Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4640
- 4659)
4640. We say this is not only unfair (and this
Committee has an opportunity to correct that unfairness) but it
also leads to a curious and, I may be suggesting, nonsensical
result because if we are unsuccessful in this Petition we will
have to consider our position and if we then go ahead with our
£½ million refurbishment costs for the building, so
we upgrade the building, then should it be CPO'd (and we know
that it is scheduled to be the ticketing area of the Tottenham
Court Road Station) we will be entitled to recover the enhanced
property value of 12 Goslett Yard as a result of carrying out
major refurbishment works. I can give you a reference to the Promoter's
response to our Petition: paragraph 4, page 7. Quite rightly,
they accept that that is the principle.
4641. We just say that it is absurd for this
Committee to encourage us, as a Petitioner, simply because Crossrail
are unwilling to compensate us for the £44,000, to go ahead
with the £½ million project which would include, as
part of that, costs of £44,000 and then we are compensated
for the enhanced value. We do say, in any event, that that is
a tremendous waste of public money.
4642. At the moment our position is—and
we made it known to Crossrail—that we would endeavour to,
obviously, relocate our offices from 12 Goslett Yard across to
the neighbouring offices at 127 Charing Cross Road. Members may
be aware that this is the historic centre for the recording publishing
industry—this area around Charing Cross Road. EMI, historically,
has been here many years and many of its famous, you will hear,
contract signings—whether it is Sting or Victoria Beckham—have
taken place on that site.
4643. Not surprisingly, this is a major undertaking,
the relocation to 127. You will hear from Mr Tilley that we are
going to have to take away the studio and we are going to be putting
that in the basement. I will come on to why we are concerned about
noise later on. This may require, undoubtedly, because we are
shifting our staff and we are putting two sets of staff into one
office, planning permission extensions. The creation of new studios
and new offices is a major undertaking. Those of us who have had
any experience of building work will know that a time estimate
from start to finish of 12 to 18 months is a conservative one.
That is what we are advised conservatively it will take. We are
prepared to start in advance to relocate in advance of the CPO
notice in order that we can get on with it, but again we have
approached the Promoters in respect of those disturbance costs.
Their position remains: "No, you are only entitled to the
disturbance costs following service of the notice. So if you seek
to facilitate the relocation and actually work in advance of the
CPO notice those costs will be irrecoverable"—and that
is right under the code because there will be no steps taken to
compulsory purchase.
4644. If the Promoters are not prepared to compensate
us for the disturbance costs for us going ahead, then we look
to them to give us proper notice so that we if we are to move
under the CPO procedures we get proper notice. Again, we have
asked for 12 months but I am advised that 12-18 months is the
appropriate conservative figure. We are saying if you are not
going to compensate us for moving early in order that we can ensure
that we can move and not be left with a demolished building and
nowhere to move to we need 12 to 18 months. The Promoters will
only agree to three months. I have not seen it seriously suggested—it
may be seriously suggested but I would be surprised—that
anyone could expect the relocation of EMI's premises and studios
to 127 Charing Cross Road to be done in a three-month period.
4645. Turning then to the other issue which
follows on, and that is noise, the Committee I hope will not be
surprised to hear that EMI Music is rather sensitive to the issue
of noise. 127 Charing Cross Road, you will see, will be adjacent
to the major construction worksite works (you have probably heard
some evidence about them) and that will be going on for some years
in respect of the Tottenham Court Road Station.[4]
We are going to be, because that is our premises to the south,
adjacent to it. That premises will then have an acoustically treated
recording studio and it is a noise sensitive premises.
4646. The Bill, as Members will be aware, removes
our common law and statutory rights to take action in respect
of nuisance or statutory nuisance because Parliament has otherwise
given us a recourse under statutory nuisance, but this Bill (and
I have given the references) removes those rights. That is, by
any measure, Draconian. However, it may, in my submission, be
acceptable if there is a comfort offered in return for the removal
of those rights—and a comfort by terms of a commitment that
you can enforce. We do not have that. There are three areas where
noise arises. There is noise from the temporary railway. The obligation
on the nominated undertaker is to endeavour to ensure that a level
(which the Promoters accept is the appropriate level) of 30dB
is met. "Endeavour to ensure", as Members will be aware,
is practically meaningless in terms of any enforceability. There
should, at the very least, be a requirement to use, at the very
least (we do not say this is satisfactory), best endeavours, and
that is a term that is well-known to the law and is readily enforceable
by the courts. "Endeavour to ensure" is not.
