Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 19960 - 19979)

  19960. Chairman: Mr Newberry?

  19961. Mr Newberry: Five or six minutes.

  19962. Chairman: If we can try our best.

  19963. Mr Taylor: I will try and speed up without losing the shorthand writer!

  19964. Mr Newberry: Sir, I am just being asked if we could have a very short adjournment for a couple of minutes in order for me to take instructions on one or two matters that have arisen during the course of evidence.

  19965. Chairman: It will have to be just a couple of minutes.

  After a short break

  19966. Chairman: Mr Taylor?

  19967. Mr Taylor: Thank you, Sir. Can I confirm that I have taken instructions and we are happy to amend the undertaking offered so as to deal with the point about adding in the additional weld so as to increase the length of the welded track from 15 metres so it becomes 30 metres. We will deal with that.

  19968. In closing, the studios were built in the full knowledge of Crossrail. GCS knew that the route beneath the property was safeguarded yet the designers of the studios did not take any steps to design the studios so as to take account of the potential for Crossrail to come. Indeed, GCS did nothing. They did not ask for any information from the Promoter about groundborne noise. We would suggest that was a highly incautious approach to the acquisition of their interest. It was an approach in which GCS took a very great risk and it now seeks to pass that risk on from itself on to the public purse.

  19969. What the designers did do was to design the studios so as to achieve the standard required for Dolby certification NC25 and, indeed, it is that standard that GCS' advisers sought to attain in undertakings from the Committee in March 2006 at their first appearance. NC25 clearly provides sufficient protection to the noise environment within the studios to mean that it will operate satisfactorily. If it did not, why design the studios to that criterion and why would Dolby set it as the appropriate standard?

  19970. In the event, the Promoter has bent over backwards to accommodate GCS. It has agreed to an extremely stringent criterion for the operation of the railway. It has carried out ground investigations to examine the details of the soil beneath the studios and it has investigated the nature of the pile into the building. Even in respect of the construction railway the Promoter has agreed to provide the criterion of NC25 which is that originally sought by GCS' advisers and which was used as the design criterion when the studios were built. Whilst the construction railway might change the acoustic environment within the studio, this change is not to a degree that will harm that environment significantly because the design criterion for the studios will still be met. Indeed, the Committee will recall that it is the design criterion applied across the industry generally that will be met during the operation of the construction railway.

  19971. So we say, in short, that adopting the NC25 criterion will protect the noise environment of the sound studios during the relatively short period that the construction train will be operating. We say that the criterion suggested by GCS is not one that can be reasonably achieved by the project. You will recall that the only person who gave evidence to the Committee on the extent to which it is feasible to achieve the NC20-3 criterion, ,who had any experience of designing rail specifications to achieve a noise standard by reference to octave bands, was Mr Thornely-Taylor, and you have his clear view that it is not at this stage a practical proposition to design to that very, very low standard.

  19972. So far as uncertainty is concerned, I believe the submission will be made that because there is so much uncertainty in modelling, that is the justification for making a provision for compensation. Sir, I am going to deal with the uncertainty of modelling point and Mr Elvin is going to address you on compensation aspects.

  19973. You have the evidence of Mr Thornely-Taylor on the uncertainty issue. He explained that his model, Findwave, necessarily includes some uncertainty but he has examined very carefully the extent of that uncertainty and has concluded that the construction railway and the operational railway can be built so as to meet the criteria proposed by the Promoter in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Dr Hunt sought to suggest that the degree of uncertainty was much greater than Mr Thornely-Taylor had identified. I think, in fact, Dr Hunt said that he had just given up on modelling altogether. Happily for us, and happily for the Committee, that is not the approach that Mr Thornely-Taylor has adopted, nor indeed the Promoter. Dr Hunt's conclusions were formed by reference to his general experience but in particular by reference to his pipe-in-pipe model and that is a different model from the model that is being used in relation to the Crossrail project and it has certain aspects which do not reflect the assumptions that have been used in Findwave: that the tunnel is a perfect cylinder when in fact it is not because there is a concrete invert; that the tunnel is not lined with segmented linings when in fact it will be; that the soil in which the tunnel is located is uniform when it is not uniform; that there is no building on the top at ground level when in fact there are such buildings. The uncertainty he identified of plus or minus ten was not identified by reference to Findwave because, as Dr Hunt very candidly accepted, he never used Findwave. So his conclusions about uncertainty in the submission of the Promoter were obviously tainted by the fact that he simply cannot express a view on the uncertainty of Findwave, he has not carried out a validation exercise using Findwave and, indeed, has never used Findwave at all.

  19974. Further, the uncertainty that Dr Hunt identified was not presented in terms of dB(A) or, indeed, the NC curves, the point that Mr Thornely-Taylor made this morning. He had not considered whether the uncertainty was of any practical consequence when it comes to applying the criterion that is being proposed by the Promoter in this case. Mr Thornely-Taylor explained much more eloquently than I can the smoothing effect of actually turning the data and using it in relation to an NC curve this morning.

  19975. In contrast to Dr Hunt, Mr Thornely-Taylor is the author of Findwave and he is uniquely placed to explain to the Committee the degree of uncertainty associated with it. He commented on Dr Hunt's evidence this morning and he has explained his position on that evidence. The only conclusion to draw, and it was a point accepted by Dr Hunt, is that Mr Thornely-Taylor is in a better position to advise the Committee on the degree of uncertainty of modelling work than Dr Hunt is. On that basis, there is no reasonable basis for concluding that the criterion proposed by the Promoter cannot be met to the extent that justifies extending the National Compensation Code as sought by GCS and there is no reason to conclude with the undertakings put forward by the Promoter that the noise environment within the studios will not be appropriately protected during the construction of the railway.

  19976. Chairman: Mr Elvin?

  19977. Mr Elvin: Sir, I am carrying on from Mr Taylor dealing with the compensation issues. I do not know whether you have received it but a draft undertaking which is sought by GCS has been put forward. I understand one is to be put forward. What it means in essence is that they want the Compensation Code extended by undertaking so that if, as a result of the temporary period of construction works, we do not achieve what we say we can achieve, we will effectively, reading through the legal language, be required to purchase the whole premises. It uses the concept of material detriment and that is a trigger to a requirement to purchase their premises. It does not apply to them at the moment because we are not actually acquiring any of their property. I will come back to it in a moment.

  19978. Chairman: Can we list the undertaking as A224.

  19979. Mr Elvin: Thank you very much. Sir, you have had explained to you by our witnesses and by Mr Reuben Taylor—there are so many Taylors in this case it gets very confusing—that what is proposed by way of mitigation should ensure that GCS will be protected. There is no issue that they will be protected during the permanent operations of Crossrail, the issue arises with regard to uncertainty over a temporary period of construction traffic lasting about ten months. They say the uncertainty is such that you should extend the Compensation Code and give to them, which is not available to any businessman in the high street, additional protection which would not be available to them if someone chose to redevelop the property next door to them. You have got to bear in mind that what GCS say is their position is so significant that we should protect them over and above the massive series of proposals we have offered them in terms of mitigation even though, frankly, if someone chose to redevelop near them, in Oxford Street or Great Marlborough Street, and took reasonable precautions the normal principle of the law of give and take in construction work in modern society would mean they have no redress. The position of anyone else as against GCS would be far different from that which they say ought to be the position here. What they say is that the taxpayer should write them an insurance policy so that they should have something which is not available to anyone else.


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007