|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 235-xi HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the Wednesday 21 February 2007 Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Mr Brian Binley Mr Philip Hollobone John Pugh Kelvin Hopkins Mrs Linda Riordan Mrs Siān C James
Ordered: Counsel and Parties be called in:
19754. CHAIRMAN: Good morning. Mr Newberry, I think you were going to cross-examine Mr Thornley-Taylor? 19755. MR NEWBERRY: I was and I am, but I think Mr Taylor wants to introduce a document. 19756. CHAIRMAN: Before you do that, Mr Taylor, let me remind you that today we will rise about 11.45 so that Members who may wish to attend Prime Minister's Question Time may do so and also for everybody here to get themselves a cup of coffee at the bottom area there. 19757. MR TAYLOR: Mr Thornley-Taylor was giving evidence and you will remember yesterday an issue came up as to what was in the developer's pack which is available to Petitioners or those affected at the time the interest in the studios was acquired. Mr Thornley-Taylor has overnight identified the relevant part of the pack and we have produced copies which I think have been handed around to you. It is headed Noise and Vibration Assessment and Mitigation to Report on the Resilience of Slab Track Tunnel Vibration Predictions, produced by Rupert Taylor Limited in March 1998. 19758. CHAIRMAN: Can we list this as A223. 19759. MR TAYLOR: If my learned friends could happily agree that I ask Mr Thornley-Taylor to explain a bit about this document, if that suits the Committee? Can you explain to the Committee what this document is and how it might have been of use to somebody who was about to acquire an interest in a property say, for example, to build a new sound studio in determining what steps they might have to take and what the consequences of Crossrail might be for those premises? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Both Crossrail lines one and two have been safeguarded for some years and the consequence of that is anyone making a planning application within that safeguarded area has their application sent to Crossrail who require that they satisfy Crossrail that Crossrail noise criterion will be met. They are sent a safeguarding developers' information pack, most of which is about matters including settlement, but also including this report which we have in front of us. You asked me to provide this yesterday and it contains the results of predictions of what the tunnel wall vibration will be all around the tunnel wall, there is a laid-out plot showing how the vibration differs different parts of the wall. It gives a very simple model for doing a worse case prediction to what the ground level noise level will be. As I mentioned yesterday, it seems apparent that there was no change of use here or for some other reason no planning application was made, but this pack was available for anyone interested to know what the noise from the new proposed Crossrail was going to be. 19760. CHAIRMAN: I want to ask again, was it sent out? Do you know that? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I do not know that it was sent out. I believe it is the case that no planning application was made, so it would only have been sent out if requested. 19761. MR TAYLOR: Thank you very much indeed. 19762. CHAIRMAN: Mr Newberry? 19763. MR NEWBERRY: Good morning, Mr Thornley-Taylor, on the pack, thank you for producing that. The works that were done to Grand Central Studios did not require planning permission, I am sure you accept that? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I understand that to be the case. 19764. If, it therefore follows, the only opportunity to get this document was if you had made a planning application then it, of course, would exclude those who do works to a building that do not require planning permission? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, it is available to anyone who asks for it. 19765. The steps taken by Crossrail to make it available were limited to those who were applying for planning permission and had an arrangement with their local authority? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, it is available to anyone who asks for it. 19766. How would one know to ask for it? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I think it was made clear in the evidence from the Petitioners yesterday that Crossrail had been a very big issue for the whole of the recording industry since the early 1990s. 19767. The steps which Crossrail took are perfectly reasonable but limited, ie any person making a planning application for the alteration of their building would be alerted to the existence of this pack. If you were doing work that did not require planning permission you would not, end of story. (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, in the evidence of David Bell yesterday he explicitly said you could not design a studio, a railway about which there was no information. There is information and if requested would have been sent out. 19768. That is not an answer to my question. My question is directed to the steps which were taken by Crossrail to make the document available to those who were acquiring premises or doing work to premises under the Crossrail line. What Crossrail did, not unreasonably, was to alert the planning authority that if works were being carried out which require planning permission then please send them a copy of the pack. That was what the pack was, was it not? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Whether or not you ask for it you will get it if you make a planning application right to the present day because you do not get your planning permission unless you have satisfied the safeguarding procedure. 19769. So far as this document is concerned, does it indicate that the operational level that Crossrail was accepting in a building such as a studio was NC20 minus 3dB(A) third band octave? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, it gave information about the vibration you would get in the wall of a standard Crossrail tunnel without special mitigation for the studio, and Mr Bell would have concluded that there would have been serious intrusion into the noise environment of the studios in these circumstances and it would have given him information to enable him to design the studios against it. 19770. Have Crossrail ever adopted the standard of NC20 minus 3dB third band octave? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, we have treated Grand Central Studios very specially in the light of the Committee's interim report last year and we have gone to very great lengths to try and meet their concerns, and I understand we have met them as far as the operating railway is concerned. They are still debating what I think are quite minor issues about the temporary construction railway. 19771. Yes, we will look at that and that is absolutely fair. Crossrail do regard Grand Central Studios as a special case? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, we have gone to additional lengths beyond the measures. The only comparable case is the Barbican which is equally sensitive. The process with the Barbican has been very much easier, it has been very much a partnership, and it has been - nothing is straightforward in this process - much easier to reach agreement on how to protect that equally important resource. As we heard yesterday, we have achieved agreement. 19772. I am going to come on to the Barbican, perhaps it is convenient to deal with it now. As you fairly say, Grand Central Studios is an equally important resource, but in relation to the Barbican, Mr Cameron yesterday outlined the basis of the agreement. I have not seen the agreement in written form, but my understanding is that if the Barbican notify Crossrail about evening performances during the construction period Crossrail will take certain mitigating steps in relation to the movement of trains under them, is that right or not? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes. 19773. MR ELVIN: Sir, it is actually more complicated than that. The position with Barbican is that we have undertaken, so far as the construction railway is concerned, that there will be no construction railway traffic during performances but during rehearsals and recording sessions during the day the undertaking is simply to consult with the Corporation of London because two to three days of the week the orchestras appearing at the Barbican have rehearsals which they use also as recordings. There is no requirement to cease use of the construction railway during the recording sessions but simply to consult with the Corporation of London and try and reach a sensible arrangement in the circumstance. 19774. I think my question was directed to performances. We have to do the best we can, Mr Thornley-Taylor, the document has not been drawn up. Confining ourselves to performances in the evening, if we may, what time is Crossrail stopping construction traffic, if I can put it that way, when there is an evening performance? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I am not the witness to answer that question. 19775. Who is? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I would have to discuss it with our team, but it would be wrong for me to attempt to give information about the timing of the Barbican performance because it would be subject to error. 19776. You were not a party to this agreement? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, indeed I was a party to the discussion which took place out in the corridor. I am advised on matters which relate to the physical behaviour of the system. I have a rough idea about the timing of performances but it would be improper for me to give evidence about it. 19777. I do not mind a rough idea because I will not hold you to it. Can you give us a rough idea? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to attempt to give evidence about something which is not my field. 19778. My understanding is that in correspondence between the solicitors representing Crossrail and my instructing solicitors is that Crossrail is prepared to extend the same level of flexibility to them as has been extended to Crossrail, is that right? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) So far as it is possible, given that we heard yesterday how the usage of the studios is quite different from the use of the Barbican Hall because the Barbican Hall was booked well in advance and it is known quite clearly when there will be performances which require special measures, Ivor Taylor explained how sometimes people do not decide whether to come into a studio until a few minutes before, if I heard him correctly. 19779. That is a correct understanding but that does not necessarily apply to everybody. I want to get the principles clear if I can. If Crossrail is prepared to cease operational traffic to enable a public performance to take place in the evening, that is the broad point, not rehearsals but public performances, which apparently take place and recordings ---- 19780. MR ELVIN: Sir, there is no point in Mr Newberry quizzing this witness. I negotiated the agreement while Mr Newberry was in here yesterday and while Mr Thornley-Taylor was in here yesterday. The position is this. Performances in the evening, that is to say for a limited part of the day, will not be affected by the construction railway. The noise sensitive issues relating to recordings, because recordings also take place during rehearsals from 9.30 in the morning to about five in the afternoon, are not banned by the agreement. The city of London accepts that the passage of a construction train can be accommodated providing we have a discussion with them in advance. It will amount to about two minutes worth of time out of the day because the construction trains are not coming along every minute but on a much more infrequent basis. Therefore, there is no ban on the use the construction traffic at other times of the day which require quiet, such as during recordings. Mr Newberry should understand there is no suggestion that there should be a ban on all construction railways during the times in the Barbican when the hall requires quiet but only part of it. 19781. CHAIRMAN: Mr Newberry, I can see where you are trying to get to and where your points are coming from, but I think you have made your point, and perhaps in your summing up you can deal with that. I think it is probably inappropriate to ask Mr Thornley-Taylor to deal with it because he was not party to it, he was in this room, and it is not his personal sphere of responsibility. 19782. MR NEWBERRY: I can see the witness's difficulty. I do not want to head it off too directorially. Can I try and establish the principles rather than the details. Mr Thornley-Taylor, concerts in the evening, which is where my entire question is directed to, as I have understood Mr Elvin, will be free from construction traffic? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) They will be free from the effect of the passage of the construction railway, which is predicted at low levels for the Barbican as it is at Grand Central Studios, but in both cases the users would seek even lower levels. 