Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20020
- 20039)
20020. Interruptions due to the rumbling and
vibrations of trains emanating through the studio would not, as
you have heard from Grand Central, be tolerated by the industry's
clientele. The industry has, over the years, built up a specialised
and sophisticated infrastructure with skills and state of the
art equipment recognised across the world for their quality. As
a result, it attracts major contracts as well as the highest industry
awards for its work, including Oscars, Emmys and BAFTAs. My clients
have provided a list of recent awards won and nominations made
and I will hand that around for you to see.[6]
20021. Chairman: List that as A226.
20022. Mr Lewis: The Petitioners want
the industry to continue to flourish in Soho and look forward
to an even greater number of studios operating from Soho in the
future. If constructed with due consideration for noise and vibration,
Crossrail will actively contribute to the reason to do post-production
in Soho. However, if not properly constructed in these respects,
their members will suffer loss of business due to the impact of
Crossrail. They fear that this will eventually affect the long-term
viability of the industry and a significant loss of work to other
countries.
20023. As of today, they compete successfully
and often lead in what is a global business. There is a public
interest in what we are saying here.
20024. Added to the background information about
the industry in general, I should mention a further matter of
concern. Most of my clients' members are leaseholders of premises
and there are consequences which arise from that which I will
come on to later and about which you have just heard.
20025. Petitioners' concerns. First, and as
previously acknowledged, my clients recognise the benefits that
Crossrail will bring to London. A direct link to Heathrow Airport
in particular and stations near to the M25 will be a particular
benefit to the industry. The reason I am appearing on their behalf
before the Select Committee today, however, is that they have
major concerns about the impact of the construction and operation
of Crossrail. They are particularly concerned about noise, you
will not be surprised to hear, especially ground-borne noise and
vibration from the temporary railway during the construction of
Crossrail and from the main railway when Crossrail becomes operational.
20026. The Petitioners fear that the reputation
of the UK industry will be immeasurably harmed if noise during
the construction and operational phase causes problems for their
members. The sound recording, post-production and special effects
industry is required to meet certain highly specialised standards,
such as the Dolby standards about which you have heard. If companies
within the industry fail to meet such standards or if noise from
construction or train operation can be heard in sensitive sound
recording studios, there is a real threat that they will quite
simply go out of business. When my clients' members take on premises
or decide to refurbish or upgrade them they have to make very
careful decisions about what sort of noise mitigation measures
they will need to install to ensure that they are able to comply
with their customers' exacting standards. There are existing specifications
which must be met for some of my clients' members to be entitled
to a Dolby licence, for example, and you have heard about that.
However, technical standards like the Dolby criteria, although
critically important, are not the only yardstick by which a client
will judge one of my clients' members' premises. I do not wish
to go into any level of technical detail myself, you will be glad
to hear, but the simple fact of the matter is that a studio can
meet the standards specified by Dolby but, at the same time, a
passing underground train may well be audible. The Promoters and
their noise experts would, I think, accept that as a fact.
20027. What I can say for certainty is that
Crossrail's design criteria for recording studios, as set out
in the Information Paper D10, 30dB, is completely out of touch
with reality. Sorry, I have mentioned decibels.
20028. As with all "cottage industries",
each "cottage" services its clients' needs as best it
can while minimising costs. The major single cost for sound studios
are those associated with ensuring the levels of sound isolation
required to keep out the existing external noise pollution levels
to achieve inside a studio the pristine noiseless environment
requited to record sound. The level of this cost and sound insulation
is always kept to the minimal level depending on the pre-existing
noise conditions. As one would expect, the Soho post-production
business is highly competitive and keeping costs down is essential.
20029. Crossrail trains will be a new source
of noise pollution. If the trains produce a 30dB level of noise,
then in the context of the recording studio which has been constructed
with a commercially prudent minimum level of sound isolation,
the effect may well be, I am instructed, akin to the disruption
that would be caused to this meeting if a workman started to make
a noise at the end of the corridor every two to three minutes
for ten seconds.
20030. The fact that Crossrail have put forward
such a lax and broad brush design requirement in Information Paper
D10 without taking any account of the individual circumstances
demonstrates a real lack of understanding of the industry.
20031. When my clients met Mr Thornely-Taylor
to discuss their Petition, he said that one of the reasons why
the design criteria for the recording studios was not so strict
as for theatres was that it was assumed that all recording studios
would have good sound mitigation measures in place. They do, but
only for the existing noise levels, not for such a major new source
as Crossrail would be.