4647. Similarly, there is no undertaking or
commitment as to the achievement of noise levels during the operation
period. We have no commitment at all that the noise levels will
be achieved. Then, no obligation is given at all in respect of
the level of noise from construction site works. I do respectfully
ask the Committee to consider this because the commitment is all
related to the need to obtain a consent under the Control of Pollution
Act. That is a consent procedure. There is no commitment to any
noise level. So a consent can be granted for 40 dB or 45 dB and
this House has no control over that. I will be inviting this Committee,
at the very least, to require the equivalent of an undertaking
that the undertaker will not seek a CoPA consent which will allow
levels above 30dB at Charing Cross Place. We say even that is
not satisfactory, but it is at least better, and it does not place
an unduly arduous burden on the undertaker because under the CoPA
scheme there is a relaxation of the requirement to meet any specified
noise level if the operator can show that he has been employing
best practicable means not exceeding excessive costs.
4648. Let us be clear about this: the Promoter
champions BPM as if it is an additional safeguard; it is, in fact,
a relaxation of any requirement. So the Committee should be clear
that any CoPA consent that puts a noise level is still subject
to a defence for the undertaker that they can breach that noise
level as long as they say they are using best practicable means.
We are asking, at the very least, respectfully, that the Committee
require that an undertaker should not seek a consent above 30dB.
They have still got their BPM defence in any event. The result
of the Bill otherwise, in our respectful submission, would be,
as we know, to deprive EMI without compensation and without an
enforceable noise limit of rights it would otherwise have. We
respectfully suggest that this is unreasonable and disproportionate
and, therefore, in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of
the European Convention on Human Rights.
4649. Turning then, further, on the question
of noise, I know this Committee has already been addressed by
other objectors as to the adequacy of the Environmental Statement
on noise. However, in our respectful submission, the Environmental
Statement is inadequate for a number of reasons. Therefore, it
is consequently in breach of the European Union's Directive on
environmental impact assessments, and I give the reference in
the note. That requires the Environmental Statement assessment
to address the likely environmental effects flowing from the development
proposals. I just outline for the Committee some of the problems
with this assessment. The Environmental Statement has been carried
out on the basis of assumptions which are not committed to by
the Promoters, and we see that in the Promoter's Response Document,
which again is contained in our papers that this Committee has
(and we have given the reference), "that, where necessary
the potential impact is mitigated". That is the assumption
in the Environmental Statement. It is on the assumption, therefore,
that the 30dB limit will be reached.
4650. However, unless that commitment is made
to achieve those levels the assessment has been conducted on a
false basis. It has been conducted on the basis that something
will happen without a commitment that it will.
4651. Turning then to construction noise, in
particular, the Environmental Statement contains no assessment
of likely noise levels to be experienced at 127 Charing Cross
Road, and the same is true of noise assessment from operations.
It is a fundamental obligation that those should be assessed.
If I may say in simple terms, what we are saying in respect of
construction noise, for example, is that if you look at the Environmental
Statement you will look in vain, unless we missed something, for
something that actually predicts what the noise level is likely
to be during all these construction works at 127 Charing Cross
Road. What has happened is everything has been put off on the
basis that a CoPA consent will be granted. With respect, that
is not good enough. This Committee needs to know, as a decision
maker, what is being said about the likely noise level.
4652. We are disappointed (and this is slightly
departing from my note) that we have not been offered, given our
particular case and our sensitivity, any similar offers in terms
of acoustic protective measures that are offered in respect of
residential accommodation. We do say we are not like normal commercial
premises.
4653. Finally, we do say we have behaved prudently
and, as you will hear from Mr Tilley, we have sought meetings
and co-operated with Crossrail. Sometimes, unfortunately, Crossrail
representatives have not turned up to meetings, which has been
disappointing. I have to say my clients have been left with the
feeling that our particular concerns have not been properly considered
by the Promoter's with perhaps their usual diligence elsewhere.
I hope that is of assistance to you. I would like to call, if
I may, Mr Tilley.