19783. Is there any reason in principle, therefore, subject to the issue of notification, that the same courtesy could not be extended to Grand Central Studios? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Certainly. What I have said outside this room, which I am happy to repeat again, is that the approach which is taken in these enlightened times to the driving of the tunnels under a sensitive area is to set up an extremely elaborate system of consultation between the contractor and those affected. For example, it is hoped that the passage of the tunnel boring machine, which Ivor Taylor yesterday accepted, would cause problems for the few days when it went through, but the passage of the tunnel boring machine, it is hoped, will be capable of being seen on a website. So if in the morning you are concerned that you will hear this go through, I understand you will be able to see where it is at any particular time. Modern contractors are extremely skilled at the process of the consultation of people affected. Not very long ago I was involved in the redevelopment of a building which joins the Wigmore Hall, which is another very valuable acoustic resource in London, and we did manage, by very good relations, to bring the contractor on board to demolish the entire building, sink completely new foundations, construct a new reinforced building with a party wall to the hall and life went on in a very acceptable way for the hall, so it can be done. It is a question of partnership. We are here in an adversarial stance for reasons we all well understand, but when it comes to doing the work, everybody needs to work in the same direction. 19784. I am sorry you object to the adversarial stance. (Mr Thornley-Taylor) It is inevitable, I am very experienced about it. 19785. Pursuant to the adversarial stance, what is the answer to my question? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) The answer is the same as I gave earlier, the difficulty with Grand Central Studios is the ad hoc nature of the demands on the studio. If it was similar to the Wigmore Hall or the Barbican it would be much easier to take the same approach if we knew in advance, sufficiently well in advance, that a particular hour of the day had a special requirement. It would be easier to deal with that than ad hoc demands of the kinds we heard yesterday. 19786. Subject to the issue of notice, that is the ability to notify you in advance, is the same flexibility available to Grand Central Studios as has been extended to the Barbican? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) The same general approach of consultation and doing whatever is practicable to help is of course available. I sit here as somebody who does not work for Crossrail. I cannot not give any commitments on their behalf; I am an external expert witness. I am in no position to say to the Committee something can be done from a managerial point of view because I do not have that power. 19787. We will leave it there. Thank you for that. So far as the operational railway is concerned, agreement has been reached, as you have indicated? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes. 19788. That is an NC20 minus 3dB third octave band, is that right? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes. 19789. Can you explain to the Committee the significance that lies behind the adjustment of the third active band? What is that intended to refine or reveal? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) From Crossrail's point of view, it effectively makes the criterion a little bit more onerous than if it were expressed in the conventional octave band manner. The practical effect we saw on one of the exhibits yesterday, the Central Line, which can just be heard in the studios, just reaches this criterion and Crossrail, at a different frequency, a lower one, would be a little bit better than that, but it is a way of putting into numbers the general desire that you should not hear Crossrail anymore than you can hear the Central Line. 19790. Why is the third band octave more onerous? I understand that it is but why is it? What characteristics are exhibited in third band octave that are not exhibited in other standards? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) The reason is that in converting from third octave bands to octave bands you have to combine the three sub-bands and it is possible that you might use all your allowance in all three of those bands and get a higher conventional NC number than if you only use one of them. The way we and the contractor will have to approach it is to say we might use all the allowance in each of the three sub-bands and that effectively lowers the conventional NC stand. 19791. That is, of course, during the operation of the railway. For the construction period, you adopt a different stand, is that NC25? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) That is correct. 19792. NC25 is clearly different from NC20 minus the third octave? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, it is. 19793. Is that a more or less rigorous standard? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) It is less rigorous. 19794. That less rigorous standard - I think the figure was given in Mr Bell's evidence to the Committee - is about 8dB difference? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes. 19795. If you have got a difference, as it were, between the construction standard and the operational standard of about 8dB, where is that in the scale of quantification of loudness? Is it almost twice as loud? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, because the measurements we were talking about yesterday were in the control room with everything switched off so you could not function the control room and there was nobody in the room because the sound of breathing would increase the measured noise level so it will never be heard. What takes place in the control room, as we heard yesterday, is recording sometimes when it is inappropriate to do the recording in the more insulated booth. Then the very large control desk is live, it has cooling fans and various air conditionings, and what you actually hear in the running control room is not what we were discussing yesterday, that was the pure train noise with everything else dead. In the actual control room at NC25 there will be negligible effect, otherwise why would Dolby set NC25 as the limit they say you should not exceed. 19796. Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly, but the standard of the NC20 minus 3dB, if you want to understand it, whether or not there is a breach of that standard, you have got to look at the studios in relation to external noise with all the air-conditioning et cetera switched off, do you not? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Not only that, you have got to set up equipment that you can control remotely or which you can interrogate afterwards because you must leave the room or your breathing will be part of the noise. 19797. However refined the exercise may be, the standard is NC20 and in order to judge the impact of the construction noise, you judge the external noise against NC20, not with the studio in operation, is that right? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) The construction noise, if there was a dispute as to whether or not the offer to achieve NC25 was being achieved, then, yes, you could switch everything off and leave the room. 19798. You have got 8dB, a standard outside, being pitched against the standard inside, why will you not hear that 8dB? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I am sorry, I have not understood the question. 19799. Your standard is NC20 minus 3, that is the studio not, in itself, in operation with everything switched off and your external standard, if I can put it that way, is 8dB louder? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) It is not an external standard. 19800. You know what I mean. (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I am sorry, I do not. 19801. The NC25 is 8dB louder than NC20 minus 3. (Mr Thornley-Taylor) It is not external, I have not understood the question. 19802. Just to confine it to the standards as you do not understand the question. The construction traffic is not inside the studio, is it? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) In both cases the source is external. 19803. So be it, but we are looking at a standard NC25 and comparing it with a standard NC20 minus 3 and the difference between the two, I think you will agree, is 8dB. (Mr Thornley-Taylor) In those special circumstances; it will not be in normal use. In normal use the difference will be trivial. 19804. That is not how we are judging the standard, is it? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, as I say, if there was a suggestion that Crossrail has not delivered we would check by turning everything off and measuring it with nobody in the room, but as far as the proof of the pudding is concerned with Elvis eating his hamburger, as we heard yesterday, and dancing about in a control room, there would be no practical difference. 19805. Let us not worry about the late Elvis for a moment. The issue of the standards comparing one with the other has to be done when the studio is not operational and the difference between the two standards is of the order of about 8dB? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, but you cannot express it in terms of how it will sound because there must be nobody in the room when you measure it. 19806. You are not putting forward a standard which is not capable of implementation, are you? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I did not say that, you were asking me about what it would sound like and it will not sound at all because there cannot, by definition, be anybody there to hear it. 19807. That is not going to assist us because you can have monitoring equipment, that is the way it is done? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) But monitors do not hear, they do not have a judgment of loudness. 19808. How are we going to see then whether your standard is verifiable? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) We will turn everything off and put up equipment which is either remotely controlled or does recording and we all leave the room. After the measurements have been made we go back in and find out what the noise level was but nobody will have heard it. 19809. I understand that, but why do you say 8dB from the NC25 would not be perceived in the studios of NC20 minus three as Mr Bell firmly believes it would be. (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Because to be perceived you need a human being and for the human being to be in the room he would be there to carry out the recording and processing work. It will be necessary to switch the equipment on in order to do the work. I was led to believe that the critical times are when it is appropriate to record in the control room and not in the studio and the descriptions we had of what goes on in the control rooms are by no means quiet anyway. 19810. I can see the way you are skilfully answering my questions, Mr Thornley-Taylor. One of the factors that you have had to take into account in the construction of the railway is that if we look at the nature of the operational railway, in terms of how that is constructed, it is different from the construction period, is that right? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) The way the operational railway is constructed is different, yes. 19811. Could you outline what the differences are between the railways as constructed as opposed to operational? What is the difference between the two? