Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4720
- 4739)
4720. Mr Binley: So there is no misunderstanding
between the Promoters and the Petitioner over the £41,000?
4721. Mr Elvin: That is unlikely to be
recoverable.
4722. Mr Binley: So the first point,
I think we have arrived at that.
4723. Mr Elvin: Indeed.
4724. Mr Binley: The second point I want
to arrive at is that there is a difference of opinion as to the
time that EMI might need to move and the notice that Crossrail
might give to allow them to undertake that move. There is still
a difference there, I assume.
4725. Mr Elvin: To which the point is
that EMI can move whenever it wishes, but until the Bill receives
Royal Assent and the project is given the green light, there is
a risk of course that the property will not be acquired and compensation
will not be payable. That is again a perfectly normal situation
under the Code, but what happens is that if it does get the green
light and goes ahead, any advance work of that nature which is
attributable to acquisition, even though it is before it, can
be the subject of the Compensation Code.
4726. Mr Binley: I not understand that
the misunderstanding is now clarified, so thank you, I am grateful.
Would you like to continue?
4727. Mr Elvin: In that case, I will
ask Mr Taylor to ask any questions about noise. Those are the
only questions I have.
4728. Mr Binley: Well, would it be helpful
to Mr Jones if he re-examines on the points you have just made?
Re-examined by Mr Jones
4729. Mr Jones: I think, sir, you have
already dealt with the major part of my learned friend's cross-examination
on the extent to which EMI had to search out the route of Crossrail.
Mr Tilley, can you just take up the bundle that we gave in. I
think it may be helpful if the Committee see what the Promoters,
through Transport for London, were actually saying as of 16 January
this year at tab 6.[8]
You have been asked about your understanding. Have you seen this
letter before? It was sent to your parliamentary agents. Have
you seen this letter of 16 January?
(Mr Tilley) Yes.
4730. Can we just go to the fourth paragraph.
It is from Transport for London, dealing with the various meetings
and then it responds: "Your client's concerns regarding costs
involved with relocating staff from 12 Goslett Yard is noted as
is the request for an undertaking that CLRL will underwrite such
costs. Regretfully at this time I cannot see the necessity now
for relocation (due to the scheme) since the project does not
have Royal Assent", and of course we do not stop with Royal
Assent, "nor consequent upon such agreement has any Notice
to Treat or Notice of Entry been served", which is what Mr
Elvin, I think, euphemistically refers to as the `green light'.
"As mentioned at meeting liability for costs follows from
such events having taken place and as these matters are some years
off and by no means certain, I cannot agree a recommendation that
would make CLRL liable at this time." Does that accord with
your understanding of the position which was being put by the
Promoters?
(Mr Tilley) Yes, that is correct.
4731. Tell me this: if the position were that
the Promoters were to offer an undertaking to pay your relocation
costs prior to notice of entry first of all or notice to treat,
can you see any difficulty in actually assessing what those costs
are likely to be? Is there any problem, as far as you can see,
in working out what those costs are likely to be?
(Mr Tilley) No. We have actually done some
provisional work with regards to how much it would cost to refurbish
our building and to accommodate the staff at 12 Goslett Yard within
the building and we have used a fair proportion of those costs
which have actually been included within the information that
we have passed on to Crossrail with regard to what we would consider
to be fair and reasonable compensation for the relocation of staff
into 127.
4732. Mr Elvin's position is if you have got
to get up and running and you cannot do it within three months,
any commercial risks of moving early of the green light should
be borne by EMI and not the Promoters of the Bill and that is
a risk that he says you should take. Let us just put that to one
side and let us assume even that he is right or that the Committee
feel that it is right and fair that the burden should fall on
EMI and not the Promoters of the Bill, in determining, would you
have any comfort if an undertaking was given by the Promoters
that they would at least agree that the costs that you were proposing
to undertake in your relocation would, if the scheme went ahead,
be attributable to the scheme, even though you did not have the
guarantee, which we want and are asking the Committee for, but
even if you did not have that, would it be possible in terms of
an agreement to at least seek an undertaking from Mr Elvin's clients
that if it went ahead, there would not then be an argument which
said, "Oh, we're sorry, this is not attributable to this
scheme"? Would that at least give you some comfort?
(Mr Tilley) It would do. We have actually asked
for that before at our meetings with Crossrail, so it is of some
surprise to me today that the position was not communicated very
well to us, but yes, that would give us comfort.
4733. So your understanding is that when you
asked Crossrail that even if they would not guarantee those costs
until the Crossrail scheme went ahead and the various notices
were served, could they at least agree that these would be attributable
if it went ahead, and they refused that as well?
(Mr Tilley) It would be agreeable to EMI if
we could have an agreement in principle on the costs.
4734. Yes. Thank you very much.
Further examined by Mr
Taylor
4735. Mr Taylor: I would like to take
you, if I may, to a letter from Bircham Dyson Bell to Winckworth
Sherwood of 23 February 2006 which is in our information lodged
and it is at tab 10 of the bundle lodged by yourselves.[9]
We can see that on the first page of this letter your solicitors
indicate that they are writing further to the meeting of 17 February
and the second paragraph indicates: "You will recall that
we concentrated upon three main issues about which EMI has concerns
and in respect of which it seeks further undertakings or assurances
from the Promoter." Can you see that?
(Mr Tilley) Yes.
4736. So this letter sets out, does it not,
the undertakings that EMI are seeking from Crossrail?
(Mr Tilley) It sets out the results
of our meeting with Crossrail that was held on 17 February.
4737. And it sets out the undertakings that
you are seeking to meet the concerns in your Petition? That must
be right, must it not, Mr Tilley?
(Mr Tilley) Can I review the document? I am
not refusing to answer your question. It actually covers three
of the points in here, the access point, the noise point and also
the compensation point. As I have mentioned before, the other
concern that we have is obviously with regards to the actual notice
as well. Without reading every single word in here, I do not know
whether or not the essence of that is also included in here.
4738. It is, but I am concerned with the noise
point. As far as the noise is concerned, we can see at page 2
to page 3 the points which are raised and on page 2 under the
heading "Noise", we can see that the concerns raised
relate to the sound recording studio which will need to be relocated.[10]
(Mr Tilley) That is correct.
4739. And the particular concerns that are raised
are in relation to the potential effect of groundborne noise on
the relocated sound recording studio.
(Mr Tilley) Yes.
8 Committee Ref: A56, Petitioner's bundle-Tab 6 Correspondence
between Bircham Dyson Bell and Transport for London (SCN20060321-005/6). Back
9
Crossrail Ref: P63, Correspondence from Bircham Dyson Bell to
Winckworth Sherwood, 23 February 2006 (WESTCC-8904-004). Back
10
Crossrail Ref: P63, Correspondence from Bircham Dyson Bell to
Winckworth Sherwood, 23 February 2006 (WESTCC-8904-005). Back
| 
