Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20160
- 20179)
20160. Thank you very much.
The witness withdrew
20161. Ms Lieven: May I proceed to closing,
Sir?
20162. Chairman: Yes.
20163. Ms Lieven: Sir, obviously, there
is only one issue here, which is whether or not to give the City
a power of approval. As Mr Berryman has just been through, that
is an important, indeed a very important, principle for us because
if other parties do have powers of approval over our work that
does give a very significant potential both for delay, and therefore,
by reason of delay, for increased costs. Picking up the point
that Mr Berryman made a few minutes ago, the person who will be
deciding in all likelihood the detailed methodology here will
be the nominated undertaker and the contractor appointed under
him. This Committee has not got involved in funding or timing
issues in detail but obviously there will come a moment when funding
is approved. There will then be a moment when the contractor is
approved and from that moment timing is absolutely critical because
the longer you hang around your entire programme can get delayed
and you can have cost implications which can be truly massive.
I do not want to suggest that one approval at the Isle of Dogs
would have some terrible consequence but there is a very important
point of precedent here as to allowing third parties to approve
works with those kinds of potential, and the suggestion that we
can just sort it all out now is wholly unrealistic given the scale
of the works that we are talking about with Crossrail and the
way this project is to be brought forward. The particular problem
is grand at the Isle of Dogs for the reasons that Mr Berryman
has gone through because it is not a question of simply seeking
approval of the City Corporation. They are the owner and statutory
operator of the market. They are not the planning authority, they
are not the principal land owner in the area, that is the Canary
Wharf Group, and they are not the owner of the dock itself. That
is British Waterways, so we have got at least three other parties
with really major interests, all of whom would be coming and I
suspect saying that their interests were greater than the City's,
and one must not forget the Canary Wharf Group's reason for objecting
in the first place to the original proposals was because they
have thousands of office jobs around the dock which would be impacted
by noise, so they are going to be very unhappy about any suggestion
of going back to a scenario that is noisier. One can see that
there are not just different parties here but different parties
with starkly different interests and different interests to be
protected, so the potential for problems to arise with the power
of approval here is even greater than in other places.
20164. Sir, it is also important to remember
that the whole of the case rests on Mr Cameron's proposition that
the City's position here is special. In my submission that is
just impossible to sustain. He talks about the structure of the
building. Almost every landowner, and we have spent a lot of time
hearing about landowners in Soho, would say that their buildings
are special for different reasons. In Spitalfields they are special
because they are Georgian and they have not got much in the way
of foundations. At UBS they are special because they have got
computers in the basement which they say the whole of the western
economy rests upon. Everybody has buildings which to them are
special. It is a joke but it is also true on Crossrail, I am afraid.
Equally, the form of construction. So many buildings, and Spitalfields
is the obvious example, have forms of construction which may have
particular sensitivities.
20165. So far as the suggestion that Billingsgate
is special because of the hygiene standards, as Mr Berryman has
explained to you, Sir, we have no intention of going inside the
building. There is no reason to believe in this case that it will
be necessary to do anything that will have any impact on the hygiene
issue at all and that factor alone makes it totally different
from Smithfield where there was no issue that we were doing works
inside the building. If you remember we had a lot of evidence
about having to separate off different bits of the buildings and
dust evidence. It just does not arise here. In my submission it
is special because any building is special but it is not special
in the Crossrail context at all.
20166. On the point of principle and Smithfield,
Mr Cameron makes a great deal about the fact that it cannot be
a point of principle because you agreed it at Smithfield. That
is the only place, according to Mr Berryman, where we have agreed
approval and it is a wholly different example because we are going
into the building, we are doing works inside the building and
it is a Grade I listed building where the impact on the marketeers
(and the Committee will remember hearing the marketeers) is very
obvious, so in my submission Smithfield is no precedent for what
is being suggested here at all.
20167. Finally, so far as the point that there
are two construction methodologies and we have not made up our
mind is concerned, in my submission, without making a joke about
Billingsgate, that really is a red herring because all along the
route we have not decided detailed mitigation measures yet. They
will be discussed and consulted upon as appropriate with the landlords.
I do not want it to seem as if we are being difficult about this.
We are quite prepared to give the same consultation undertaking
that we gave to UBS and British Land who have an equally sensitive
and special building, but we are not prepared to go that extra
step for which in my submission there is no justification.
20168. Chairman: Mr Cameron?
20169. Mr Cameron: Sir, I am going to
deal with this issue: can this objection and this building be
distinguished and will it cause problems if you ask the Promoter
to give the City what the City are asking for? Sir, first of all
the issue. There is no dispute on the issue. The issue is: should
the Promoter be required to consult or should the Promoter be
required to obtain approval for works of mitigation? The second
point: is there anything special here? Yes, there is a combination
of special factors and no doubt every petitioner who comes before
you says, "Our case is special".
20170. I outlined in opening that it is a large
open-plan structure. It is a combination of these factors—a
large, open-plan structure supported in three different ways,
that is, on the quay, on the Banana Wall, on the made ground.