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Perhaps if I start by describing the way in which the construction railway is installed and operated. The tunnel boring machine advances in the way described by Professor Mair about a year ago. It is quite an extended piece of quality. It includes the face of the tunnel boring machine which is removing the soil and putting it on a conveyor and sending it back down the tunnel. Behind it as the tunnelling boring machine advances, short sections of track are laid because the tunnel lining segments, which have to go into place as quickly as possible to minimise settlement, must be brought up by rail to the face as efficiently and quickly as possible. Quite short sections of rail are laid immediately behind the tunnel boring machine. As soon as possible after that a team will go down and weld them up into longer lengths and an underground central studio process will ensure we do not have un-welded rail joints beneath the recording studios. In order to achieve the predicted levels I gave in evidence yesterday a very special line of construction railway will be installed, what is called an under-ballast mat. That will, first of all, be put on the base of the tunnel. This is a rubber sheet, a bit like the sample Dr Hunt had with him yesterday, although softer. This is laid on the bottom of the tunnel and then the current intention is the ballast will be placed on top of it. That is not to say there is not an alternative massive material. Then on the ballast goes more conventional railway sleepers and smaller section rails than the operating railway. It is a recognisable railway, probably a narrower gage, probably 900mm instead of 1435. That will be used for a specially built construction locomotive to haul cars with both segments and people as well to work at the site, backwards and forwards to keep the tunnel boring machine going. By contrast, the operational railway will, through this area and other areas where floating track slab is necessary, have first of all first stage concrete installed and then concrete slabs, which are like short ridge decks which will probably be installed on rubber, although they can be springs, resilient bearings, and it will sit, as I think it is called, as a floating track slab because it is sitting on complete resilient support on rubber bearings. On top of that a more conventional railway which, if you were in the tunnel and you looked down at it, would look very similar to a railway everywhere else is then constructed. The effect is that the operating train is running over a system which is fundamentally like the floating slab at Westminster Station under Portcullis House, but I am intending in this case that we will have one more stage of isolation in there than we have at Portcullis House in that there the rails are rigidly fastened to the slab. I wish I had not done that because the lack of maintenance I referred to causes that rumble you can hear in the station. I still do not think you can hear it in Portcullis House, but I would prefer that was not there. In Crossrail's case, we will have the same resilient rail support between the rail and the slab as will be system-wide and then the floating slab, which will weigh a minimum of 2.4 tonnes per meter, is itself on rubber bearings. 19812. Would it be possible to construct for the temporary railway an executed design which would give the same Db20 minus but it would be for the permanent rail? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) In engineering terms, the answer is yes, but I do not think it would be practical to get that in behind the advancing tunnel boring machine in the way that has to be done to keep getting the train up to face, to keep getting alignment segments there. It is not impossible between now and the date when the contractor decides exactly how to do it, but some better way than I am currently assuming will be found. I cannot offer predictions but I can advise my client he can rely on their achievement. At this stage the ballast mat and ballast is we know doable because it is a recognised way of putting in a temporary construction railway. More difficult engineering solutions might turn out to be possible but I cannot offer them or recommend them to my client. 19813. You are saying in engineering terms it is possible to have continuous welded rail? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) No, you cannot have continuous welded rail. Continuous welded rail is a very special term which applies to rail and is rolled in very long lengths and then when it is welded up, it is done so in a way which produces effectively no joint work at all. Those of us who are so old can remember joint track on the East Coast Mainline, the clikety-clack all the way up to Kings Cross and Newcastle. When that suddenly gave way the difference in sound was quite extraordinary because there was no joint noise whatsoever on continuous welded rail. What I am taking about is this railway is going down and welding six metre lengths together. Although you can do that with quite sophisticated welding equipment, it is not the same process as laying mainline continuous welded rail which behaves as if it was joint free. There will always be a necessity to do a very careful grinding job to make sure that this in situ rail does not cause joint noise, but it is difficult and I must make it absolutely clear, we are not talking about the CWR continuous welded rail, we are talking about welding up six metre lengths of track. 19814. What I am not clear about is why you cannot do it? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Because to begin with, CWR comes in 60 metre lengths and you could not get them in, never mind the welding technology issues I just referred to. 19815. The protective length of the area under the Grand Central Studios is 100 metres, something of that order? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It would be a bit longer than that, it would be 100 metres either side of the studio. In fact, it would be much longer than that because there are other studios, as we heard, and we will be putting floating tracks in. 19816. A hundred and sixty metres at the point is not a prohibition, is it? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) No. Just contemplate handling a piece of rail 160 metres long and the tunnel boring machine advances very slowly and you have to keep laying track. You cannot do it with lengths of rail that size. 19817. Where is the technical justification for that proposition? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) A hundred and sixty metres is from this committee room to Westminster Station. Carrying that piece of rail that long into a tunnel where you want to extend the rail little by little several times a day, I am baffled as to why I am being asked the question. 19818. Never mind about that. What is the improvement you are contemplating, then? Setting this issue of cost aside, what is the improvement that it is capable of being contemplated? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I am thinking that it could be the case, but I am not anything like confident enough to talk about it as being a realistic possibility now, but it could be the case that instead of the ballast you could bring pre‑formed short concrete slabs up and put them down instead of the ballast and that would work better. We cannot commit to that now. 19819. I am not asking you to commit to that. What would be the improvement? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) We might be able to get to NC 20 ‑ 3, things might turn out, for a lot of reasons, to be much better than we are currently having to face. 19820. Why would you like to get to NC 20 ‑ 3? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Because those instructing you are asking for it. 19821. I think the fact we are asking for it is not uppermost in your mind, Mr Thornley‑Taylor. Why would you like to achieve that? Is it because it gets to a much better noise environment? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I have to say that all our work in recent times is totally driven by what the Petitioners are seeking. 19822. The speed of the trains, Mr Thornley‑Taylor, during the construction period, according to the agreement, are limited to a maximum of 5 kph, is that right? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19823. Is it right that if you reduce the speed of the trains the noise emanating from that particular source is reduced? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19824. If, for example, you were to reduce the speed ‑ and it is just an example ‑ to 3 kph what is your assessment of the reduction of the noise? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It would bring about a reduction of two or three dB and two or three notches on the NC curve system. 19825. I appreciate I sprung the question on you. Is that something you need to get down on paper and work on, or is that your best judgment? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It will enable us to address this topic now. 19826. What is the speed then that you say would be or would the reduction in speed enable NC 20 ‑ 3 to be achieved? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I think we have to go down to one kilometre an hour. 19827. Is that something that is capable of calculation on a piece of paper for the Committee, not now but subsequently? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It is not set down on a piece of paper as being a model one, but you would not bother to do it because one kilometre an hour is moving that far (indicating) in one second and you just could not do it. 19828. I understand that, but your one kph might not be right. It would be helpful to the Committee to see the degradation of a reduction of speed and the refinement of noise levels emanating as a result of that reduction of speed. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) No, it would not. It is not remotely doable, I even have worries about five kilometres per hour. I have asked repeated questions of those responsible concerned with construction planning and tunnelling when we say, "Can we even do five?" They say they can, but that is a very low speed considering the length of tunnel. 19829. Forgive me, you just said it was capable of being modelled? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It is capable of being modelled, but I do not intend to do it. 19830. You are not prepared to help the Committee? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It is pointless because we could not possibly go that slowly. 19831. When you say you could not go, have I got it right that the maximum is 5 kph? That is what it says in the agreement I have got in front of me. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19832. It does not appear to be worded that is the only speed, of 5 kph. You are saying to the Committee there are no circumstances in the operation of this railway during the temporary period that speeds of less than 5 kph will be utilised by the construction trains, is that right? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) The construction trains will stop sometimes and will have zero kph, but it is impossible to contemplate putting a lower number in the agreement plus five? 19833. Are you saying, Mr Thornley‑Taylor, that the only speed the trains will travel through the temporary railway period is 5 kph and you do not contemplate ever a reduction in that speed? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I have just said so, it will stop sometimes. 19834. What about a position other than stopping? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Between zero and five there are several other speeds. 19835. Yes, you are doing very well, Mr Thornley‑Taylor. Now we have established there are a range of speeds between nought and 5 kph, can we get some agreement that it is not beyond reasonable contemplation that the construction trains will be travelling throughout that range and not necessarily at a fixed speed of 5 kph? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) They will use all 5 kph when they are actually transporting tunnel lining segments to the tunnel boring machine. It will only be because they are required to slow down to stop for operational reasons that they would go slower. 19836. That is very helpful, thank you for that. The rails that are going to be used are, I think you said, six metres? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Initially, yes. 19837. When do they change that? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) As soon as possible. It is likely to be during the weekend that immediately follows the subsection of the track that has been laid in six‑metre lengths. A welding team will go down and weld them up during the next following weekend. 19838. Then they change to a different length, is that right? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) By virtue of being welded up. 19839. It says in the agreement that, on completion of the tunnel boring machine passage, a six‑metre length of mechanically joined rail will be replaced with 15‑metres of rail. Is that right? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes, that is an alternative approach. 19840. When you say it is "alternative", is it not going to happen? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) If that is what is in the agreement, it will happen. 19841. Why can you not put 15 metres down straightaway? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Because the tunnel boring machine is constantly advancing and you need to be able to get the tunnel lining segments immediately behind the newly excavated bare tunnel - which is in danger of causing more settlement than we want to achieve if you do not get the segments in as quickly as you can - so you need to get the train continually advancing up behind the tunnel boring machine. The way you do that is to put in new track. Six metres is quite long but I am calling it short increments. 19842. Is there a difference in performance between 16 and six? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Only that we need to avoid joints underneath the Grand Central Studios and the longer the rail the less of a problem dealing with joints is. 19843. What is the improvement then if you reduce the number of joints? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) We did see two slides yesterday ‑ perhaps we only actually saw one ‑ but there is another one that shows what happens with a joint and that took us to NC 30. 19844. The presence of a joint takes you to NC 30? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19845. How does that match up with NC 25? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It does not. We are going to have to undertake to have no joints underneath Grand Central Studios after the tunnel boring machine passes through and that includes the period when there are these temporary six‑metre short lengths. 19846. Thank you for that. Can you help me with this, Mr Thornley‑Taylor. What do you claim is the uncertainty of your individual third octave band level predictions? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) We saw on yesterday's slides little "t" marks which showed what happened with band five to each band. I explained that actually the consequences of the sort of uncertainties we were discussing yesterday that peaks in the predictions occurred in slightly different frequencies than the ones you think they were and it is not so much that they go up, but they appear in a different part of the screen where the NC curve might be more demanding. Again, that is covered by the kind of uncertainty that I talked about yesterday. 19847. There is a constant five dB on each and every individual prediction? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) That is how it is presented. 19848. That is not quite what I had asked you. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes, it is the way it is addressed in this process. 19849. Forgive me for just wanting to be clear on this, you are saying that for each individual third band octave level prediction that you have encountered, every single one of them is plus and minus five dB? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) My evidence yesterday was that it is plus five dB ‑ might be more than five because sometimes we do over-predict and railways turn out. 19850. But on the plus factor it is five? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19851. On each and every occasion? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) As we saw in yesterday's evidence. 19852. Thank you. I think you know Dr Hunt, do you not? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I do very well. I regard him as a friend, I hope he will continue to be such and he was kind enough to present my papers for me at a conference in Lisbon because I had to come home to proceedings like this. 19853. Yes, he told me about that. It was the roughest ride he ever had! (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It was a very interesting piece of new work and we had a long briefing session, and I understand he did extremely well. 19854. You know him well and, indeed, you are friends. I have misunderstood the tenor of your evidence, you are not seeking to rubbish what he saying, are you? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I gave a lot of evidence in chief yesterday about the interpretation of his work and his findings in the context of the Crossrail case. He was clear that his model is not suitable for Crossrail. His particular interest is in comparing models and he talked a lot about weather forecasting models. I am very pleased to say we have not got violent, swirling clouds underneath the Grand Central Studios. We have not got the forecast where clouds will be at any particular time, it is actually a bit easier than that. He was quite right in saying that if you do not know important perimeters in modelling. The consequence of that is a difference between what you predict and what happens, but it is very important to interpret that in a way which is directly relevant to the case in point, which is advising the Secretary of State whether he can commit to levels which will be delivered in the event with a minimum risk of failure. 19855. Certainly he did talk about weather forecasting, but his evidence was not limited to that. He was talking about mathematical models. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Exactly, his particular interest is modelling and particularly comparing different models. 19856. He also applied his evidence to mathematical models dealing with sound and his analysis of many mathematical sounds, if I can put it that way, was they do not purport to be accurate to any greater degree of accuracy than 10 dB. That was the tenor of his evidence. That is on a wide basis of academic, rigorous analysis of models. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It was but I explained in chief that he is quite right. When you get this phenomenon that I mentioned a moment ago, that a peak comes out in a different place in the spectrum, the consequence of that is that in any one frequency there is a big difference because what was a peak was moved to the left or the right and left in its place a trough but always when it comes to designing a railway, we are addressing commitments given either in terms of the familiar LA max S that we have been talking about for the last year, or the special case we now have of NC curves. In both cases once you turn the predictions into assessments against the NC system or the LA max S system, those differences caused by peaks drifting to the left or the right virtually disappear. We saw a slide yesterday about validations at Greenwich which Dr Hunt has expressed concerns about. Once those are expressed in terms of NC the difference between measured and predicted drop right down to 1.3 dB, much less than five that we are currently using. 19857. What I understood you to say yesterday, Mr Thornley‑Taylor, was that even if you take Dr Hunt's 10 dB as opposed to your 5 dB, you can cope with that, is that right? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) The slide we saw yesterday for the noise level in NC terms from the temporary construction railway with no rail joints in the studio was NC 20; with the five dB uncertainty, it was NC 25 which was the basis of the draft undertaking but if you were to say there is an uncertainty of 10 it only takes you up to a prediction of NC 25. 19858. Would you be prepared to adjust your standards to accommodate Dr Hunt's 10 dB since you appear to be saying it does? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) No further work is necessary. We could show it again if necessary but our prediction for the temporary construction railway is NC 20, de facto 20 plus 10 is 30. Sorry, it is NC 20 plus the 5 dB uncertainty, so you increase the 5 dB to 10 dB de facto, it is NC 25. 19859. You are saying, if I understood you correctly, in effect in practical terms, you can accommodate Dr Hunt's observations, can you? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) The probable outturn is that it will be better than NC 25. 19860. Can the Committee note that, in practical terms, there is no difference between you and Dr Hunt because your standards that you have adopted embrace his 10 dB? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) That is true. I do not really know why we are going through all this because there is very little between us. 19861. I want the Committee to note that. Thank you very much for that. Mr Thornley‑Taylor, can I ask you something else. I am told that there was a helpful meeting between you and those that I represent on 20 February, is that right? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I cannot check the date, but I am sure that is right. 19862. I think the subject matter of the construction of the temporary railway was raised and you had a discussion about that, is that right? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19863. I think in that meeting you also expressed views similar to those you have expressed now relating to the reduction in speed of the 5 kph, what we looked at. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19864. Is that right? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19865. My understanding of what was discussed at the meeting and your particular take on this, on the reduction of speed, was that you would prefer to put in a track akin to that for the operational railway rather than change the speed of the train. Do you recall saying that? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It is precisely what I have been describing and what in theory could be done, but I do not think it is possible at this stage to say if it can be done. 19866. When you said that it cannot be done, was that on the basis of technical discussions with those helping you with the construction of the railway? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes, I had repeated discussions with tunneling engineers of what can and cannot practically be done. 19867. So there is ongoing research, is there, as to the ability to overcome this particular problem? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It is not research, it is engineers considering with their experience of previous projects what you can do in a tunnel. 19868. You must have discussed this with them? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19869. What you are saying to the Committee is that there is ongoing work with the aspirations of improving things? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I do not think anything will now happen until the contractor comes along, that is when you get further ideas of how to meet obligations in contracts. As far as the present situation is concerned, ballast these tracks on an inward ballast map is what we think is achievable and I do not expect that to change, but you always get contractors with interesting new ideas when they come along and may say, "No, we do not ballast in. We can do this selection with pre-cast blocks". It may happen, it may turn out to be possible. 19870. You have been fair enough, Mr Thornley‑Taylor, to recognise and, indeed, base your worth in relation to Grand Central Studios on the basis that they are a special and exceptional case. If I understand the broad approach of Crossrail, they are not in the business of seeking the termination of businesses which are clearly highly significant in their area. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Most certainly not. Crossrail will be a flagship, a 21st century underground railway and we hope that we run under all these sensible installations with no deleterious effects whatsoever. 19871. MR NEWBERRY: If your degrees of certainty which you have indicated to the Committee were not borne out, why do Crossrail want to compensate my clients? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I am not the witness to answer that question. 19872. MR BINLEY: I have two concerns that I wish to clarify and the first revolves around the information available in 2003 which you gave evidence on this morning, Mr Thornley‑Taylor. The content of your information was that information was available enough and that information was available to the Petitioners with regard to the perimeters of noise going through the tunnel. That is so, is it not? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19873. Yet you have just made two comments. One comment was, until contractors tell us exactly how they are going to do it, we cannot be precise about the perimeters that would apply in the tunnel and, secondly, you say if you do not know important perimeters, the content of a prediction and fact can differ. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) That is right. 19874. Both of those statements you have said. Knowing the fine detail required for this particular operation, how then could they possibly get the information on which to act to abide by the conditions that will apply beneath them when those two statements make it quite clear that the precise conditions they could not possibly know about, even if they did ask at the time that they set the business up, for the information then available? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) The starting point is the assumptions we have made and will pass on to the contractor. It is already the case that if you walk into a meeting with some of the contractors - we already have the design contractors, the systems and rolling stock consultants for example - not more than a few minutes will have passed before they say "Barbican" and "Grand Central Studios". They know that there are special requirements which they have to meet. 19875. Sorry, that was not my question. My question was if the plans were advanced enough for the Petitioners to get the information, how could that be the case in the light of the two statements you made? Are you telling me that what they should have done is gone to the contractors when the contractors' names would not be involved in the planning permission? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) No, that is a conspiracy theory addressed in the safeguarding pack. The report that was handed this morning explicitly says that the basis for the information in the pack is that the rail support will be stiffer than was actually intended by Crossrail on the basis that it might turn out that, for some reason, stiffer base plates were put in. It says the base plates specification used in the above assumption has a higher level in the Petitioner than Crossrail currently proposes to adopt in order to ensure that a conservative prediction of noise level is considered in the developer's design. 19876. In the light of what the good Professor said yesterday, which you agreed there was not much space between you and him, I am still back to this degree of uncertainty which seems to me, as a lay man, to suggest that even if they had sought the information that you felt they ought to and, as a small business owner, I understand how difficult that is when your focus is somewhere else quite frankly, that even if they had the information they required to make the sort of decisions we are talking about, a very fine degree of sound operation would not have been available, would it? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) They are fully taken into account and I have read the passage out that will allow it. 19877. How does that fit in until the contractors tell us exactly how they are going to do it, we are unable to make predictions and, if you do not, the perimeters, the content of the prediction and the fact can differ? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Contractors might do it better. 19878. Might? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) They will certainly do it well because it will be in their contract. 19879. The second point I want to clarify is I am not sure about how much traffic is going to go on in the construction period, recognising that the construction period is going to be about ten months. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) All I can say is that compared with the operational railway which is of the order of two minute headway, three or four trains per hour, or whatever it is, I am not able to give that kind of evidence in detail. The construction traffic will be very infrequent. 19880. Infrequent and intermittent, not at the same times, very difficult to plan for, is that fair? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) One of the consequences of this arrangement that I have said I foresaw being set up in very good consultation between the contractor and those affected is that the contractor will know when the train starts from the portal at Paddington and it will be possible if somebody wants to know when it will arrive at Soho, it will be possible to give a reasonable prediction of when that will be. 19881. Forgive me, Chairman, I recognise I am labouring this point. I am trying to understand that, here we are with an operation that leases out its resource on half an hour units. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19882. Bearing in mind they have some very expensive people to undertake the tasks of recording, what they have got to do is keep their eye very, very closely on a telephone, phone up or look at a screen. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) No, they have not got to do that. My evidence was very clear that, in fact, the effect of the operational and the construction railway after the tunnel boring machine ‑‑‑‑ 19883. I am talking specifically about construction. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) After the tunnel boring machine has gone through the operation of the construction railway behind the tunnel boring machine when the rails have been welded up will not take this, above NC 25 and that is what Dolby say they need. 19884. I am talking about at this moment the frequency of the trains that will carry very heavy loads because they are carrying the concrete assembly units. How will people who book a unit facility by the half hour with very expensive performers to carry out the task, with all that intricacy going on with sound recording, be able to plan their work with the work of the train which may or may not come along at any given time? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) If they did need, for some extraordinary reason, to turn all the equipment off in the control room, so that this became something measurable then that is such an odd state of affairs they would be able to be plan ahead. Normal use of the control room it does not matter how frequent or infrequent the trains will be because they will not exceed acceptability. 19885. That is your prediction. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) We are proposing to undertake it. 19886. Forgive me, let me finish my point. That is your prediction and we have already heard from two statements that you made that predictions are very difficult and relatively imprecise at this level until you know the actual facts in a given situation. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) I did say the contractor might do better. 19887. I notice the "might" bit. I still do not understand how people who are focused on a very technical and fine business in very limited periods of time are expected also to keep their eyes and to understand when trains, which are very intermittent, carrying very heavy loads and so we do not know what the impact of that will be on that studio even on a minor stop, if the noises were not within the perimeters that you said? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) If the noise is not within the limits the Secretary of State is proposing, then action will have to be taken to put it right. 19888. MR BINLEY: I am grateful. 19889. CHAIRMAN: Mr Taylor? 19890. MR TAYLOR: Just put up the graph that we were looking at yesterday. This is your forecast, Mr Thornley‑Taylor, of the impact on studio nine, the temporary construction railway with no rail joint beneath for the studio which was being proposed by the Promoter and we can see the point that determines the NC level is there, yes? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19891. And we can see its bottom line is NC 15? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19892. So your model is forecasting NC 15? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19893. Take into account a plus five uncertainty, we go up to the top of the peak there that you have put on to NC 20, so if we take into account a plus ten uncertainty we get to NC 25? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) That is correct. 19894. So by offering NC 25, what is your view of the extent to which an NC 25 level takes into account uncertainty in the modelling process? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) There is headroom for much more uncertainty than I have been using. If Dr Hunt wished to add ten to the prediction we would still achieve NC 25. 19895. Thank you. In relation to the questions that you were asked about train speed and why up to 5 kph is required, is that a matter that you feel able to deal with or is that a matter better put to Mr Berryman? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It would be a very good matter to be put to Mr Berryman. 19896. The rail can be put behind the TBM as it is passing. We need to clarify, for the benefit of my learned friend in particular, precisely what happens behind the TBM. The tunnel boring machine is moving slowly forward as it creates the tunnel and behind it we have to have lining segments placed around the tunnel to provide support. Those lining segments have to be brought to the location behind the TBM. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes, they do. 19897. And there has to be a sufficient number of them to be able to keep pace as the tunnel boring machine moves forward. (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes, they do. 19898. Am I right in saying that in order to bring those very heavy segment lines you have to be able to get close to the tunnel boring machine itself? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes, you do. 19899. So if we were, say, to accept the idea which was put to you that we provide a continuously welded rail, which I think you said is 160 metres long? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Yes. 19900. And we stop the construction railway being built at some point prior to getting into the DCSs and we watch the tunnel boring machine disappear off into the gloom in front of us and we wait for the TBM to go 160 metres before placing continuous rail down, how do we get the segments of 160 metres down the tunnel? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) It is completely impractical. The laying of the rail is a process which cannot be done on a temporary basis advancing small distances like that. 19901. And what views do you express about the practicality as a suggestion that was put to you? (Mr Thornley‑Taylor) Wholly impractical. 19902. You expressed concerns about the difference between theoretically what you could provide in terms of the specification for the construction railway and what can be provided in practice. I have just explained, with your assistance, the way in which the construction railway is built piece by piece behind the TBM's advances, does the amount of time that is available to lay the construction railway affect in any way the risk associated with meeting particularly stringent noise criteria in relation to the construction level? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) That is one of the reasons why I do not feel it right to recommend we do better than NC25. It is one of the several differences between the installation of the temporary construction railway and the permanent railway that it is a rapid process, much less opportunity for fine control of what is done when the temporary railway is laid. 19903. Thank you. Now, you were asked some questions about the Barbican and what was proposed in relation to the Barbican. I think it was put to you that Crossrail had offered GCSs precisely the same that has been offered to the Barbican and I just wanted to clarify that for a moment. In the Promoter's exhibits, I think at page 184, if we have got that, there is a paragraph in a letter written by the Promoter's solicitors, Parliamentary Agents, dated 29 January 2007. Here in the first main paragraph we can see reference to the undertakings set out in the previous letter of 18 December that related to an offer that on the permanent track support system there would not be an excess of NC20. This was earlier parts of the negotiations that have continued. An explanation of that is given and then we see the words: "The Promoter is prepared also to offer your client a commitment to provide the same specification of design for the construction and maintenance of the track and track support system as will be provided so as to protect the noise environment within the Barbican Hall". Do you see that? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes. 19904. Does that commitment relate to the construction railway or to the permanent railway? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) That relates to the permanent railway. 19905. Thank you. In relation to the point that was put as to can the construction trains simply be stopped from passing under GCSs in the way that has been agreed in relation to the Barbican Hall, is that a matter which you could help the Committee on or is that a matter, again, that is better explained by Mr Berryman? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) It is better explained by Mr Berryman. I did express that I am not well enough briefed on the Barbican's timings. 19906. Thank you. One last question that perhaps you can help with. A person is looking to acquire premises to build a sound recording studio, they identify premises which are above the safeguarded line for an underground railway, and they are aware of that safeguarding. What is your view of the reasonableness of the position of a purchaser in that situation who does not contact the promoter of that railway to ask them whether information exists regarding the potential ground borne noise impact of the railway should it come forward? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) I cannot understand an approach which did not involve requesting such numerical information as exists about the effect of the planned railway. 19907. What is your view of the reasonableness of then constructing a studio without taking into account or making passive provision for further mitigation should that railway come forward? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) It is clearly a calculated risk. 19908. If it were the case that the premises could not be operated satisfactorily without that further mitigation and no passive provision had been provided, what is your view of the reasonableness of acquiring those premises to begin with? (Mr Thornley-Taylor) Another calculated risk. 19909. MR TAYLOR: Thank you. Sir, those are all the questions I have for Mr Thornley-Taylor, I do not know if the Committee has got any further. I propose to call Mr Berryman shortly to deal with the point about the construction trains and why they cannot be stopped under GCSs.
