Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4900 - 4913)

  4900. Mr Binley: Can I just ask, on a slightly separate issue, whether you know whether Liberty Asset Management Limited or City Parochial Foundation Trustees will be appearing today?

  4901. Mr Elvin: Our best information is that they will not be appearing. We have not heard from Liberty one way or the other, I gather from Mr Walker. They are in receipt of a draft and we were told that they were favourably considering it, but we have not received any confirmation either of acceptance or withdrawal of the Petition, or indeed if they will turn up.

  4902. Mr Binley: Mr Jones, before I call you to make your final submission, can I ask how long you intend to take?

  4903. Mr Jones: Sir, I hope to be between five and ten minutes.

  4904. Mr Binley: Let me converse with the Committee. The Committee will be happy to extend the time beyond one o'clock in order to complete that task, and we will then have to proceed with the other matters as we see fit at that time.

  4905. Mr Jones: I am very grateful, sir. Can I deal with compensation first? It is really a simple issue; it is whether this Committee, exercising its powers in respect of what I will be submitting is fairness and commonsense, in the special circumstances of this case, will recommend an exception to the normal procedure that would operate under the statutory Compensation Code. The question really comes down to, who fairly in this particular case should bear the burden? Should it be the Promoter bearing the burden of risk or should it be EMI? That is really the question. Mr Elvin says, unfortunate as it is, terribly sorry, but EMI must bear the burden of taking the risks on any relocation. We say that that is unfair, and that this is an unusual case.

  4906. In terms of the money that we have already expended, that is something that was not our fault, and I do have to suggest, with all respect to my learned friend's forensic cross-examination of my witness, that it is simply unreasonable for Crossrail to suggest that our client should somehow have ferreted out, at a time when even those instructing my learned friend did not know what land was going to be required for the Crossrail, anything more. You may feel—and I will be suggesting to you—that EMI, through Mr Tilley, took extraordinary steps to keep abreast of the position, and was actually was told that he could not, until he received that letter, know whether any and which of the properties might be CPO'd. In that case—and it is an exceptional case—the burden, in my respectful submission, should fall on the Promoters, otherwise it would lead to the situation where those instructing me would actually be encouraged to go ahead with the scheme which in any sense should not really proceed when there is a threat of a CPO.

  4907. The next question of where the burden should fall is on relocation. Sir, I do ask you and your colleagues to note the heavy reliance that is now placed by Crossrail, through Mr Taylor and also through Mr Elvin, about the steps that my client should take in reconfiguring 127 Charing Cross. That has been put forward as a panacea to all the holes in the assessment procedure that we have found in terms of noise. This is an exceptional case, for this reason: 127 is to be a sensitive location. Ordinarily the Promoters will have assessed it and given it special treatment, if it was existing. The reason it has not had that treatment is because it is said to be a future occupation. Given that there is no doubt about its future occupation and no doubt has been raised by the Promoters about it, this is an exceptional case where the Promoters could be expected to agree, first of all, the reasonable costs in relocation before the service of the CPO notice, and undertake to pay them, or at the very least to agree to what are the reasonable relocation costs. Mr Elvin, beguiling as he may be, is saying, "I am sure this will all work out." I suggest that you only have to see Mr Elvin's cross-examination of my witness on the forensic level of detail as to what notice he should have read or should not have read, will see that there is a recipe for disaster if the particular relocation of this sensitive site is not agreed beforehand. There is nothing to stop the Promoters giving an undertaking that they will use their best endeavours to agree the type of relocation that is acceptable that we can claim. We do not want to have the risk of going ahead with something only to find that we are told we have gone beyond what is reasonable and we have "gold plated" it, to use Mr Elvin's words. So we say that we should get compensation upfront but if we are not to get that we should at least have the comfort of knowing what is going to be compensated for.

  4908. The last thing I would say is this: that becomes even more pressing if the Promoters are not prepared to give more than three months' undertaking. We see no clear, cogent case as to why they cannot give a 12-month or an 18-month notice to us. It has just been referred to that things are all floating in the air, at the moment. Or terms to that effect. A longer notice period would at least give an opportunity for the burden to be shifted away from my clients.

  4909. Finally, I would say it is simply unfair to expect (this is on compensation) them to bear a burden of financial costs in order to secure their recording position within the centre of London, and that they have to take the risk because not enough notice is going to be given to them. Finally, on noise, I just say this: I have already hinted that the big problem—and I repeat what I set out in my opening note without repeating it, you will be pleased to know—is that the Environmental Statement is inadequate. It is supposed to be looking forward, it is the likely significant environmental impact. We have a noise-sensitive location that was not assessed because a mistake was made only to assess existing locations. So that is a flaw and that makes this procedure unlawful.

  4910. However, it is more important than that. This Committee does not have the necessary evidence as to what the noise level and noise climate will be. When we look at the Environmental Statement that was taken in re-examination by my learned friend (it is 8.7.147)[21] it is dealing with those buildings that were assessed. 127 Charing Cross Road is not included within it and I draw your attention to the last words, the caveat: "It is likely that noise insulation will be sufficient to mitigate the noise impact of surface construction in most cases but not all." Even in those that they have assessed, not all of them will be mitigated sufficiently, and our one has not even been assessed. We do ask that best endeavours must be an overall requirement rather than best practicable means—it is not asking for something that is unreasonable; it is something that it is in contractual terms up and down the country. If the courts thought it was unreasonable I would be struck out as an unreasonable term. We ask for special treatment but we do consider we are special—humbly. I have nothing further to add, unless there is anything?

  4911. Mr Binley: Thank you, Mr Jones. Are there any questions for Mr Jones? Thank you very much. Can I say that I assume that we still have Liberty Asset Management Limited and City Parochial Foundation Trustee?

  4912. Mr Elvin: We think City Parochial have withdrawn, in fact.

  4913. Mr Binley: We are told that they might be in the process of resolving, and it seems to me that we cannot therefore continue. I shall therefore make the point that the Committee will stand adjourned until Thursday 23 March at 10.00 am.






21   Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 2; page 171; section 8.7.147 (LINEWD-ES10-147). Back


 
previous page contents

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007