Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4540
- 4559)
4540. Chairman: Just before we start,
Mr Taylor, this was not a personal attack on your credibility;
we greatly enjoy your advice whenever we get the opportunity.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor): Thank you,
sir; I took it as a compliment!
4541. Mr Mould: Mr Thornley-Taylor, we
have here the draft undertaking on noise and vibration, which
has been provided to the CBI. I am not going to ask you to read
it out, but what I would like you to do very briefly is to explain
the process which is encapsulated within this undertaking in relation
to controlling and mitigating the impact of airborne noise on
construction sites on sensitive receptors such as, in this case,
the CBI located within Centre Point.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor): It is a two-pronged approach
which devotes, on the one hand, effort towards controlling noise
from the site through a process which I will explain in a minute,
and on the other hand towards assessing the effect that that noise
would have on premises which are acknowledged to be sensitive,
as this one is, taking into account the noise levels predicted,
assessing the sensitivity in the uses of the building and the
structure of the building and working out whether any additional
noise insulation measures are needed—for example secondary
glazing may be needed—and then preparing a noise and vibration
mitigation package which will ensure that through the construction
process the uses of the building which have been identified as
sensitive are not harmed by intrusive noise from a construction
site. The other prong that I mentioned is the statutory process
set out in section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act, where the
contractor is required by the Secretary of State to go through
a process of applying for prior consent for the works, in which
he has to set out the plant and machinery he is going to use,
the method of working, duration, the locations and it is not uncommon
for that to include predicted noise levels. The local authority
then either consents to the application as it has been made, or
consents to it with conditions, and that consent having been given
it is an offence to exceed or breach the requirements of the consent.
So it becomes quite clear what future noise levels are going to
be because if they are exceeded enforcement action is taken and
the contractor has to stop doing what he was doing that was creating
the exceedence. And that coupled with the package of measures
which are implemented for what is known as the receiver, the building
of the premises affected by the noise, ensures that throughout
the construction process the noise effect is acceptable.
4542. One other question: can you give the Committee
an example of this approach to the control and mitigation of airborne
noise apparently working successfully in practice?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor): The one that sticks in
my mind was when Canary Wharf Jubilee Line Extension Station was
constructed, a very large copper damn was created with sheet piles
around the outside to excavate deep into the former dock beside
the buildings which formed part of phase one of Canary Wharf,
the original cluster of buildings around the Tower. I remember
actually being called down there because the contractor was exceeding
the noise levels in his Section 61 consent. Immediate action was
taken to make him stop doing what he was doing, which was trying
to insert sheet piles using an inappropriate method, and it was
immediately brought back down below the consented levels. But
that is an example of the enforcement process, and, having used
the enforcement process, the noise conditions inside the building
were such as to enable normal use throughout the construction
project.
4543. Mr Mould: Thank you very much.
4544. Mr Harwood: No questions.
4545. Chairman: Are you content?
4546. Mr Harwood: Having a noise and
vibration package is part of matters which we have agreed and
Mr Thornley-Taylor has not given any evidence specifically on
Centre Point impacts and I do not propose to invite him to go
into that territory.
4547. Chairman: Thank you again, Mr Thornley-Taylor.
The witness withdrew
4548. Mr Mould: Sir, in relation to access,
we have shown the Committee the suite of assurances that we now
have given to the CBI in relation to their concerns on access.
You have heard what Mr Anderson said about them, and I propose
to do no more really than to say that in our submission those
give proper and adequate comfort at this stage in the process.
Of course, there will be a good deal more work to be done through
the detailed design stage, as we move forward, but at this stage
in the process they provide proper and adequate comfort and security
to the CBI too in relation to the matters that they have raised
before the Committee.
4549. I do draw attention to the fact that in
relation to that point you have not been told that there is any
serious concern with the traffic management phasing process that
we have proposed in relation to the works at Tottenham Court Road
on the part of the CBI and nor have they put forward to you a
particular point of access that they say they would wish to see
being provided in order to meet their concerns. It is in that
context that the suite of assurances we have given provides the
comfort that we say is justified.
4550. In relation to noise and vibration, I
need say no more than you have heard what Mr Thornley-Taylor has
just said in relation to that. The points he has made are encapsulated
in the undertaking that we have given to the CBI, which you have
seen in the Promoter's papers in relation to this petition.