The witness withdrew
MR KEITH BERRYMAN, Recalled Examined by MR TAYLOR 19910. CHAIRMAN: Mr Taylor, is this going to be long? 19911. MR TAYLOR: It is going to be very short indeed, is it not, Mr Berryman? (Mr Berryman) It is indeed. 19912. Mr Berryman, I am not sure if you were in the room at the time but the point was put to Mr Thornley-Taylor that in relation to the Barbican, Crossrail has reached terms with the City of London to the effect that the timing of movement of the construction train can be altered around performances within the Barbican Hall. (Mr Berryman) Yes. 19913. The point was put why can we not have the same in relation to the Grand Central Studios? (Mr Berryman) The two situations are significantly different. The tunnel boring machines which pass underneath the Barbican Hall will have started back by the river in Newham and will be almost at the end of their run when they pass underneath the Barbican Hall to the extent that by the time the tail of the tunnel boring machine - we have heard quite a bit about tunnel boring machines this morning but they are quite long pieces of kit - passes the Barbican Hall the machine will be coming to a halt where it will be broken up and taken out from the tunnel because that will be the end of its run. Once the tunnelling is complete the number of movements on the construction railway become very low because basically you are only using it for cleaning out the bottom of the tunnel and gradually withdrawing from the tunnel as you go, so instead of being perhaps hourly or even slightly more frequently than hourly trains which will be running while the tunnel boring machines are going along, you would be talking about one, two or three trains a day, those kinds of numbers. The difference at Grand Central Studios is that when the tunnel boring machines have passed underneath Grand Central Studios they still have another seven months to go and during those seven months the construction railway will be kept going 24 hours a day with trains running at more or less hourly frequency; maybe slightly more, slightly less. It does not operate as a frequency service, it operates when the demand is there, so if the machine is going quicker the maximum rate you could achieve could be a train every 25 minutes but that would be unusual if that was achievable for a very long period of time. We are saying on average about an hourly train. 19914. Thank you very much. Another point was put about the speed of the train, whether it can be slower than 5kph. We have put forward a commitment of up to 5kph. (Mr Berryman) Yes. 5kph is a fairly slow walking speed. The trains will generally run at 20kph or even slightly more quickly than that. It will just be that under this sensitive area, and it is not just Grand Central studios, there are other studios, we will have a speed restriction so the speed of the trains will be reduced to 5kph. To go below that would make the operation of the construction railway very impractical because it is quite a long length that you are talking about. 19915. MR TAYLOR: Thank you very much indeed. 19916. CHAIRMAN: Mr Newberry?
Cross-examined by MR NEWBERRY 19917. MR NEWBERRY: Mr Berryman, for my part I am not sure which role you fulfil within the Crossrail team, could you just tell me? (Mr Berryman) I am currently the managing director of the promoting company but my responsibilities have lain mainly on the engineering side of the project. 19918. Do you have an input into whether things are technically possibly but vetoed because of cost reasons and that type of thing? (Mr Berryman) Yes, that is probably the main part of my job. 19919. So you are the man, are you? (Mr Berryman) I would not put it quite as strongly as that but certainly I have an input into those decisions. 19920. The speed of the trains under the sensitive area, I gather that they reduce from 20kph to 5kph, is that right? (Mr Berryman) That is right. That is the idea, yes. 19921. Reducing them, say, to 3kph, I am just picking that as a figure, on the assumption that it reduces noise impact as a result of doing that, why do you say that is impossible in terms of the construction of the railway? (Mr Berryman) Just by virtue of the journey time that would be involved. You have got to bear in mind that we are talking about a single track railway here which has to solve the tunnel boring as it is going on, so a train cannot come out until another train has gone in, so the longer you increase the journey time the more difficult it is to keep servicing the machine as needed. Of course, it is not just your client's premises where there are sensitive issues; there are a number of other premises in the same area where we will also be meeting these noise criteria. 19922. I understand that obviously but what is the extra time factor of travelling the 110 metres or so at 3kph as opposed to five? What is the time penalty? (Mr Berryman) I cannot tell you offhand. It will be a few minutes by the time the train has slowed down, gone at this crawling speed and then speeded up again. 19923. That sounds quite a lot, if I may say so, a few minutes to travel 100 metres, the difference between the 5kph and 3kph. (Mr Berryman) If it was 100 metres it would not be very long but it will be more than 10 metres because the length of the train itself has got to be part of that. The front of the train gets to a certain point, you pass under the length at restricted speed and you cannot speed up until the back of the train has passed it. Moreover, I do not think there is any fundamental difference between your client's property and the other sound sensitive sites in the area. 19924. There may well be but that in itself is not of assistance. What I want to know is, is there a spreadsheet or some calculation that we can look at to justify the assertion that it is several minutes? (Mr Berryman) No, there is not. You would have to calculate that. Frankly, 5kph is a slow walking speed. We have never given serious consideration to operating trains at a lower speed than that. 19925. Why? (Mr Berryman) The benefits are just not commensurate with the inconvenience. 19926. What is the financial penalty that is concerning you? It can clearly be done in practical terms. (Mr Berryman) It is not so much a financial penalty, it is just the operation of the whole system, the railway, the tunnel boring machines, everything working together. I suppose it is possible to go more slowly but are the benefits really worth it? 19927. That is a separate question. You know that our case is if you reduce the speed you do get considerable benefits. (Mr Berryman) I think if you reduce the speed from 20kph to 5kph you obviously do get significant benefits but you get to the law of diminishing returns and if you go slower and slower, the benefit you get is less and less. 19928. Benefit to whom? (Mr Berryman) Benefit in terms of noise reduction. 19929. I do not think that is your area, is it? (Mr Berryman) No, it is not, but I do happen to know that is the case. 19930. What was your research to come to that conclusion? (Mr Berryman) Experience of how these things work in practice. 19931. What does your experience tell you, please, on the reduction from 5kph to 3kph in terms of noise? (Mr Berryman) I do not have specific experience of reducing from 5kph to 3kph but I do have general experience of the impact of speed on noise. 19932. I will not press you any more on that. Are you the right person to ask about different types of rail once the initial rail goes in? (Mr Berryman) Yes. 19933. If the tunnel boring machine has gone under Grand Central Studios and, as it were, behind there is a particular form of track, is there not? (Mr Berryman) Yes. 19934. Later on I think someone comes along and alters that type of track from six metre to 15 metre lengths. (Mr Berryman) Yes, by welding the joints, that is correct, either welding the joints or replacing the lengths. There are several ways to do it. 19935. What are the contingencies? If there was a structural failure of the rail that had been laid, either in terms of the rail itself or its support or its foundations, what would you do? (Mr Berryman) We would either replace the length of rail or weld it depending on the nature of the problem. 19936. What about if the foundations that the rail was standing on, the clips or the concrete bedding, whatever it is it is resting on, what happens if that fails for some reason? (Mr Berryman) It would be extremely unusual for that to fail. The rail will be laid, as Mr Thornley-Taylor described, on top of ballast which should be laid itself on top of the rubber mat in the invert of the tunnel, so it will be resting directly on the concrete under the lower part of the tunnel. 19937. I understand it might be unlikely but what would happen? (Mr Berryman) If that happens you would bring some more ballast in and tamp it by hand to make the ballast good. It is a very well established technique on railway construction. 19938. Presumably in the schedules and the way you look at it, you do contemplate things going wrong when you are drawing up these schedules? (Mr Berryman) Yes, there is always a contingency in the timeframes. 19939. Why would it not be possible after the initial rail has been laid thereafter to have a run of continuous welded rail, not at the same time as the tunnel boring machine is going through but retrospectively after that? Why is that not possible? (Mr Berryman) What you will get is a rail welded into longer lengths than six metres, you would get ---- 19940. What is wrong with that? (Mr Berryman) Nothing is wrong with that. 19941. Why can you not do it? (Mr Berryman) That is what we are suggesting we will do. 19942. Why can you not do better than that where you have got a series of very sensitive users? Why can you not have continuous welded rail after the tunnel boring machine? (Mr Berryman) Continuous welded rail, which is laid in the tunnels when they are complete and the concrete foundation is done, is laid by very specialist plant which needs a clean tunnel to get into. I am not explaining this terribly well. It needs a tunnel with the track bed prepared so that specialist plant can get in with the long lengths of rail. 19943. Why can that not be done? (Mr Berryman) Because you have got all sorts of other stuff going on in the tunnel that is under construction at the same time. 19944. KELVIN HOPKINS: I am sorry to interject on this point. I understand that the continuously welded track is welded under tension to accommodate expansion. (Mr Berryman) Yes, it is. 19945. Then you have long lengths to be able to do that. (Mr Berryman) That is correct. The laying of a permanent continuous welded rail is an operation which involves having a long length of tunnel available to go at. It involves the use of specialist plant and you need a relatively clean tunnel to do it in. 19946. This is not just where the gap is you weld it and leave it? (Mr Berryman) It is not that. CWR is a specific product, a specific thing. 19947. KELVIN HOPKINS: Apologies for interrupting. 19948. MR NEWBERRY: Do you say that it is not possible or that it is possible but there are certain penalties associated with it? (Mr Berryman) I would say it is not possible to lay rail akin to the permanent continuously welded rail. 19949. What do you say about improving the 15 metre lengths? (Mr Berryman) You can well it into longer lengths. 19950. What would be the maximum length you could weld it to? (Mr Berryman) You could probably go to double that. 19951. So 30 metres? (Mr Berryman) Probably, I would need to check with a permanent weld specialist. I would have thought you could go to double that. Another fact you have got to bear in mind, of course, is that it has all got to come out again afterwards. 19952. I understand that. What is the constraint? (Mr Berryman) The constraint would be the expansion and contraction of the rails, as Mr Hopkins mentioned. Continuous welded rail, which is installed on a railway, is stressed appropriately to allow for expansion and contraction to take place without buckling the rails or causing wide gaps or joins. That would be the issue. 19953. Just taking your suggestion of 30 metres as opposed to 15 or thereabouts, you see no practical reason why that cannot be done? (Mr Berryman) No, other than just the time constraint. It is physically possible, certainly, but I think Mr Thornley-Taylor mentioned the model assumes there would be no joint directly underneath Grand Central Studios in any event. 19954. Do you see any reason why the agreement could not be modified to reflect your evidence? (Mr Berryman) To weld in longer lengths? 19955. Yes. (Mr Berryman) No, I suppose it could be. I do not think anyone has put that to us. 19956. MR NEWBERRY: Thank you. 19957. MR TAYLOR: I do not have any further questions.
