Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007