20032. As previously mentioned, the cost of
installing specialised equipment and constructing soundproof studios
is considerable, and although my clients' members have to keep
abreast with adaptation to, and developments in, technology, in
order to meet the specifications of the wider film and sound industry,
they will not do so unless they have to.
20033. Because we are talking about, as I have
said, small businesses with limited resources in the main, soundproofing
measures will only be built where they are needed and they will
usually only be built so as to ensure that the existing background
noise climate is effectively eliminated. A studio owner will not
go to the expense of installing Rolls Royce measures, which might
lead to completely isolating the whole studio in a concrete shell
with rubber linings, when he does not need to because of the prevailing
noise climate being acceptable.
20034. In turn, that will mean that many of
the premises will have very little tolerance for any additional
external noise source. So the addition of a sound of a train running
past could have drastic consequences. Can I just remind the Committee
of the experience of the honourable member for Swansea East which
she relayed back on, dare I mention it, day eight of these proceedings.
The honourable lady said: "I have recently been to see Billy
Elliot at the Victoria Palace and every 15 minutes without
fail it rumbled through and to say I was uncomfortable was not
true but we were constantly aware of the sound".
20035. I invite the Committee to consider Ms
James' words and put them in the context of a recording studio.
Being aware of the sound of the trains at a performance of what
I understand to be a splendid musical will, of course, be annoying,
but at the risk of tripping myself up with a question, I wonder
whether Ms James would, if asked by Mr Binley whether it was worth
seeing, reply that it was not because of the regular rumbling
of the Victoria Line, I suspect not, but look at it from the viewpoint
of a maker of a television commercial. Let us say, for example,
a Marks and Spencer commercial, already mentioned, what are the
ad makers going to think, what is the advertising agency going
to think, if every five minutes a train runs through? It is simple,
the advertising agency will go elsewhere and they will recommend
that all the other agencies go elsewhere too.
20036. Before I move on to explaining what it
is my clients would like the Committee to do, there is one point
I would like to make about compensation which makes the circumstances
I have described above with some levity even more horrendous than
I have mentioned up until now, and it has been done to death this
afternoon. It is quite likely, in fact almost certain, that the
majority of my clients' members who have premises in Soho will,
because of their financial circumstances, be small businesses
and have a leasehold interest in their premises. Because of that,
unless their premises are required to be demolished to make way
for a new station or a construction site, none of their interests
will be subject to a compulsory acquisition, even if they are
located directly above a tunnel. In turn, that means they are
precluded from claiming compensation for loss of profits, disturbance
and extinguishment of business caused as a result of the operation
of the works.
20037. Noise from the operation of the Crossrail
trains could quite easily result in businesses collapsing through
no fault of their own with no compensation available. I make no
request to the Committee in that regard today, I just bring it
to your attention so that you know what the consequences of Crossrail
could be for the industry and the individuals therein.
20038. It might be said that my clients' members
are in the same boat as every other leaseholder as far as the
national compensation is concerned, Mr Elvin has already said
it, but that is simply not a fair statement. The faint rumbling
of a train might be slightly annoying for an occupant of an office
block, but for a recording studio the effect would be catastrophic.
The fact that the majority of my clients' members are self-financed
cottage industries means that an uncompensatable loss of business
is not just a dent in the accounts of a corporate shareholder,
but potentially personal financial ruin.
20039. The specific concerns requests: these
Petitioners, you will no doubt be relieved to hear, do not intend
to provide an exposition about which noise criteria should be
applied and what levels are appropriate. They would rather leave
that to the individual members to present in their own cases,
maybe in the Lords, because different circumstances will apply
to different studios. My first request is to ask the Committee
to remember that Grand Central Studios, who are members of UK
Post and APRS have the full support of their trade bodies. Next,
I would like the Committee to require the Promoter, if requested,
to undertake a full and proper background noise survey of each
of my clients' members' premises within a given distance on plan
which should be conducted using agreed methods which are suitable
for measuring the background noise in recording studios and enabling
the owner of the premises to engage, at Crossrail's cost, an acoustic
expert of their own to carry out measurements at the same time
so that there can be a level of agreement. This will ensure that
Crossrail have an accurate idea of what the actual prevailing
sub-soil noise and vibration conditions are and have an accurate
idea of what the existing noise mitigation measures are, if there
are any, before delivering the design brief to a nominated undertaker.
That would be a better way of approaching the matter than the
broad brush methods used so far of assuming that all premises
have mitigation measures in place and that, therefore, 30dB will
be okay.
6 Committee Ref: A226, Awards and Nominations for
the UK post-production and effects sector (WESTCC-31504-001). Back
|