The witness withdrew 19958. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Berryman. Mr Taylor, I am conscious that we are getting very close to the point when we will have to suspend the Committee. How long do you think you will be? 19959. MR TAYLOR: I am going to be five minutes. Mr Elvin has got about five or ten minutes on the compensation aspect also, so we are looking at 15 from us. 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. GCSs 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, GCSs did nothing. They did not ask for any information from the Promoter about ground borne noise. We would suggest that was a highly incautious approach to the acquisition of their interest. It was an approach in which GCSs 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 GCSs' 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 GCSs. 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 GCSs' 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 GCSs 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 NC25-3 criterion, ,who had any experience of designing rail specifications to achieve a noise standard by reference to octave bands, was Mr Thornley-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 Thornley-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 Thornley-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 Thornley-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 Thornley-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 Thornley-Taylor explained much more eloquently than I can about 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 Thornley-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 Thornley-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 GCSs and there is no reason to conclude that 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. (Document so marked) 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 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. 19980. Could I just ask the Committee to consider and contrast the position of the Barbican Hall which was settled yesterday on terms which were explained to you by me and Mr Cameron. The world famous concert venue, which hosts some of the greatest musicians in the world on a weekly basis, does not require the construction traffic to cease when they are carrying out their recording sessions during the day. We have reached a limited agreement during concerts in the evening but for the vast majority of their time when they are rehearsing and recording during the day, a simple compromise has been reached because of the infrequency of construction traffic - you have had the evidence on that - which is good enough for such a venue where noise sensitivity is just as important and involves artists of the greatest stature in the world. They are satisfied that the construction traffic can be satisfactorily accommodate within their schedules without the sort of protection which GCS demands they be provided with over and above the position which anybody else in this country enjoys, they require an insurance policy from the taxpayer, and in my respectful submission that is not justified on the small level of risk which they have identified to you and which has been rejected by Mr Thornley-Taylor in circumstances which Mr Taylor, sitting to the right of me, has identified. 19981. Our position on the Compensation Code we have dealt with on many occasions. I simply refer you, for example, to the transcript for Day 14, paragraphs 4041-4050. That Compensation Code applies to everyone for all building projects and infrastructure projects throughout the country on an even and fair basis. Parliament has chosen for the moment not to change that Code. We have set out our position in summary in information paper C2. GCS, in the circumstances I have described, said they should go further. We say the Code is the fair and proper approach, particularly given the number of circumstances. Firstly, this is only an issue about risk on the construction railway lasting for about ten months, it is not an issue about the permanent operation of Crossrail, that is resolved by the mitigation. Secondly, this is a position where, as I have indicated, GCS are asking for something which even the Barbican Hall, with all its sensitivity, does not consider to be necessary. Thirdly, they are asking for something which the ordinary businessman in the street would not have to fork out if he were to develop his property providing he used reasonable techniques and adopted a reasonable position. Therefore, we say that the Compensation Code should be maintained in this case given the substantial mitigation. 19982. You might like to add into your consideration the fact that these people went into occupation of this property with the safeguarding in place. I simply say to you, in support of what Mr Taylor has just said, what reasonable businessman being told that a railway is safeguarded under a property, knowing the nature of your business and its sensitivity to noise, would not even take steps to ask his noise expert and his studio designer to investigate the matter further. They did not do so. They sought no assurances other than an alleged telephone call. In my submission, it is not the act of a reasonable, prudent small businessman. Mr Binley knows as well as anyone else that businessmen have to be careful about what they do, they have got to ensure that they do not expose themselves to risks. Here was a plan showing clearly Crossrail going underneath and they took it nowhere at all, they did not even seek advice from their own noise specialist and that, in my submission, should not be supported by the Committee by asking the taxpayer to underwrite the small level of risk which is involved. 19983. To which I add this: there is some entitlement to compensation under the injurious affection provisions which I described to you on Day 14 under the Wildtree Hotels case, section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act. It is limited, as I accepted on that occasion. Temporary loss can give rise to compensation although it is reflected in issues relating to the value of the land, but there is an important principle in our law, which I referred to on that occasion in a case called Andreae v Selfridge, supported by the House of Lords in the Wildtree case, which is there has to be give and take in modern society. What the court said in Andreae v Selfridge I quoted on that occasion: "When one is dealing with temporary operations, such as demolition and rebuilding, everyone has to put up with a certain amount of discomfort because operations of that kind cannot be carried out at all without a certain amount of noise and a certain amount of dust, therefore the rule with regard to interference must be read subject to this qualification and if they are reasonably carried on and all proper and reasonable steps are taken to ensure no undue inconvenience is caused to the neighbours, whether from noise, dust or other means, the neighbours must put up with it". 19984. Well, GCS are in a better position than that because we have offered them this package of measures, they have been spoken to, what they want is to go the second mile, indeed if not the third mile, and require us for a position only of risk, only for ten months, in circumstances where they took no advice knowing Crossrail was safeguarded beneath their property, they want us to acquire their property under the material detriment rules, requiring those rules to be extended. 19985. About that I say two things. Firstly, on material detriment this is a situation where, as I have said, it is a ten month construction period. The Committee might like to consider what level of disruption would be caused by them requiring us to purchase the property and then moving out. If you are setting up another recording studios, it would take, I suggest, something of the order to move the property, so one wonders where that goes even if everything else were accepted. Secondly, the references they make in the footnotes to their note in relation to the Liverpool Street Act and the DLR Act, those were cases where issues arose in regard to permanent works, not just temporary ten months' works, and those were situations, as in the examples that they refer to, where the substantial mitigation which is being provided to Grand Central over and above most other occupiers in this city, was not available to the petitioners in those cases, so they are not good examples because they are not being set on a like-for-like basis. Grand Central, in our respectful submission, have been offered a very reasonable package and in our submission the taxpayer should not underwrite the level of risk which did not occur to them to research properly at the time when they purchases the premises. Thank you. 19986. CHAIRMAN: Mr Newberry, there is a very short period of time left. Do you think you need more than the five or six minutes which are left? 19987. MR NEWBERRY: Probably, sir, yes. 19988. CHAIRMAN: Then we will adjourn until 2.30.
