Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5280
- 5299)
5280. We accept that if BBFC remain in these
premises, some mitigation is required and, as the Committee know,
we have put forward two means of dealing with this. One is the
escalator solution which, for the reasons Mr Thornley-Taylor explained
to you, is entirely feasible, and the second is what we have called
the `acoustic cocoon' within the theatre itself. This is against
a background where it is acknowledged that the theatre and the
premises are less than ideal. You have seen Mr Kahn's own report,
but, more than that, we know that BBFC are looking actively at
options of either taking additional premises or moving. I have
to say to the Committee that BBFC have been less than open with
regard to their plans for the premises. You will recall my putting
it to Mr Johnson this morning, and his acceptance, that until
we saw the minutes yesterday, we had no formal indication from
BBFC that they were even considering taking other premises, and
he told you that it was completely unclear as to when that was
going to happen. Yet, when we saw the minutes that I asked to
see later on in the morning, it was clear that they are negotiating
for new premises even as we speak, so BBFC have not exactly put
their cards on the table either to Crossrail or to the Committee
with regard to its plans for the future. We say there must at
least be a high degree of risk that BBFC want to move and Mr Johnson's
suggestion, "Well, now we're negotiating for a bit of extra
office space, we may not have to", does not actually answer
the point because if you go back to the earlier minutes in December,
the point that is being made is that, "It might be better,
if we are having to take a bit of office space here and a bit
of office space there, ultimately to amalgamate all of those in
one place". You already heard from Mr Johnson this morning
that the BBFC would prefer to have a single set of premises which
are secure, which can be policed and in which all their activities
can take place.
5281. There must, therefore, be a clear risk,
given the level of activity that is taking place at the moment,
that BBFC will want to go and we are, therefore, very concerned
as to BBFC's suggestion that we should be forced to purchase them
for two reasons. Firstly, we think it is disproportionate because
clearly we are proposing mitigation measures which should be entirely
effective and cost a few hundred thousand pounds as opposed to
acquiring a property in Soho on a 125-year lease which is clearly
worth millions of pounds, plus paying the costs of disrupting
the business and moving BBFC to other premises. Clearly, the costs
of mitigation versus the BBFC solution are a difference in magnitude,
millions as opposed to hundreds of thousands perhaps. We say in
the context, given that there is an adequate solution, one of
two that remain open to BBFC to accept at any time, the disproportionate
nature of BBFC's solution we suggest ought to lead the Committee
to reject the view that the Secretary of State should be forced
to acquire or to give them an option.
5282. If one asks oneself the question, what
incentive will there be on the BBFC to expend the money which
they derive from the private sector in carrying out the film classifications
and finding premises which clearly they need, as opposed to sitting
tight, waiting and getting the benefit of public money to be spent
on an option which they want, there is no incentive in the arrangements
which BBFC suggest which would force them to get a move on and
avoid having to expend public money. We are concerned from that
point of view.
5283. However, we put forward two solutions,
both of which have been explained to you by Mr Thornley-Taylor
as being perfectly satisfactory in achieving the noise mitigation
measures. So far as the cocoon is concerned, BBFC, given the option
of dealing with it, did not field a witness who knew anything
much about the minimum distances to screens, what can be done
with regard to perhaps moving the screen or adjusting its dimensions.
We are not talking about the physical area in which the screen
is being viewed but the installation in which it is located.
5284. From the fact that there is scope to take
out at least eight seats because they have more seats than the
maximum needed—38 seats and they only need 29 at most—there
is scope to move the screen further into the premises because
the front row of seats will be taken out. There is some scope
for adjustment within the theatre. The suggestion therefore that
this ought to be rejected in favour of the acquisition of the
property at many millions of pounds, in our submission, is disproportionate.
5285. We submit, for the reasons Mr Thornley-Taylor
has put forward which ought to be preferred over Mr Kahn who chose
to rely for reasons which we do not understand on an inapplicable
standard to take an approach of extreme caution which was not
warranted to the other methods, that provides the Committee with
sufficient assurance that the Secretary of State is willing to
take reasonable steps to secure the statutory function of BBFC,
not to underwrite at the cost of the public purse BBFC's own plans
to move.
