Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4880
- 4899)
4880. What does that statement in 8.7.151 indicate?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Well, it has general application
for the route window concerned and, therefore, to these premises,
although they are not specifically referred to here.
4881. If we turn on to page 171, paragraph 8.7.147,
we can see that we are under the heading, "Noise from surface
construction activity at Tottenham Court Road Station and Fisher
Street ventilation shaft", and there is an indication in
8.7.147 of a number of properties that would be affected by significant
construction noise impact from station works, and it concludes
that: "However, although it has not been practicable to determine
the effectiveness of noise insulation at each individual property,
it is likely that noise insulation will be sufficient to mitigate
the noise impact of surface construction activity in most cases".[20]
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) That is right.
4882. Now, given the noise environment in this
area, given the fact that there is the opportunity to reconfigure
127 Charing Cross Road in whatever acoustic manner one chooses
and given the conclusion in 8.7.147, what is your view of the
likely impact of construction activity upon, firstly, the office
use of 127 Charing Cross Road and, secondly, the studio use that
is proposed within that building?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) In the event there will
be no significant effect from these works.
4883. When you met EMI, I think you were present
at a meeting in February. Is that correct?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, I was.
4884. Was any issue raised at that meeting relating
to the potential effect of construction arising from airborne
noise?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) It may have been mentioned.
It does not stick in my mind as one of the principal issues.
4885. Mr Taylor: Thank you. Those are
all the questions I have.
4886. Mr Binley: Thank you very much.
We now call upon either Mr Elvin or Mr Taylor to make your final
statement on this.
4887. Mr Elvin: We are doing Tweedledum
and Tweedledee today, so I think it is my turn. I think Mr Taylor
wants to know which of the two he is!
4888. Sir, can I start firstly with the noise
issue. Sir, the position is clear. You have just seen the relevant
sections of the Environmental Statement, volume 2, pages 169 to
171, and you have had Mr Thornley-Taylor's expert view on the
issue. Given that the Committee is not being asked to consider
the impact on existing premises, Goslett Yard will go and 127
will be changed, the question is: given the existing environment
and given the likely construction activities, will there be a
significant effect on the reconfigured 127? His view is that it
is straightforward to accommodate EMI's requirements because they
will be reconfiguring 127 in any event. In my submission, providing
EMI do not plate the walls with gold or do something unreasonable,
any reasonable works which EMI seek to carry out in order to accommodate
their move because Crossrail displaces them from Goslett Yard
to 127, those will be disturbance costs which will be properly
recoverable under the National Compensation Code. Therefore, in
my respectful submission, this really is a storm in a teacup because
the issues about noise that EMI are concerned with, it can easily
deal with and providing it does not over-egg the pudding and act
unreasonably in the works it does to move its studio from Goslett
Yard to 127, then it should be able to recover those amounts in
compensation.
4889. Of course we cannot agree them in advance
because we do not know yet what works are going to be done or
what works EMI will consider to be necessary, but the principle,
in my submission, is absolutely clear. So, in my submission, there
is therefore no concern.
4890. So far as the issue of best practicable
means, I gave the position—and I have double-checked that
I have not misunderstood my instructions from the Secretary of
State—and the way I put it to the Committee is the correct
way. 5.1.1: the use of best practicable means is the overriding
criteria. D10 is dealing with the specific case of taking additional
steps for sensitive properties, but the overriding requirement
is a requirement which Parliament itself devised, and that is
best practicable means—to do what is reasonably practicable—and
no one, in my respectful submission, could say it would be fair
or sensible to require something to be done which was unreasonable.
So the debate about best endeavours, endeavour to ensure and the
like, in my respectful submission, simply falls away. We are using
a concept which Parliament itself has thought appropriate to apply;
we are using it as the overriding requirement. If I could just
remind the Committee, without asking for the document to be put
up, what 5.1.1 of the Construction Code says is: "The Nominated
Undertaker will apply Best Practicable Means ... to all activities."
Unqualified.
4891. The Construction Code—so that Mr
Jones has it from me, and the Committee has the reassurance—is
part of the EMRs, the Environmental Minimum Requirements, and
the Code itself says this at paragraphs 1.1.3 and 1.1.4. And I
gave an undertaking on behalf of the Secretary of State to this
Committee on the first day of the hearings, and it is paragraph
112 of the transcript for 17 January, that the Secretary of State
will take such steps as are reasonably necessary to secure compliance
by the nominated undertaker with those Environmental Minimum Requirements.
So the EMRs, which include the Construction Code, are already
secured by an undertaking I have given to this Committee on behalf
of the Secretary of State. As Mr Thornley-Taylor has explained
to you in evidence, what is needed to be done here is nothing
unusual and nothing difficult.