Thirdly, this is a statutory market. Fourthly, it is a fish market
subject to rigorous hygiene standards. Fifthly, unlike in other
cases, there are market traders who will not be entitled to compensation
if their business is disrupted, and you have heard from them,
so there are five reasons why it is different. It is not the same
as a business such as UBS for all those reasons.
20171. The other reason that it is different
is that if you are a market trader in Billingsgate it does not
make a scrap of difference to you whether the structure starts
cracking and tiles come off the roof and you have to stop trading
because of the hygiene standards because Crossrail are carrying
out works in the basement or whether they have dewatered the dock
next door. It is not how they cause it; it is the effect, so in
fact there is no reason to distinguish this case from Smithfield.
It is what the Promoters are proposing to do that would or could
have an effect on the building.
20172. The third point, Sir, I wish to address
is this. If the City Corporation have power of approval will it
cause problems for Crossrail? First of all, it is not going to
set a precedent because if there is a precedent it has already
been set. It is in relation to heritage deeds and in the case
of Smithfield it is set in relation to a market. The point about
the Smithfield deed is that it allows market factors to be taken
into account. Also, will it cause a problem to the programming
of the construction? No, it will not. The problem here is, of
course, because the Promoter will not and cannot make up its mind
what it wants to do in the vicinity of this building now and as
a result the petitioner cannot get involved in discussing the
mitigation works. We have heard today from Mr Berryman that the
decision as to which scenario is to be chosen is to be put off
not for the nominated undertaker but beyond that to the contractor.
If they made their mind up now the problem would not arise because
they would have time for approval so any problem of delay would
be entirely of their own making.
20173. Sir, none of the arguments put forward
is convincing as to why they have problems. The means of solving
the problems are entirely within their own hands. They cannot
make a problem and then say, "Sir, none of the arguments
put forward is convincing as to why they have problems".
The means of solving the problems are entirely within their own
hands. They cannot make a problem and then say, "You cannot
allow somebody whose building is going to be affected, we know
not how, to have some say in the mitigation measures because we
will not make up our mind now, and if you give them a power of
approval it will delay it till later." Let them make their
mind up now, get the approvals, no delay to the project. Sir,
those are my submissions.
20174. Chairman: That concludes that
petition. We now have Mr Taylor.
20175. Mr Taylor: Sir, thank you. Back
to APRS and UK Post; I am very grateful for the time. The essential
question in dealing with this petition is whether the noise environment
in various studios in Soho will be sufficiently protected through
the construction and operation of Crossrail by the regime that
the Promoter proposes in IPD10 that the Committee is familiar
with.[20]
It is not correct to suggest that the Promoter has simply ignored
the studios in Soho. Specific provision is made for their protection
in IPD10 with a design criterion set out in that document for
soundproofing studios of 30dB LAmax, and indeed it is not correct
to say that the Promoter has simply ignored the studios in the
work that has been done to date because Mr Thornely-Taylor and
others at CLRO have undertaken a number of measurements of various
locations in studios within Soho.
20176. So far as the appropriate standard is
concerned, Mr Thornely-Taylor has explained previously his view
that the 30dB LAmax standard is appropriate to protect studio
environments generally, and indeed he has explained how that design
criterion can be met in particular in relation to the particular
constraint of the various design criteria imposed in Soho that
floating slab track will be provided in Soho for the permanent
railway. In the case of GCS, as the Committee has heard in the
last day or so, a particular exception was made but that is because
of its unique situation having studios in the basement directly
above one of the running tunnels. Mr Ivor Taylor on behalf of
GCS explained in response to questions from Mr Binley yesterday
that GCS was unique. There are a number of other studios but he
explained why its position was unique. Other studios, for example,
operate from upper floors rather from within the basements and
not all of them have Dolby certification.
20177. The APRS and UK Post have not presented
any expert evidence to demonstrate that any studio would be adversely
affected by noise from Crossrail if the IPD10 design criterion
was adopted. The example of Billy Elliott in the theatre
in my submission is a bad one because the noise level in that
theatre from groundborne noise I believe is 43 dBLA(max), which
is substantially above the criterion which is proposed to apply
in this particular case. Further, there has been no evidence presented
on behalf of APRS and UK Post that the adoption of the 30dB LAmax
criterion is inappropriate.
20178. On the last point, I took instructions
in relation to the issue of background noise surveys and I am
pleased to say that the Promoter can undertake to provide background
noise surveys for noise-sensitive parts of premises if reasonably
requested to do so by members of the petitioning organisations.
It can also undertake to agree with the petitioning organisations
a methodology for the measurement of background noise based upon
the methodology that was adopted to measure background noise at
GCS, and that is all I have to say. Thank you.
20179. Mr Lewis: We are pleased with
the response of the Promoters, particularly in relation to the
monitoring and, of course, in relation to the promise to install
floating track slab through the whole of Soho, which I was not
aware they were going to do. So I say thank you to the Promoters
for agreeing to carry out the monitoring. I would like to repeat
though, in case it is not clear, for the record, that obviously
I am representing two organisations, and if any of the organisations'
members choose to appear in the other place then, clearly, what
has happened to them in individual cases may raise more detail.
20 Crossrail Information Paper D10-Groundborne Noise
and Vibration, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
|