5286. Mr Binley: I do not wish to prejudice
any issue whatsoever but the fact that you will expend millions
of pounds you made a point of. Are not those millions recoverable
by simply selling on the building to other users who do not need
the particular requirements of the Board?
5287. Mr Elvin: Can I make two points
in respect of that? The Committee, who are very familiar with
the business sector, will be aware of this: firstly, you have
the financing costs. You have to carry the capital costs of the
building. Secondly, while the works are going on, the chances
of reletting the premises may be severely reduced. It may be possible
ultimately to resell the premises but you are effectively gambling
public money and financing from public sources against the length
of time that you would have to hold on to the property while the
western ticket hall was being excavated underneath.
5288. Do not forget, sir, what you have seen
from the latest minute from the Property Steering Group is that
there are plenty of premises in the vicinity. We do not know what
the property market is like. I understand the point but you will
similarly understand that it is not simply a question of taking
it and reselling it straight on.
5289. Mr Binley: I am grateful.
5290. Mr Cameron: I am going to make
my submissions under four headings. First, the extent of the dispute.
Then, the BBFC solution. Then, the promoter's solutions and my
conclusion.
5291. First, the extent of the dispute. There
is no dispute that both the construction and operation of Crossrail
will cause unacceptable noise in the BBFC premises. That is the
starting point. The dispute turns on the solution.
5292. I turn secondly to the BBFC solution.
I have four points under this heading. First, what is the solution?
The solution is that the Promoter should be required to purchase
the premises if BBFC request him to do so. The Compensation Code
would apply and the compensation payable would include compensation
for disturbance—i.e., relocation. The second point is the
solution is simple and protection against adverse consequences
is guaranteed.
5293. The third point is that it would not be
what Mr Elvin calls a disproportionate cost. The reason for that
is that the elements of compensation would come under two main
headings. One, the value of the land and, two, the costs of relocation.
The value of the land would be recovered, as you pointed out,
sir, just now by selling the building on. Mr Elvin's many millions
for acquiring the lease would not be irrecoverable. It is unattractive
in the extreme for a promoter who is going to cause severe disruption
to say, "We could not sell it on because of the disruption
that we are causing." It is a serious point. The Petitioner
is meant to suffer that disruption.
5294. Secondly, the disturbance element. Yes,
they would have to pay for relocation. They would not get that
money back but what they would save is the cost of the escalator
works. We do not know how much they would be. Mr Elvin has bandied
about certain figures for cost of works to our building. I am
not going to indulge in the same bandying about of figures because
you do not have the evidence.
5295. On the escalator, Mr Taylor said that
one of the benefits of moving BBFC is they probably would not
have to do the works to the escalator. They would save that. They
would save the cost of any isolation shell and that could be offset
against the relocation. The millions suddenly disappear and there
is nothing disproportionate about balancing out not having to
isolate the escalator, not having to provide a box and paying
for the relocation of the people you are causing problems for.
5296. The fourth sub-point under my second point
is, yes, BBFC are considering a move but
the additional space they have just acquired
is for different purposes and, if they acquire additional space,
they will be able to stay in their main building. The fact that
BBFC are looking for other premises is a red herring because BBFC
are unsure about it. They have disclosed the minutes. There is
not a lack of frankness. They have given you the minutes which
show exactly what their position is. Where they were asked for
two further minutes, they produced them.
5297. They are unsure about the move and no
doubt they are unsure about whether Crossrail will happen at the
same time, so they are going to have to make up their minds. If
they move, Crossrail are in a good position because they do not
have to do anything. The BBFC solution is practical, simple and
it is not disproportionate in cost.
5298. My third heading is the Promoter's solutions.
BBFC agree on dust and airborne that the adverse effects from
dust and airborne noise could be mitigated against by the proposals
now put forward yesterday or today, tier three mitigation for
dust and noise insulation at the back and front of the premises.
5299. As far as their solution for groundborne
noise is concerned, it is twofold. It is either the isolation
shell or the isolation of the escalator. As far as the isolation
shell is concerned, that is unacceptable to BBFC. BBFC are the
only people here who have given you evidence on the conditions
required for a film screen. They had the offer of the cocoon yesterday
morning. Mr Johnson has responded immediately. It is not appropriate
to say they did not provide a witness on those matters. They did.
Mr Johnson.
| 
