Martin Woods Head of the TWA Orders Unit Department for Transport General Counsel's Office Zone 1/18 Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR

Enquiries: 020 7944 2487 Eversheds LLP Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents Web Site: www.gov.uk/twa One Wood Street London Our ref: TWA/13/APP/01 EC2V 7WS Your ref: SLEVIND/168255-000050

5 February 2014

Dear Sirs,

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992 APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED CROSSRAIL (PADDINGTON STATION BAKERLOO LINE CONNECTION) ORDER

1. 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, Alan Boyland BEng (Hons) DipTP CEng MICE MCIHT MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry on 12 November 2013 into the application made by your clients Crossrail Limited (“CRL”) for the Crossrail (Paddington Station Bakerloo Line Connection) Order (“the Order”) to be made under sections 1 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (“TWA”).

2. The Order, if made, would confer powers on CRL to construct and maintain a passenger subway linking the proposed Crossrail Station at Paddington, authorised to be constructed under the Crossrail Act 2008, to the London Underground Bakerloo Line platforms (“the scheme”). For the purposes of the scheme the Order would also authorise the acquisition of land and rights in land compulsorily or by agreement.

3. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Inspector’s report. His conclusions and recommendation are set out in sections 6 and 7 of the report.

Summary of Inspector’s recommendations

4. The Inspector recommended that the Order be made with modifications.

Summary of the Secretary of State’s decision

5. For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State has decided to make the Order with modifications.

Secretary of State’s consideration

6. The Secretary of State’s consideration of the Inspector’s report is set out in the following paragraphs. All paragraph references, unless otherwise stated, are to the Inspector’s report (“IR”).

7. The Secretary of State notes first that all the objections to the Order were withdrawn before the close of the inquiry and that the issues raised by Paddington Residents’ Active Concern on Transport were effectively resolved. CRL’s case for the scheme was therefore uncontested (IR 6.1).

8. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the proposed pedestrian subway which would facilitate interchange between the Crossrail and Bakerloo Line stations at Paddington by an estimated 11.5 million passengers annually is an integral part of the Crossrail project. He notes that additional powers are required because the subway and the temporary work site in the Royal Mail Group (“RMG”) building in London Street fall outside the limits of deviation under the Crossrail Act 2008 (IR 6.3-4).

9. The Secretary of State notes that a number of alternative options were considered by CRL for the tunnel and the work site. He agrees with the Inspector that the selected deep tunnel option is the only one that, with mitigation, would avoid adverse impacts on the Grade I listed Brunel Train Shed and on the operation of the mainline station; and that the chosen work site represents the optimum location (IR 6.5-6).

10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the scheme is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, the Mayoral Plans and Strategies for London, and the planning policies of the City of Westminster (IR 6.7). He is satisfied also that there would be no significant adverse effects on RMG’s proposals for redeveloping its building and that the scheme is compatible with London Underground’s proposals for expanding the capacity of the Bakerloo Line ticket hall at Paddington (IR 6.8).

11. With regard to the likely environmental impacts of the scheme, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Grade I listed Brunel Train Shed and its special historical interest would be preserved; that the impact of the two above ground chiller units on the streetscape would be negligible; and that the London Street façade of the RMG building would be protected from damage of structural significance during the use of the building as a work site. He is satisfied also that the temporary loading bay and hoardings in front of the RMG building would not adversely affect its value as a building of townscape merit after the construction phase or the long term heritage significance of the Bayswater and Paddington Conservation Area (IR 6.10-12).

12. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that after mitigation there would be no significant adverse effects on traffic and transport in the vicinity and that there would be no significant temporary or permanent adverse effects in terms of noise (IR 6.13-14).

13. The Secretary of State is satisfied that construction of the scheme in accordance with the Crossrail Environmental Minimum Requirements would ensure that the impacts assessed in the Crossrail Environmental Statement are not exceeded. He notes also that

CRL’s evidence that no significant unmitigated environmental impacts were anticipated was uncontested (IR 6.15-16). Under section 14(3AA) of the TWA, the Secretary of State is required to describe the main measures to avoid, reduce and if possible, remedy the major adverse environmental impacts of a scheme. However, he considers that in this case the scheme would not have any major adverse environmental impacts.

14. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the Environmental Statement (“ES”) submitted with the Order application taken with the further information provided in evidence for the inquiry is adequate for the purposes of his decision on the application, and that the relevant statutory procedural requirements have been met (IR 6.17). He confirms that in reaching his decision, he has complied with the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 14(3A) of the TWA relating to the consideration of the ES.

15. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is a compelling case in the public interest for authorising the scheme and that the compulsory acquisition powers in the Order are justified to secure satisfactory implementation of the scheme (IR 6.18). He notes also that the scheme is fully funded within the overall funding for the Crossrail project and is satisfied that there would be no impediment to implementation of the scheme in this regard (IR 6.19).

Overall conclusion and decision

16. For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is a compelling need for the scheme to provide an effective passenger interchange between the Crossrail and Bakerloo Line stations at Paddington and that the benefits of the scheme significantly outweigh its limited adverse effects after mitigation. He is satisfied also that all the powers in the Order as recommended by the Inspector are justified. He has therefore decided to make the Order in the form set out in inquiry document CRL/INQ/5, subject to some minor drafting amendments which do not materially alter the effect of the Order.

Notice under section 14 of the TWA

17. This letter constitutes the Secretary of State’s notice of his determination to make the Order, with modifications, for the purposes of section 14(1)(a) and section 14(2) of the TWA. Your clients are required to publish newspaper notices of the determination in accordance with section 14(4) of the TWA.

Challenge to decisions

18. The circumstances in which the Secretary of State’s decisions may be challenged are set out in the Annex to this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Woods

ANNEX

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ORDERS MADE UNDER THE TWA

Any person who is aggrieved by the making of the Order may challenge its validity, or the validity of any provision in it, on the grounds that­

 it is not within the powers of the TWA, or  any requirement imposed by or under the TWA or the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 has not been complied with.

Any such challenge may be made, by application to the High Court, within the period of 42 days from the day on which notice of this determination is published in the London Gazette as required by section 14(1)(b) of the TWA. This notice is expected to be published within three working days of the date of this decision letter.

A person who thinks they may have grounds for challenging the decision to make the Order is advised to seek legal advice before taking any action.