4551. In relation to settlement, there are two
points. First of all, the concern expressed by Mr Handy that the
buildings at Centre Point require some reassessment in order to
see whether or not the risk categorisation that has been attributed
to them thus far sufficiently recognises their sensitivity to
settlement. That is dealt with through the process which is set
out in our policy, and I have drawn attention to the relevant
paragraphs in information paper D12 which deal with that. In essence,
there is an ongoing process of detailed assessment through what
we call our Stage 3 process. I have pointed to the paragraphs
which address that. That will enable the concerns that Mr Handy
has put forward to be taken into account as that process continues.
4552. In relation to the concern about ongoing
and recurring expenditure on repairs—you will recall that
he made that point in his evidence to you—again, I would
simply draw your attention to information paper D12, section 6:
"The Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to reimburse
property owners for the reasonable cost they incur in remedying
material physical damage arising from ground settlement caused
by the authorised works..." provided that a number of considerations
are satisfied.[34]
Plainly, in an appropriate case, that will embrace recurring expenditure,
if that expenditure can be shown to be reasonable.
4553. That deals with settlement. There is no
particular point raised in relation to dust.
4554. It remains just to deal with Mr Harwood's
points in opening about controlling impacts by reference to the
environmental statement and compensation. In relation to the former
point, sir, I simply remind you of what was said by Mr Anderson
in response to the Smithfield traders' petition. I have given
you the references in relation to that, dealing with the question
of compliance with environmental controls, including those within
the Bill, those that apply from general legislation, and those
that arise under the Environmental Minimum Requirements regime.
We have drawn attention today to the key paragraphs in information
paper D2 which indicate the Promoter's intention to carry out
the project so that its impact is as assessed in the Environmental
Statement, and the concomitant statement that the controls contained
in the Bill and the general legislation which, along with the
undertaking given by the Secretary of State, will ensure impacts
which have been assessed will not be exceeded so as to depart
from the Environmental Statement assumptions, save in certain
specified circumstances.[35]
That, in practice, achieves the result that Mr Harwood says is
necessary here to give comfort to those affected by the scheme.
How that is achieved in practice in any given case, of course,
is a matter for consideration through the detailed design.
4555. Sir, the final point is compensation,
and I am very reluctant to go into that to any extent because
you have heard form Mr Elvin in relation to that and you have
seen the information paper. If I can give you the references in
relation to the closing submissions on day 14 in response to the
Smithfield traders, Mr Dingemans and Mr Elvin's submissions. Mr
Elvin dealt in detail with the justification for applying what
we call the National Compensation Code of Crossrail. Paragraphs
4041 through to 4047.[36]
They pick up in particular concerns which have been expressed
by these and other Petitioners about the limitations of the code
in compensating for the environmental impacts of works from time
to time during the construction phase. They also point out that,
if access is obstructive as a result of works, the effect of that
would, in the absence of the powers given by the Bill, be to give
a right of action in common law, then the fact that that obstruction
is temporary as opposed to permanent does not prevent the affected
landowner from claiming compensation under the code if he can
show that his land has been devalued as a result. There is, if
you will, that residual comfort to somebody in the position of
the CBI who are concerned that they may suffer from an obstruction
of their access from time to time. That is something which, whatever
its other limitations, the Compensation Code does provide for
if the circumstances justify it.
4556. My final point is that there is certainly
no justification for extending the Compensation Code so that it
provides a compensation remedy for loss of profits or loss of
revenue per se. The Compensation Code has been in place
since the first railways were built in the 1830s and 1840s. Whatever
else it may or may not have done and however the vagaries of it
exclusiveness or inclusiveness, it has never provided for recovery
of items of that kind. We would respectfully submit there is no
justification for a change of that radical nature being made,
as proposed by the CBI.
4557. Unless there is anything else, those are
my submissions.
4558. Mr Harwood: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
4559. When Mr Mould was cross-examining Sir
Digby Jones on the benefits of the scheme and leading on to the
scale of works at Tottenham Court Road he seemed to be, essentially,
suggesting you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Well, Mr Chairman, in this particular case we would like the omelette
but we are just concerned whether we might be one of the eggs
or we might be some broken crockery. It is a matter or protecting,
as is the main function of this Committee, interests which are
impacted on by the Crossrail scheme. The CBI is in an unusual
position in respect of Crossrail, in that its office use at Centre
Point has to provide VIP meetings and operate a conference centre
there; the Crossrail works will take place, at times, on all sides
of the building over a period of five years—there will be
work sites around the building for the majority of that time—and
whilst part of the Centre Point building will be acquired none
of the CBI's legal interest will be.
34 Crossrail Information Paper D12-Ground Settlement,
http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/ Back
35
Crossrail Information Paper D2 Control of Environmental Impacts,
http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk/ Back
36
Smithfield Market Tenants' Association oral evidence, 1 March
2006. Back
|
