Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7060
- 7079)
7060. Bearing in mind the evidence that we have
heard from Mr Methold today about the likely costs of meeting
a minus 5 dB design criterion, what comments do you have to say
about the cost estimate he produced in the light of the evidence
you have just given about the air flow over the louvres?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) His cost estimate I think
was prices from attenuator manufacturers for extra lengths of
fan noise attenuator, but in fact we would need to increase the
area of vent shaft outlets which would mean bigger buildings to
house the vent shafts, possible difficulties with what has been
assessed hitherto in the Environmental Statement but apart from
anything else major engineering difficulties in reducing face
velocities, the air speed, through the louvres and the bird screens
that have to go on these outlets. I do not think, from listening
to Mr Methold's evidence, that he has costed the changes to the
building and to the layouts of the ducting that will be required
to achieve these things.
7061. Chairman: When I get the note from Mr
Methold, I will write to you and ask you for a response to the
document, so that I can use your estimates alongside. Then the
Committee members will have them both.
7062. Mr Taylor: I am obliged.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Thank you, sir.
7063. What relevance does the criterion adopted
in the Thameslink 2000 project have to Crossrail?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is very relevant to
Crossrail. It is saying that with regard to the minor ventilation
plant and minor equipment that Thameslink 2000 has in their specialist
technical report, they give specific examples of power supply
infrastructure and signalling equipment and passage ventilation
shafts without fans. But because Thameslink 2000 has no major
plant of the kind that Crossrail has, it is possible to agree
to the kind of policies that the local authorities have. In practice,
Crossrail will be able to achieve everything the local authorities
would wish for the minor plant, but that would come out of the
application of the procedures set out in the draft IP on noise
from fixed installations. If Thameslink 2000 were anything like
Crossrail in having major new station development and significant
fan installations for tunnel ventilation, it would be in the same
position that we are. I am pleased to be able to say that because
I am the Thameslink 2000's advisor as well as Crossrail's.
7064. Mr Methold explained that one of the reasons
why he was advocating the minus 5 dB design criterion was a concern
about background creep. What effect will Crossrail have on background
creep?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The most important feature
of background creep, as Mr Methold explained, is what happens
with sequential applications for new plant. It has given rise
to problems in the past, where a new restaurant owner wants a
new piece of air-conditioning equipment, measures the background
that was caused by the last one, a little bit higher, and so it
all creeps up. The central feature of the tunnel ventilation fans
for Crossrail—which are really the installations which are
driving this policy because of the engineering difficulties I
have mentioned—is that they do not normally run. A future
developer, wanting to get permission for some plant near to a
Crossrail vent shaft, when he is applying his BS4142 procedures
or if the local authority are applying them and measuring the
background L90, if they follow the standard correctly they will
measure without Crossrail fans running because they do not normally
run, so they would have no effect whatsoever on the creeping background
problem.
7065. What approach to the selection design
criterion was adopted for the Jubilee Line Extension?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Exactly the same one that
is proposed for Crossrail.
7066. Following the construction of the Jubilee
Line Extension, what complaints have there been about noise from
fixed installations?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) I am completely unaware
of any.
7067. At page 123 of document 75, there is a
cover page of a report to the First Secretary of State for Transport
from an inspector appointed to examine an application for the
development of Camden Town Underground Station. If we turn on
to page 124, we see an extract from appendix 8 of the inspector's
report, headed "Conditions". Under the heading "Conditions
that should be attached to any grant of Planning Permission"
condition 8 indicates that a plus 5 dB approach was to be adopted
in relation to that development.[77]
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
7068. Is it right to say that the Camden Town
application was refused permission?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) It was.
7069. But, in making his recommendations to
the Secretary of State, what approach is the inspector advocating?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) He has advocated precisely
the approach that Crossrail is advocating now. It was agreed with
Camden beforehand as an agreed condition—in fact it was
one of the few inquiries where I have given evidence and not been
cross-examined at all.
7070. So Camden, who are supporting Mr Methold's
approach before the Committee, in relation to the Camden Town
Underground application adopted a different approach. Is that
correct?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) They accepted the appropriateness
of the arguments and the policy that Transport for London were
putting forward.
