standards to relieve congestion and address step free access and improved fire escape provision. He noted that congestion was predominantly a weekend problem, causing the station to be closed for around 5% of its operating time, and that it could be severe in the lower concourse, interchange passageways and ticket hall. Passenger circulation and staff areas did not comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Inspector considered that, in the light of the problems identified, the objectives for the station works were reasonable.
  • The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given in his report, that there is a compelling need to bring Camden Town station up to modern standards and that LUL's objectives for the scheme are appropriate, given the problems identified.

Scale and configuration of the station works

  • The Inspector concluded, for the reasons given in paragraphs 29.3.1-29.3.26, that the anticipated 50% passenger growth assumption over the 120 year design life of the station, which he considered reasonable, together with the positions of the existing running tunnels and the limitations of the existing platforms, led to the scale and configuration of the proposed station works being 'right sized' for a station to meet standards in the twenty-first century. It followed that, provided there were no acceptable alternatives to the proposed scheme, the whole of the proposed site would be needed to construct the station works.
  • The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector, for the reasons given in his report, that it is reasonable to design the station for a 120 year life and for a 50% growth in passenger numbers over that period. He further agrees that the measures required to overcome the constraints created by the retention of the existing tunnels and platforms would justify the size of the proposed station, and that the scale and configuration of the proposed station works are appropriate.

Alternatives

  • The Inspector considered alternative schemes that had been put forward for a new station (29.4.1-29.4.22) but he concluded that those alternatives would be far less successful in solving the congestion problem at Camden Town than the LUL proposal. He considered that Option 1B produced by Arup for Camden Lock (London) Limited, which had progressed further than other alternatives, would not provide the same level of access for mobility impaired persons and there remained questions about fire escape provision. In his opinion, it would not be acceptable as a new or refurbished station meeting standards in the twenty-first century. The Inspector noted that the 5 alternatives put forward by the Electric Ballroom would also re-use the substandard southern tunnels and passageways and he considered that these would also be unacceptable (29.4.23).
  • The Secretary of State accepts the Inspector's assessment that none of the alternatives put forward by objectors would satisfactorily meet the objectives of the station project.

Effects of the station works on local people and the built heritage and consistency with policy

  • The Inspector considered that the considerable length of the construction programme for the station, which would take around 8 to 9 years, would lead to disruption for local residents and businesses but that the impacts would be mitigated through a Code of Construction Practice. With mitigation, he considered that there would be no unacceptable impacts on the Trinity United Reform Church, Hawley School, Alpha Beta Nursery or residents around the site, either during or after construction. The substantial public benefits from the station improvements would outweigh the personal loss of residents on the site who would lose their homes (29.6.71). The Inspector was satisfied that the provisions in the Order for safeguarding the interests of statutory undertakers were adequate (29.6.75).
  • With regard to impact on the Electric Ballroom, which would be subject to compulsory acquisition under the Order, the Inspector was concerned that whilst an alternative live music venue was to be provided there was doubt as to whether it could be successfully operated as a music venue due to its location in a very deep basement with less than ideal access arrangements. This could lead to the loss of a facility that was of world renown and important to the music industry (29.6.23-29.6.37; 29.6.72; 29.7.7).
  • The Inspector also noted with concern that many market traders would be displaced, with all the social consequences to them, their families and employees and other workers who manufacture goods for them. He considered that the two affected markets made a vital contribution to the health of the town centre as a whole. In displacing the markets, with the loss of roughly a quarter of the stalls in the 6 markets in Camden, the proposals would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Camden town centre, and on its function as a tourist attraction, contrary to national and local planning policy (29.6.47-29.6.69; 29.7.8).
  • The Inspector considered that the substantial community benefits of an improved station would justify the proposed demolition of some unlisted buildings that made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. However, in his view such benefits would not justify the proposed above ground development, which he considered would have a devastating impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area (29.5.31; 29.5.56; 29.7.9).
  • The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed mitigation measures under the Code of Construction Practice would reduce the disturbance arising from construction of the station to an acceptable level. He also agrees that the substantial public benefits arising from the station improvements would justify the demolition of all buildings on the site. The Secretary of State does not consider it appropriate to comment on the suitability or otherwise of the proposed alternative music venue on the site as that is not before him for approval. With regard to the two affected markets, he accepts that their loss, without satisfactory alternative provision, would have a detrimental impact upon the vitality and viability of Camden town centre. He accepts also that the proposals would have a significant adverse impact upon the market traders themselves and those who rely on them. The Secretary of State is not persuaded, however, that these detrimental effects would, on their own, outweigh the strong public benefits of the proposed new station, the rebuilding of which requires the market sites.
  • The impacts of the proposed above-ground mixed use development are not for the Secretary of State to assess in the context of the TWA Order, which relates only to the station development. The merits of the redevelopment scheme as a whole, of which the station development is an integral part, have however been assessed by the First Secretary of State in the context of the related planning appeal. The Secretary of State is aware that the First Secretary of State, in his separate decision letter dismissing the planning appeal, has concluded that the detrimental impact of the proposed above ground development on the town centre and on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would outweigh the benefits of the proposals.

