Examination of Witnesses (Questions 19413
- 19419)
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
The Petition of Grand Central Studios
Mr Clive Newberry, QC appeared on behalf of the Peititioner.
Sharpe Pritchard appeared as Agent
19413. Chairman: We will now move on
to today's session. The first hearing will be with the Grand Central
Studios represented by Sharpe Pritchard. Mr Taylor?
19414. Mr Taylor: Thank you, sir. Sir,
the Committee may recall that this particular petition was part-heard
on day 20 on 23 March. It relates to the Grand Central Studios
property at 51 to 53 Great Marlborough Street, which you can see
on the plan in front of you.[1]
The property lies above the proposed westbound tunnel for Crossrail,
about 250 metres west of Tottenham Court Road. The Petitioner
is the leaseholder of part of the property and has no legal interest
in the subsoil. I will just outline where we have got to because
obviously some considerable time has passed since 23 March of
last year. The studios were built between 2003 and 2006 in the
knowledge of the safeguarding of the Crossrail project and the
Petitioner is, of course, concerned to protect the noise environment
of the sound studios, the noise arising during the operation of
the construction railway and, indeed, the operation of the Crossrail
scheme itself.
19415. We got to the point last time where we
heard part of the evidence in chief of Mr Ivor Taylor. The Committee
may remember that day particularly well because that was the day
that Mr Elvin revealed the true extent of his encyclopaedic knowledge
of the Harry Potter movies and, indeed, the Lord of the Rings
saga, which is etched on my memory. We ran out of time, however,
before Mr Ivor Taylor could complete his evidence and, indeed,
before he was cross-examined. I am pleased to say that since that
time there have been considerable discussions between the parties
with a view to narrowing the issues and there has been some success
to the extent that the Petitioners and the Promoters have agreed
a groundborne noise design criterion to be applied to Crossrail
once in operation. There remains a dispute, however, as to the
appropriate groundborne noise design criterion to apply to the
construction railway of the Crossrail project and the Petitioners
are also concerned to secure compensation in the event that a
design criterion is breached and losses are caused to the sound
studios. The Promoter will contend that it is necessary to identify
a noise criterion for the construction railway that allows sufficient
flexibility to enable the project to be constructed, whilst ensuring
that a noise environment within the sound of the studios is not
compromised. The Promoter contends that is achieved by offering
a criterion of NC25, and the Committee may remember about the
NC curve last time and they are going to hear a lot about it this
morning, I am afraid. The Promoter's criterion is offered to be
achieved within the studios in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances;
the Petitioner, however, contends that a more stringent criterion
should apply and Mr Newberry will explain that to you shortly.
19416. So far as compensation is concerned,
the issue relates to a hypothetical, what if the railways provided
breach the criterion that are identified as appropriate and the
Petitioner claims that in those circumstances compensation should
be payable? The Promoter has offered undertakings to the effect
that in the event that a design criterion is breached and if that
breach is due to a failure to install the railway specified in
the undertaking offered, or is due to a failure to maintain the
railway appropriately, steps must be taken to remedy the failure.
The Petitioner argues, however, that is not good enough. They
suggest instead that the National Compensation Code should be
extended for them so they have special treatment to allow them
to claim business losses notwithstanding that no land is taken
and where there has not been a lack of care in the execution of
the project, and they seek to justify that petition by suggesting
that there is no certainty that the design criterion will be met.
The Committee will be aware, of course, that the Promoter's case
is that the National Compensation Code is to be applied and that
in any event there is sufficient certainty in the modelling and
the project to be able to design the construction and operation
of the railway to meet the criterion.
19417. Mr Taylor: That is a brief outline
of the basic position of the party. I hope I have done that fairly;
I am sure Mr Newberry will correct me if I have not, but I will
hand over to him.
19418. Chairman: Mr Newberry?
19419. Mr Newberry: Good morning. That
was a very helpful summary, Committee. Can I add one or two additional
points. When we were last before you, there was an issue concerning
whether the nature of the foundations of the studio were wrong.
You may remember we thought they were on piled foundations, that
turns out to be wrong and they are on something called "pad"
foundations. The effect of that has enabled Crossrail to offer
a standard during the operation of the railway which is acceptable
to the studio, known as "NC20—3dB", and that will
enable the studio to function if that standard is met. As Mr Taylor
has indicated, the problem arises from our perspective when the
railway is being constructed and, in particular, when the tunnel
boring machines are doing their work within the order of 100 metres
or so of the studio. When that process is going on it is my understanding
that NC25 is being offered, and you will hear both from Mr Bell
and Dr Hunt that the nature of the modelling exercise and the
accuracy that can be attributed to the model leads us to believe
that that standard probably cannot be met and, even if it could
be met, the operation of the construction of the railway will
adversely affect the NC 20—3 in a way which renders the
studio inoperable. That is where we stand at the moment on that
issue.
1 Crossrail Ref: P143, Location of Grand Central Studios,
51-53 Great Marlborough Street (WESTCC-9303-001). Back
|
