Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4780
- 4799)
4780. Chairman: What I am going to do
is to break for coffee to allow the two of you learned gentlemen
to get together to see if we can form together a form of wording,
bearing in mind that I think that EMI have tried very hard to
meet with Crossrail and have been frustrated to some extent in
that respect. I would like you, if you would, to possibly try
to use the 15 minutes and maybe come to some agreement on this
very fine point, from a layman's point of view, and that will
allow us to get some coffee. So use your "best endeavours"
to come to some agreement! That means that we will break for coffee
for 15 minutes and we will be back at 11.48.
After a short break
4781. Mr Binley: Are we all assembled
as we should be?
4782. Mr Taylor: I am here! I am not
sure where we got to, I am afraid.
4783. Mr Binley: If they wish a little
more time then we are more than happy to give them more time.
4784. Mr Taylor: I think we have probably
reached an impasse.
4785. Mr Binley: Then while we are waiting
let me put on record—and I am sure the Committee would wish
me to do so—that of course this Committee will consider
all the cases put to it. However, we do expect the Promoters and
the Petitioners to negotiate in advance of the Committee to try
to reach mutual agreement, and we deprecate time wasting by either
side and expect Crossrail to act professionally when conducting
meetings and make sure that meetings are adhered to. We were disappointed
to hear of the record with regard to this particular matter, and
I hope that we will not be hearing a similar story again. I am
sure we will not, and I am sure that that information will be
passed back to the Promoters.
4786. Mr Taylor: It will indeed.
4787. Mr Binley: If you would like to
continue.
4788. Mr Elvin: Can I just give an indication,
sir? The concern that has been raised with regard to "endeavour
to ensure". I am not in a position to give a more general
undertaking such as is sought, but what I can do is this—which
I hope goes sufficiently far to clarify the position—at
5.1.1 of the Construction Code, which is part of the IPs, which
is the best practicable means test, I can give an assurance to
the Committee that that is intended to be the overarching requirement,
not the endeavour to assure—that is the sub-part of the
construction issues.[14]
The overriding requirement is the best practicable means which
is to do all that is reasonably practicable, in other words. Therefore,
that is the governing requirement. That stands free of any consents
obtained under the Control of Pollution Act; it is the policy
of the Secretary of State, as set out in the Information Papers
put to the Committee and to Parliament. Although the definition
of best practicable means is taken from the Control of Pollution
Act, this assurance in 5.1.1 is freestanding and stands above
it. Sir, I know the concern on the "endeavours to ensure"
and I just want to make it absolutely clear that our position
on the overriding test is the more rigorous test of best practicable
means, and that is a scheme-wide policy.
4789. Mr Binley: Might I call upon Mr
Jones, just to respond to that bearing in mind that I did ask
you if you would have words?
4790. Mr Jones: Yes, we did have some
words. That recent point was conveyed to me by my learned friend
just before we went in, so this is almost my immediate reaction.
Obviously we are grateful for the clarification. However, there
are concerns and if I can flag them up very briefly so that the
Committee knows? Number one, we need to know—and I am sure
the Committee may already have this assurance—I do not know
what status the Construction Code has. Is it subject to a formal
undertaking? That is number one. Number two, in terms of the overriding
obligation to act as far as reasonably practicable, there are
two concerns. First of all, that does not indicate an objective
in itself. You act as far as reasonably practicable, but we have
no indication from the Promoter what the expected noise levels
are going to be as a result of being reasonably practicable. What
we would have liked to have seen in the Environmental Statement
but also in the evidence—it does not matter in that sense
about the Environmental Statement—is an indication from
the Promoters as to what the likely noise level was to which they
were using reasonably practicable means to achieve that. The second
question is that "reasonably practicable" is not the
highest obligation that a Promoter may be under, and we would
still prefer a requirement that requires them to take best endeavours.
Reasonably practicable is quite a low threshold, it does not require
them to do everything that they could do, but everything that
the ordinary industry practice says is reasonable and practicable.
We do say that we are a special case and that we do require something
above the ordinary, and we require the best endeavours. Obviously
there is a disagreement between the Promoters and ourselves on
that, but we require best endeavours rather than the ordinary
course of events. I do not know if that is of assistance to the
Committee but that explains our position.
4791. Mr Binley: Thank you very much,
we are grateful for that. Can I ask Mr Taylor if you would like
to continue to cross-examine Mr Tilley?
4792. Mr Taylor: Yes, just a few short
points. Mr Tilley, when the studio is moved from 12 Goslett Yard
in to 127 Charing Cross Road, you will be able to design it to
take into account the potential impact of the construction activity
of Crossrail, will you not?
(Mr Tilley) We would obviously bear in mind
any type of noise intrusion into the studio to ensure that, as
far as we can economically commit, it runs as a productive studio.
If that meant that we would have to incur major costs to ensure
that any noise intrusion from the construction works did not interfere
with the actual studio activity then that is something that we
would need to take up further with Crossrail.
4793. The studio could be made to be acoustically
isolated, could it not?
(Mr Tilley) I would assume so but, as I said,
I do not know what the financial implication of that would be.
4794. Because the studio has to be moved because
12 Goslett Yard is being compulsorily required, is it your understanding
that costs incurred in providing the new studio would be the subject
of compensation?
(Mr Tilley) The costs of actually transferring
the people and facilities from 12 Goslett Yard into 127, it is
my understanding that that would be part of the compensation settlement.
I do not know the detail of exactly what costs are acceptable
to Crossrail and what are not.
4795. As far as the performance by bands is
concerned, you explained before that that was carried out in the
boardroom at 12 Goslett Yard, but presumably there are other meetings
in 127 Charing Cross Road that could be used for that purpose?
(Mr Tilley) No, the boardroom is quite a large
meeting room.
4796. I will rephrase that question. When you
carried out your refurbishment at 127 Charing Cross Road and redesigned
that to accommodate the decanted staff and the various facilities
at 12 Goslett Yard, that particular activity of bands performing
could be carried out within a boardroom or some similar sized
room within 127 Charing Cross Road, could it not?
(Mr Tilley) The actual planned layout of the
building has not actually been committed to as yet because obviously
we have put a hold on the process until we know exactly where
we stand with regard to this whole process. The initial sketches
of the building actually committed to a boardroom facility.
The boardroom is quite a large room to accommodate members of
staff to come over to actually view bands, et cetera. I just want
to make the point that this is a concern but it is not a key concern
because we were trying to get across the fact that we do have
bands that come in to perform to staff, as this is the type of
company we are. Our major concern regards the day to day activity
with regard to groups coming in on a one to one session with our
A&R managers, and the actual day to day activity of our A&R
managers and other associated personnel, by EMI being able to
listen to music without that activity being intruded upon by construction
noise from the Crossrail project.
4797. That activity at the moment is undertaken
within the open plan office, is it, that you currently operate
at 12 Goslett Yard?
(Mr Tilley) Are you referring to listening
to music, listening to bands?
4798. Yes.
(Mr Tilley) It is actually carried out within
an office based environment within our A&R department.
4799. Is that an open place space environment?
(Mr Tilley) No, they are offices because obviously
you have two or three groups that come in.
14 Crossrail Information Paper D1-Construction Code:
Noise and Vibration (LINEWD-IPD1-023). Back
| 