Compulsory purchase and other powers under the Order

  • The Inspector noted that under Government policy for compulsory purchase, as reinforced by the Human Rights Act, compulsory purchase powers should only be given where there was a compelling case in the public interest. He was satisfied that all of the land within the Order site was needed for the reconstruction of the station, for which there was a compelling need in the public interest. In the case of the Electric Ballroom, he considered that despite their offer of three leases there was a compelling public interest in LUL having full ownership and control over that site. However, with regard to the Camden Market site, he considered that whilst the operational station would require all the land within the site below ground level, the construction of operational structures below ground could also be achieved with temporary acquisition. The Inspector therefore did not consider that LUL had provided a compelling reason in the public interest why that site should be permanently acquired. He accepted that there was a compelling need for the permanent acquisition of all other land in the Order (29.8.1-29.8.32).
  • The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that all of the land which LUL would be able to acquire under the Order is needed for the new station, for which there is a compelling public interest. With regard to the Inspector's view that LUL do not need to take permanent possession of the Camden Market site, the Secretary of State considers that it must be open to doubt whether a 'temporary possession' power would be appropriate where such possession would be required for a very long period of time; but, since he has decided not to make the Order for the reasons given in this letter, there is no need for him to determine this matter at this stage. He does, however, invite LUL to consider the Inspector's views on the need for permanent acquisition of this site when formulating any revised application at a later stage.

Other Order issues

  • The Inspector considered the objections of those who own or occupy properties that are within the limits of land for safeguarding works, but he considered that it was appropriate for the Order to give LUL the power to enter those properties to survey or monitor and to carry out any safeguarding works (29.8.27). He also considered the justification for the extent of the limits of deviation prescribed in the draft Order, as amended in December 2003, and concluded that those limits were justified (29.8.28-29.8.31). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector on both these matters.

Funding of the scheme

  • The Inspector considered this issue at 29.9.1-29.9.37 and concluded that there was a reasonable prospect that the station works would attract the necessary funds for implementation. The Secretary of State considers, however, that as he has decided not to make the Order, and since circumstances pertaining to the scheme's funding prospects may have changed significantly by the time any revised proposals come forward for approval, there would be no purpose in him coming to a view on this matter at this stage.

Traffic and transportation

  • The Inspector considered that whilst there would undoubtedly be disruption, including the loss of some footways, during the long construction period, the proposals would ultimately improve the situation for pedestrians by increasing the width of footways on Camden High Street and Kentish Town Road and providing a pedestrian link and 'milling space' between the main roads in the new Reunion Street. He considered that the proposals would improve transport interchange and integration, without giving generating any significant additional car journeys. On completion of the scheme the road network would be virtually unchanged (29.10.1-29.10.9). The Secretary of State agrees that, although there would be bound to be disruption while construction works took place, the proposals would upon completion have beneficial effects for the travelling public, both within and outside the proposed new station.

Inspector's overall conclusion on the Order

  • Having concluded that in the absence of an acceptable above ground scheme neither planning permission nor conservation area consent should be granted, the Inspector concluded that, in these circumstances, the proposals for the station works could not proceed immediately and would therefore not comply with the justification requirements in paragraph 15 of Circular 02/03 and paragraph 18 of Circular 06/2004 (30.3.1). He therefore recommended that the Order should not be confirmed (30.3.2).

The Secretary of State's overall conclusions on the Order

  • For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State accepts that there is a compelling case in the public interest for reconstructing Camden Town Underground Station in the manner proposed, and that no better alternative scheme has been put forward that would satisfactorily meet LUL's objectives. He also accepts that the whole of the Order site is needed to implement the station scheme, whilst noting the Inspector's views on whether the Camden Market site needs to be permanently acquired. At the same time, the Secretary of State is aware that the First Secretary of State has decided to accept the Inspector's recommendation that the related planning appeal for both the new station development and the mixed use development above it should be dismissed. The key question, then, is whether the Secretary of State can reasonably make the Order in the absence of planning permission for the development to which it relates.
  • The Inspector has suggested that, in these circumstances, the Order should not be made because the development cannot proceed immediately. However, neither paragraph 15 of ODPM Circular 02/2003 ("Compulsory Purchase Orders") nor paragraph 18 of its successor ODPM Circular 06/2004 ("Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules") suggests that an acquiring authority must be able to demonstrate that land is required immediately in order to secure the purpose for which it is to be acquired. Rather, they say that a confirming Minister should not make a general presumption that an immediate requirement must be demonstrated. More relevant, in the Secretary of State's view, are paragraphs 19 and 20 of Circular 02/2003 and 22 and 23 of Circular 06/2004, relating to "Impediments to implementation". These make clear that, where compulsory purchase is proposed, an acquiring authority should be able to show that a scheme is unlikely to be blocked by any impediments to implementation; and that, where planning permission is required for a scheme and has not been granted, there should be no obvious reason why it might be withheld. The Secretary of State applies a similar policy in respect of TWA Orders. He considers that it would not be appropriate for him to make an Order giving statutory powers for a scheme, including compulsory purchase powers, where there is a clear impediment to implementation of those powers.
  • In this case, planning permission does not exist for the works included in the Order, and LUL's application for planning permission for the station development, as part of its wider redevelopment proposals, is today being refused on appeal by the First Secretary of State. Hence, there is a clear impediment to implementation of the powers sought in the Order, which seems very unlikely to be resolved in the near future. The Secretary of State therefore considers that he must decline to make the Order.
  • Since a compelling need to modernise the station in the public interest has been established, the Secretary of State expects that LUL will wish to review their redevelopment scheme with a view to formulating revised proposals in due course. In so doing, they will no doubt wish to give very careful consideration to the various concerns expressed by the Inspector in his report.

Secretary of State's decision

  • For the above reasons, the Secretary of State has decided not to make the Order. Notice of this determination is hereby given pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the TWA.

Right of challenge

  • There is no statutory right to challenge the Secretary of State's decision not to make a TWA Order. However, any person aggrieved by that decision may seek the permission of the High Court to challenge the decision by judicial review.

Costs

  • Separate letters are being sent on the costs applications made at the inquiry.

Distribution

  • Copies of this letter and of the Inspector's conclusions and recommendations are being sent to all persons who appeared at the public inquiry. Copies of the letter alone are being sent to others who made representations about the Order application but who did not appear at the inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

Ellis Harvey
Head of TWA Orders Unit