Mr Paul Tilley, Sworn
Examined by Mr Jones
4654. Mr Jones: Mr Tilley?
(Mr Tilley) Good morning. My name
is Paul Tilley. I am the facilities manager for EMI Music Publishing,
and have been so since December 2002. I look after, manage and
maintain the three premises that are occupied by EMI Music Publishing:
127 Charing Cross Road, 12 Goslett Yard and premises we have not
mentioned today, which is 1 Evelyn Yard.
4655. You have already kindly explained who
you are. Could you just explain, first of all, something about
what is at 12 Goslett Yard? It may be helpful for the Committee
if one takes up the bundle of documents. The Committee will see,
at tab 3, there is a plan similar to the plan that was on the
screen which sets the location of the two premises. Tab 8, also,
focuses in on the two premises, Goslett Yard and 127 Charing Cross
Road.[5]
Mr Tilley, could you just explain what goes on at the moment at
12 Goslett Yard?
(Mr Tilley) Certainly. EMI Music
Publishing lease two floors within the multi-tenanted building
that is 12 Goslett Yard. We occupy the first and second floor
rears of the building. On the first floor we have approximately
24 staff and the floor is made up of cellular and open-plan accommodation,
where we have an IT department and we also have our recording
studio there currently. We also have our music library situated
on the first floor. On the second floor we have approximately
25 staff and we have our royalty and tracking departments up there—again,
made up of cellular and open-plan office accommodation. There
is a computer room on this floor. Both floors are in reasonable
decorative condition. We maintain regularly the accommodation
and the services on both floors within the building. Also, we
have use of a garage which forms part of 12 Goslett Yard as well,
and we have recently acquired the use of a bike store to encourage
our staff to ride into work as well. That forms part of the 12
Goslett Yard building.
4656. If you could briefly indicate, because
I think it is up on the Committee's screen, the garage and the
bike store?
(Mr Tilley) Yes. The garage is actually at
the far end of Goslett Yard. So you can see where you have a dog-leg
section, that is where the garage is there. The bike store is
just to the right of the garage location.
4657. We will come on to the scheme for improvement.
If you could just briefly introduce the Committee to what is at
127 Charing Cross Road at the moment.
(Mr Tilley) Of course. 127 Charing Cross Road
is deemed as the headquarters building for EMI Music Publishing
UK. It comprises a ground floor reception area which was recently
refurbished by the landlord at landlord cost. We occupy all of
the offices on the first, second and third floors of the building.
On the ground floor, if I could just go back to that, the rest
of the ground floor is actually made up of retail units. There
currently is in situ Superdrug and soon to be The Engine which
will occupied by Starbucks, and that is an on-going construction
project with that particular tenant. In the basement of the building,
we share that. We have a plant area down there and a storage area.
I would like to correct Mr Jones when he said that the studio
was going down there. That is not actually correct; we are intending
to put our computer room in the basement. I just wanted to make
that point clear. The recording studio, actually, is planned to
be on the first floor of the building. The basement is also occupied
by a nightclub called the Borderline Nightclub. So we share that
accommodation with them. The top floor, the fourth floor of the
building, is made up of a plant room area and telecoms as well,
which is for the sole use of EMI Music Publishing. Within the
office areas are our executives and our managing directors. We
have our A&R department, which is the mainstream blood of
the company; they are the ones who actually listen to music, bring
in bands, listen to bands, etc. So it is very important that they
work within an environment where they can hear music and they
can actually make decisions on whether that music is good and
is going to be a good investment for EMI Music Publishing.
4658. Just in case it is suggested by the Promoters:
"You are complaining about noise, but we see you have a nightclub
in your basement. What is all that about?" Just help us on
that.
(Mr Tilley) The nightclub actually operates
outside of our working hours. We have no disturbance at all from
the nightclub itself.
4659. Notwithstanding the reputation of rock
and roll, you do actually keep normal office hours?
(Mr Tilley) We do. We operate between the hours
of eight o'clock in the morning to eight o'clock in the evening.
Borderline Nightclub, I think, actually starts really getting
going round about eleven o'clock.
4 Crossrail Environmental Statement, Volume 4a, Map
C5(ii) (LINEWD-ES16-026). Back
5
Committee Ref: A56, Goslett Yard Site Plan (SCN20060321-001). Back
|