4892. I turn therefore briefly to the compensation
position. Can I respectfully remind the Committee that I set out
the general position when I dealt with the Smithfield Market Traders?
I will give you the transcript references so that they can be
read into the record. It is the transcript for 1 March, day 14
of the Committee hearings, paragraphs 4042 to 4051, repeated by
Mr Mould on 14 March in paragraphs 4024 to 4025, and it is set
out in C2. The position with regard to the £41,000 was money
expended; and I do say this, that in the light of the knowledge
that Crossrail was going ahead—although without the details
of the Bill at that stage—it is simply part of the scheme
which Parliament has approved that such items which are entitled
"blight" I suppose, one might call it, are not recoverable
by commercial occupiers. And we simply come back to the position
that we set out on a number of occasions to this Committee and
in Information Paper C2, that the Secretary of State considers
it is appropriate that the position which Parliament has considered
should apply to everybody under the compensation provisions should
apply to those affected by Crossrail, and that there is nothing
unfair in applying the normal rules to everybody rather than creating
special cases. In any event, the issue with regard to monies which
were expended in 2004 does not apply to the works required to
relocate to 127. Sums only become due when the Bill achieves Royal
Assent and eventually the land is taken, but the works can be
done in advance—admittedly with a degree of risk. But if
EMI do not start the works until it knows at least that Crossrail
is going ahead, even if the works have not been started, works
which are reasonably attributable to the taking of the property
and the fitting out of the new property at Charing Cross Road,
in my respectful submission, providing they are reasonable they
properly fall within the compensation principles. If the Committee
wants the relevant legal reference—and I am sure it will
fascinate the Committee as usual—the case that sets this
out is a case called the Director of Buildings and Land v.
Shun Fung Ironworks—another name that sticks in the
mind!—and it is set out in footnote 11 to Information Paper
C2, so that the shorthand writer will know how to spell it!
4893. Mr Binley: Thank you.
4894. Mr Elvin: Sir, we simply say of
the compensation provisions that the main aspect, which is the
fitting out of 127 to accommodate the move, to accommodate the
need to have a properly sound insulated studio should, providing
it is reasonable, be compensateable, should be recoverable under
the Code providing, again, that it is reasonable. Therefore, if
one looks at the noise issues and the compensation issues, other
than the £41,000 which was incurred at the time when EMI,
we say, could have suspended matters until they found out what
exactly was happening with Crossrail, given that they knew that
Crossrail was proceeding, given that they knew that there had
been information provided and that Crossrail was asking for details
of their properties, in any event it is not a position which the
Committee ought to support; but in any event it is not covered
by the Compensation Code.
4895. So far as advanced notice is concerned,
the Secretary of State has said that three months at least can
be given. We will do our best to improve on that but at this stage
in the design of the project it is impossible to give any greater
certainty than that. All I can say to the Committee is that there
is an incentive on the Nominated Undertaker and the Secretary
of State to do better than three months because not to do so might
aggravate the compensation flow. So there is a financial incentive
on the Secretary of State as matters proceed to improve on the
three months, and we will certainly do so if at all possible.
4896. Sir, I was given an amended undertaking
which I was going to give to the Committee on access. I will read
it out. It is the one I think which is referred to in correspondence.
Mr Jones need not worry about the reference he heard to "amended"
because we put together a draft version overnight and we asked
Winckworth's just to check that we had done it correctly, and
they were amending our version not the version that was necessarily
discussed between them and Bircham's. The undertaking, such as
it is, is this: "(1) The Nominated Undertaker shall, so far
as is reasonably practicable, be required during construction
of the works to maintain vehicular access to Goslett Yard between
the hours of 8 am and 12 pm, Monday to Friday, and to restrict
the closure of Goslett Yard to weekends. (2) The Nominated Undertaker
shall give EMI Music Publishing Limited at least 14 days' notice
of the closure of Goslett Yard and shall consider all reasonable
requests made by EMI Music Publishing Limited regarding deliveries
during such a closure. (3) The Nominated Undertaker shall consult
with EMI Music Publishing Limited regarding any proposed closure
of the vehicular access to Goslett Yard on a weekday." I
will show this to Mr Jones, sir. I think that reflects what was
agreed in correspondence.
4897. Mr Jones: Sir, yes it does. If
there is any point I think I can deal with it as appropriate.
4898. Mr Binley: Thank you, Mr Elvin.
Do you wish for Mr Taylor to add any comment?
4899. Mr Elvin: No, sir.
20 Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 2; page
171; section 8.7.147 (LINEWD-ES10-147). Back
|