7071. Mr Taylor: Thank you very much,
Mr Thornely-Taylor. Those are all the questions I have.
7072. Chairman: When you answered the
query about complaints on the Jubilee Line Extension, could you
get us a bit more information. It may be small or medium but there
will be some complaints of some kind, and I wonder if you could
give us the more up-to-date position on that which maybe helpful
to the Committee.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Certainly, sir. We are
making renewed enquiries of the public health authorities concerned.
7073. Chairman: Thank you very much.
We are going to bring forward Mr Buckingham now, so we will suspend
your evidence.
The witness withdrew
The Petition of Antique Hypermarket Limited.
Mr John Buckingham appeared as Agent.
7074. Mr Mould: Sir, in the usual way,
I will orientate us, if I may. In this case, the petitioner holds
a leasehold interest in a property at 58 Davies Street in the
West End which lies opposite Bond Street Station western ticket
hall and above the station platform. You will see the relevant
plan from the Environmental Statement, showing the construction
phase, impacts and proposals.[78]
You can see the property not far from the junction with the South
Molton Street.
7075. Chairman: Mr Mould, when we went
on one of our visits, we stood opposite it.
7076. Mr Mould: That is very helpful.
You will be aware that the Davies Street worksite, which is shown
on this plan, is adjacent to the building in the location there
shown. Under the Bill powers are provided to acquire a service
interest at the property because the escalator from the proposed
new ticket hall at 65 Davies Street passes beneath number 58.
The works associated with the provision of this escalator could
be at a depth of less than nine metres, and, as a result of sub-surface
powers within the Bill, would not be sufficient. The building
is used as an antiques market and the Petitioner concern is to
mitigate any impact on the market; indeed, he raises concerns
regarding compensation. We have indicated to the Petitioner that,
notwithstanding the powers set out in the Bill, it would not be
our intention to demolish or to acquire the building, provided
that appropriate arrangements can be agreed with the Petitioner
to enable inspection to be carried out within the basement in
relation to the engineering works for the purposes of the escalator
provision and for the purposes of adequate protection, both to
the building itself and to the escalator shaft. That position
has been indicated to the Petitioner in advance of this hearing.
Without further ado, I will give way to Mr Buckingham.
7077. Chairman: Can I just apologise?
You have had to come on a number of occasions so far and been
prepared to make your Petition. You have been a persistent person
in that respect and we are grateful for the time you have set
aside in continuing to come here. Please give your Petition.
7078. Mr Buckingham: Thank you. My name
is John Buckingham. I am a Chartered Surveyor by qualification
and a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and
a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I am a Director
of Union, a retail consultancy. There is no connection between
my company and Union Railways who have been referred to by Mr
Michael Schabas yesterday afternoon. I am instructed by Antique
Hypermarket Limited to appear before you as their agent in connection
with Petition 353. As has already been stated, Antique Hypermarket
Limited is the leaseholder of 58 Davies Street and 1-8 Davies
Mews, holding these properties from Grosvenor Properties under
leases with approximately 24 years and 37 years unexpired respectively.
7079. Fifty-eight Davies Street is an attractive
terracotta faced building that was originally the showrooms and
manufactory of John Bolding and Sons. It was therefore built as
an industrial building. The ground floor and basement has been
an antique market for approaching 30 years now. The first to third
floors are let as offices and the fourth floor as craft workrooms—a
use which is linked to the antique market below. One to eight
Davies Mews was also part of the John Bolding premises, entirely
separate and not connected, and was converted to an antique market
about 28 years ago on the ground floor and basement, with craft
workrooms on the first floor and residential flats on the second
floor, which were sold off.
77 Crossrail Ref: P75, London Underground (Camden
Town Station) Orders Inspector's Report, Conditions that should
be attached to any grant of Planning Permission (HAVGLB-14704-125). Back
78
Crossrail Ref: P75, Environmental Statement, Bond Street Station,
Construction Works and Impacts Map C5(iii), billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk
(LINEWD-ES16-023). Back
| 
