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 Taylorthere are so many Taylors in this case it
gets very confusingthat 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.
|