Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4700
- 4719)
4700. Mr Elvin: Mr Tilley, it is not
a point that is raised in your Petition, is it?
(Mr Tilley) Sorry, could you ask the question
again please?
4701. Yes. Mr Jones raised a point concerning
failure to comply with the requirements of the environmental assessment
in the context of noise. I have looked at the noise sections of
your Petition and indeed the whole of your Petition and noise
starts at paragraph 19, but it does not seem to us that EMI has
raised this issue in its Petition. I just wanted your confirmation
that that is so.
(Mr Tilley) We raised the issue about noise
during the construction of the proposed work, as you quite rightly
say, in section 19. The whole process that we have committed to
with regards to the Petition is ongoing from our point of view
and it is a subject which has come to light since then—
4702. So the answer to my question is that yes,
it is not in your Petition?
(Mr Tilley) Well, if I could just finish, the
actual concerns we have raised on noise are in there and the fact
that it has actually been expanded upon just adds to our concerns
basically.
4703. I am sorry, Mr Tilley, but it is a very
simple question and I know you are anxious not to answer it, but
it is not in your Petition, is it?
(Mr Tilley) Not specifically, no.
4704. Mr Jones: I will address the Committee
on this; it is a legal submission.
4705. Mr Elvin: Can I go to the question
of the relocation, and the bits of the operation which are being
displaced from Goslett Yard, to 127 Charing Cross Road. Are you
aware that costs spent prior to compulsory purchase, but which
are fairly attributable to compulsory purchase are in principle
recoverable, providing you can demonstrate they arise from the
compulsory purchase once the land has actually been taken, in
other words, costs prior to vesting, if they are properly flowing
from the consideration of compulsory purchase, can be recoverable?
Were you aware of that?
4706. Mr Jones: It is a matter of law.
My learned friend is making a submission as a matter of law.
4707. Mr Binley: Let us let Mr Elvin
finish and then you will have a total opportunity to come in,
Mr Jones.
4708. Mr Elvin: Mr Tilley?
(Mr Tilley) Are you referring to the £41,000
we have already spent?
4709. Mr Tilley, the concern, as I understand
it, is that there is money that you have wasted and there is the
money that you would have to spend putting 127 into order so that
you can decant the operations that are currently at Goslett Yard
into 127. Is that right?
(Mr Tilley) That is correct.
4710. Because, as I understood your complaint
from your evidence, it is that you are worried that you will not
get the money which you have to expend before we take possession?
(Mr Tilley) That is correct. We are seeking
comfort to ensure that not only can we be compensated for the
abortive costs which we have already spent, but also for the costs
that we will have to incur to accommodate our staff within 127
Charing Cross Road.
4711. And those are costs which will arise directly
from the fact that in due course the land at Goslett Yard will
be acquired? Is that right?
(Mr Tilley) Yes.
4712. So it is purely the costs of going from
Goslett Yard into 127 and the refitting of 127 so that you can
accommodate the staff and activities that have been moved from
the one to the other?
(Mr Tilley) Correct.
4713. I will just ask you again: are you under
the impression, because if you are I will make submissions to
the Committee in due course, that those costs are not compensatable?
(Mr Tilley) I am not under the impression that
the costs are not compensatable. The problem, as Mr Jones pointed
out, is the fact that we require compensation for these costs,
but also that we are given time to carry out the necessary refurbishment.
If we carry out the refurbishment in advance of Crossrail, then
we are in danger of not being able to receive compensation for
those costs and if we wait for Crossrail to receive Royal Assent,
then the current standard is that we will be given three months'
notice which would be impossible to carry out the refurbishment
requirement for 127 Charing Cross Road to accommodate the staff
within the building.
4714. Well, you are aware presumably on the
notice question that Crossrail has said to date that it can definitely
give three months' notice, that it cannot commit to a longer period
at the moment, but it will strive to give more notice than the
three months.
(Mr Tilley) Striving to give more notice does
not really give us comfort because, as our barrister has pointed
out, we have estimated between 12 and 18 months to actually carry
out the works required to accommodate the staff within 127 Charing
Cross Road.
4715. You will not get the compensation until
after the property vests in the Secretary of State. That is the
way the Compensation Code works. You are going to have to start
the work in advance of getting the compensation in any event.
(Mr Tilley) We were actually led to believe
from our meetings with Crossrail that if we started the works
in advance we would be in danger of not being able to be compensated
for those works.
4716. If, for some reason, Royal Assent were
not granted or the scheme did not go ahead, then, like everyone
else, you take a risk, so if you decide to act in advance, you
may do so at your own risk, but if the scheme goes ahead, then
works which are fairly attributable to the fact that we are taking
your property, as far as I am aware, are properly recoverable
as compensation in law, as per our information papers.
(Mr Tilley) That is something that has not
actually been communicated very well to us during our meetings
and we were actually advised during our meetings that if we started
the works beforehand, then they would be deemed as improvement
works to EMI and not attributable to the Compensation Code.
4717. Well, I think in that case, there is a
misunderstanding as to the legal position and I do not think I
need to pursue that any further. If it helps the Committee, I
will explain my understanding of the legal position.
4718. Mr Binley: Mr Elvin, if there is
a legal misunderstanding, you might be able to help the Committee
because it seems to me that there are two issues here. The first
concerns the £41,000 expended on design work for the £½
million of work which did not go ahead because of Crossrail, and
the second seems to be with regard to the time-frame to be given
to allow EMI to do what seems to me to be a bit of a technical
job anyway because of the equipment and so forth they have. Are
you now saying that the £41,000 is perfectly compensatable,
but at a later time?
4719. Mr Elvin: I am not sure that the
£41,000 is compensatable under the National Compensation
Code. If it affects the value of the land, and I suspect it probably
does not if no works were actually carried out to the property,
then it would not be compensatable under the National Compensation
Code in any event. It is the sort of risk that Parliament has
always said that landowners should bear in the case of such projects.
With regards to works carried out for sorting out the move, fitting
out the new parts of the premises to accommodate, that compensation
will be payable if, as a matter of fact, they can show at the
time it is properly attributable to the compulsory purchase, even
though the works might have started before the property vests
in the Secretary of State, and if the Committee wants it, I can
give you the legal references.
| 
