Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4980
- 4999)
4980. If it was suggested to you, as it might
be, on the part of the Promoter that the only reason that you
are putting forward the solution and asking them to pay for you
to move is because you are intending to move anyway, what would
your reaction be?
(Mr Johnson) I would reject that completely.
If we have moved before Crossrail takes place, then all our concerns
would fall away. That is what we have suggested, that an undertaking
is given to us to relocate us, if we are still there and if Crossrail
goes ahead. That is all we are asking for. Obviously if we move
in the next six months, then the case will be closed and there
will be no mitigation or relocation required because we will have
gone.
4981. Do you have, and you may not, Mr Kahn's
exhibits to hand?
(Mr Johnson) No.
4982. If you have not, you will be given them.
Sir, I think you have these.
4983. Mr Binley: Could I just inform
you that this will be noted as A59.[9]
4984. Mr Cameron: Thank you, sir. Exhibit
3 is actually the report from Mr Thornley-Taylor, the Promoter's
noise consultant, but attached to the back of that report is what
is called `Appendix C: BBFC Information', the last part of the
bundle. In Appendix C is a letter from Mr Ian Sutherland of the
BBFC of 3 May 2005 and attached to that letter is a summary of
the issues of concern to BBFC. Do you have that?
(Mr Johnson) I do.
4985. If you go to the last page of that document,
there is a heading on the last page of `Vibration'.[10]
Do you have that?
(Mr Johnson) Yes.
4986. The third sentence under `Vibration' says:
"After Crossrail is built, we may have to move the theatre
to another floor depending on noise vibration levels from the
tracks, elevator and loudspeaker systems". Now, is moving
the theatre to another floor an option which you would contemplate?
(Mr Johnson) No, it is not. It is unfortunate
that this letter was sent. It was sent by the building maintenance
officer unfortunately without consulting anybody involved in an
actual examination of the works. I think it was sent in good faith
in an attempt to be helpful, but it does not represent what is
actually a reasonable possibility for us. The way that the building
is constructed, the only space in the building which is large
enough for a cinema of sufficient scale is the basement which
is why the cinema is in the basement. All the other floors have
stairwells going through them which prevent us having the width
and the shape of room that we need in order to project an image
of suitable size. That is why it is in the basement and not anywhere
else and we cannot move it anywhere else.
4987. Thank you very much. I have no other questions
for you.
Cross-examined by Mr
Elvin
4988. Mr Elvin: Mr Johnson, can we get
one matter out of the way. You repeated to the Committee a number
of times what you understand to be the uncertainty of the novel
solution of the escalator. You are merely repeating what you have
been told by your consultant and it is not a matter of your own
expertise, is it?
(Mr Johnson) That is correct.
4989. So I can leave that to the noise experts,
can I?
(Mr Johnson) Yes.
4990. Can we come then to the question of the
theatre. It is correct, is it not, with regard to your relocation
plans, and we can actually go back to your third exhibit, that
the first formal confirmation we have had from the BBFC that this
was a possibility was when we received this evidence yesterday
afternoon? That is right, is it not?
(Mr Johnson) I would have to review
all the correspondence which there has been.
4991. I have the correspondence and I am not
going to waste the Committee's time in going through it, but although
we had suspicions, and indeed I think I mentioned them to Mr Cameron,
the first formal time the Committee was ever told that the BBFC
has ever gone on record as saying that it is looking at the alternative
to move was yesterday afternoon when we got this evidence. Are
you aware of any other correspondence in which you, as a public
authority, drew your plans to our attention?
(Mr Johnson) I am not aware of any, no.
4992. Let us just examine this situation because
you are asking the public, through the Department for Transport,
to spend money on buying all of your premises rather than carrying
out limited works to make them noise-proof. Do you know what the
value of your premises is and the costs of relocation that you
are asking the public to incur because that is the consequence
of what you are asking the Committee to do?
(Mr Johnson) I do not have those figures to
hand, no.
4993. What is the length of your lease?
(Mr Johnson) It is 125 years from 2003.
4994. So a 125-year lease in Soho is going to
be worth many millions of pounds. We can all work that one out,
can we not? Then there is the cost of relocating, actually moving
all your equipment and fitting out new premises and that is what
effectively you are asking the Secretary of State and the public
purse to bear by your request that we buy you outright.
(Mr Johnson) The Board is funded purely by
the fees and charges on its clients.
4995. Yes, the private sector pays your fees.
(Mr Johnson) Our view is that if relocation
is forced upon us by Crossrail, then Crossrail should bear the
costs.
4996. I am sorry, but just stick to my question.
You are suggesting that we buy you out. You are funded by the
private sector because they pay effectively a levy for the privilege
of having their films classified for public exhibition; it is
a self-funding exercise.
(Mr Johnson) That is correct, yes.
4997. What you want is for the public to pay
for you to relocate at the cost of many millions of pounds.
(Mr Johnson) We are asking for the costs of
relocation to be met.
4998. As opposed to acoustic insulation works
which are likely to cause some hundreds of thousands of pounds
worth of cost as opposed to millions of pounds worth. Does that
seem right to you?
(Mr Johnson) We do not believe that the acoustic
insulation solutions proposed in the last day or so will actually
enable us to carry out our tasks, so we cannot accept that.
4999. I am very sorry, Mr Johnson, but I am
sure the Committee would quite like an answer to my question rather
than your spin which is that what you are asking is for the expenditure
of public money in the order of millions rather than in the order
of hundreds of thousands which is what the Secretary of State
is offering so that you can carry out your statutory functions.
Now, whether you think that will work or not we can debate in
a moment, but that is the order of the magnitude that is involved,
is it not?
(Mr Johnson) I do not have to hand the relative
costings for either solution and I would dispute that one of those
is actually a solution because it will not allow us to discharge
our statutory function to a satisfactory standard which is why
we are suggesting that relocation is the preferable option.
9 Committee Ref: A59, British Board of Film Classification,
Noise and Vibration from Construction Exhibits. Back
10
Committee Ref, A59, British Board of Film Classification, Appendix
C (WESTCC-14805-111). Back
| 