After a short adjournment
19989. MR TAYLOR: Just Before Mr Newberry makes his closing remarks, just to inform the Committee that we have been having discussions outside with Westminster City Council, who have an outstanding concern related to Brewers Court, and I am pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement on the basis that I am to provide a second House undertaking to examine the potential for further mitigation to be provided to mitigate noise effects upon Brewers Court arising from the use of the service deck, which the Committee has heard about, and to explore the possibility of developing a code of practice to regulate the use of the deck. So I just announce that effect to the Committee's programme this afternoon. 19990. MR NEWBERRY: Sir, I rely, of course, on the evidence of my witnesses and my remarks are not a restatement of their evidence. Can I, firstly, say one or two things about the company, Grand Central Studios? First of all, as you have heard, it is a world-class facility established by Carol Humphrey and Ivor Taylor. That world-class facility produces what has been described as iconic work, and examples of that have been given to you: the recent BBC2 logo, Marks & Spencer and trailers for James Bond. Within the industry in which they practise this is work of the very highest quality and demands the very highest standards. The company which has been founded was as a result of an investment of £4.5 million and the company as such, therefore, represents not only an outstanding company but an important facility within the Soho community of sound studios. Ivor Taylor and Carol Humphrey are people of exceptional talent and ability and, I add, personal integrity. I add that last expression for reasons which I will turn to. 19991. There is one aspect of their evidence which, as far as I recall, has not been challenged during the entire proceedings before you, and that is that if the conditions within their studios in which they practise deviate from that which they currently enjoy their business will close. That single fact has remained unchallenged. During the course of my learned friend Mr Elvin's remarks on compensation one or two expressions were used which have concerned my clients, and I make the following points. First of all, you will recall, when Carol Humphrey gave evidence, she indicated that she telephoned Crossrail when she became aware of the safeguarded line. She gave the name of the person that she telephoned, namely Mr Ian Rathbone of Crossrail, and she was told by him that the facility was not going to be built; asked if it could be put in writing and that was refused. My learned friend Mr Taylor was dealing with Ms Humphrey at that time, and the making of that call was not challenged. There is no reason to challenge it, but it was not challenged. Mr Elvin in his closing remarks referred to an "alleged" telephone call - i.e. inferring that it had not been made - and we take some exception to that. It probably was not intended but, nevertheless, that is how it was perceived. 19992. Sir, can I also say that the directors of the company do not come before you in order to get compensation; they come before you to avoid being put in that position. They come before you to guarantee the succession of their business, in the advent of Crossrail continuing, which is a facility we do not seek to stop; we recognise the importance of Crossrail in the public interest. Mr Elvin indicated when dealing with the Barbican agreement that that was arrived at because of a partnership, perhaps inferring that there had been a lack of co-operation between Grand Central Studios and the Promoters. We have done our very best over the last eighteen months to two years (we are a small company with limited resources) to try and achieve a set of circumstances whereby we did not have to appear in front of you. 19993. You will bear in mind that when this course first started the Promoters were insisting on 30dB LAmax. That has now been converted through negotiation to NC20-3 dB third band octave. They are very, very different positions and it has taken a long time to persuade the Promoters to depart from the dB standard and use the NC standard in the way in which you now know. 19994. Sir, the Barbican agreement is important in at least one or two ways: first, we say that Mr Thornley-Taylor is right to equate Grand Central Studios with another world-class facility. So if that proposition required underlining, we have had from Mr Thornley-Taylor himself that he regards the two as world-class facilities. However, there are important differences in the context of the agreement that has been reached. First of all, the Barbican is at the end of the tunnel; it does not face a ten-month period, which no doubt was material in the representative of the Barbican making the agreement they did. 19995. Secondly, the recordings that take place in the Barbican have the luxury of having two aspects: one is that the recordings may take place during the afternoon and the other is the recordings which take place during the public performance in the evening. If during the afternoon the rumble of trains is heard, what happens in the real world is that those two recordings can be cut and pasted so that one can exclude any problems that may arise from trains that get on to the sound. That is very different from the situation of Grand Central Studios where that luxury just cannot take place, and we have heard the reasons why, and that particular aspect of the evidence, again, is unchallenged. The need for the atmosphere at Grand Central Studios does not permit the cut-and-paste mentality. You know, and you have heard, and it is common-ground between the parties, the environment that is required cannot be altered and there is no possibility of cut-and-pasting or blocking out of sound. That is why the Barbican situation is slightly different from our own. 19996. Can I pass to the issue shortly of compensation? As I have already indicated appearing before you is not with the objective of achieving compensation as such. What we say, basically, reduces itself to a couple of points. I do not step outside the typewritten undertaking which you have got and that is what we say we need, but putting the point simply, if standards are not met that we need either temporarily or on a permanent basis, we seek redress for the profits we have lost - for example, if the interference is temporary or if it is not a temporary interference and, therefore, permanent - and compensation for the extinguishment of our business.
19997. There are two examples of Committees in the House putting similar provisions as we seek in Bills. One of them is the London Transport (Liverpool Street) Act 1983, Section 16, and the second is the London Docklands Railway Act 1984, Section 21. I am happy to read those two short sections into the transcript if that would help you. Dealing first with the London Transport (Liverpool Street) Act 1983, Section 16(1): "The Executive shall make compensation to K Shoe Shops Limited, Vinross Catering Limited ... " I pause to say apparently we have copies of it. (Same circulated) It may take away the need to read it. 19998. CHAIRMAN: A225, if that can be listed. 19999. MR NEWBERRY: If I can just take you to the script, you will see Section 16 of the London Transport (Liverpool Street) Act 1983, Section 16(1) deals "with loss or damage (including but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, loss of profits and damage due to tenant's fixtures and fittings and stock in trade)." Then if I can take you on, please, to the London Docklands Railway 1984, Section 21, that deals with the protection of Peak Litho Limited. They were a printing company. The background to the clause was that they had very finely balanced equipment where the contention was that the DLR would adversely affect that equipment. You will see there that provision was made for transferring the business and equipment, as set out, and the payment of compensation in sub-paragraph 2 referred to in sub-paragraph 4. So there is ample precedent for the Committee to arrange for compensation in a way similar to that, and although Mr Elvin has recited the general law, which I do not seek to resile from, it is quite plain that where you have very special cases such as a sensitive noise studio or a printing works then the House has recognised regularly those special cases can be entitled to compensation. 20000. Mr Elvin says that both common law and statutory law refer to give and take, and I recognise that. However, where you do have special cases, the situation where a railway which is funded by taxpayers' money, I might add, has the effect of rendering important businesses inoperable, I say that it is inequitable that such a business should have to close and receive no recompense for going out of business. That seems to me to be wholly unfair. 20001. The standard package was referred to by both Mr Taylors, and it appears that that was made available or drawn to the knowledge of persons in circumstances where they were making a planning application. That is not the case here, as you know. Although we were aware of the safeguarded route, the situation, in my submission, had changed radically from the context of that document by the shifting standards which have come forward over time. The 30dB LAmax was where it was started, and altered over the course of time to NC20-3dB. Whatever that document was promulgating has changed over time to the situation we have now reached. I might add that the railway continued to be redesigned even up to this morning with Mr Berryman, when what was in the agreement of 15-metre lengths was happily doubled to 30-metre lengths without the bat of an eyelid. So the design process continues. 20002. Sir, we rely on the evidence of Dr Hunt, from Trinity College Cambridge, and shorn of all the technical details the principle that he is making is a simple one, and that is that modelling is not an exact science. That principle, I think, is recognised by the Promoters including Mr Thornley-Taylor, who himself recognised variations but limited to +5dB. Dr Hunt is a rigorous academic. He has looked at the published papers in relation to mathematical models, including mathematical models dealing with sound and the prediction of sound. However, he concludes from extensive research that the models are not reliable to a minimum of 10dB. That is not a maximum figure; that is a minimum figure. 10dB in acoustic terms, is a doubling of sound. So if he is right, if you are prepared to accept that that research that he has carried out is well-founded and correct, the variation that he is talking about is a doubling of sound. 20003. If he is right, in my submission, then there is real cause for concern that we need to be protected, and that brings forward the basis for our saying to you that if he is right and the Promoters cannot, for whatever reason, meet their standards then we should be entitled to a measure of protection by way of compensation. I might add that his research, as he indicated to you, is based on published data, all in the public realm, and so far as that point is concerned - that is, his research of published data has thrown up, as it were, the 10dB point - as such that was not challenged. It has not been suggested he was wrong in terms of his research on deriving that figure. All that is being said is that Mr Thornley-Taylor has, as it were, bucked the trend for some reason and can predict to a high level of accuracy in an area which Dr Hunt has said is riddled with uncertainties. 20004. I leave it to you on this basis: that there is a real and informed doubt as to whether or not you should accept the contention put forward by the Promoters that their model is, as it were, twice as accurate as anything else that Dr Hunt, in his extensive researches, has found. 20005. We called David Bell to give evidence before you because we wanted you to know from one of the world's leading studio constructors about how he approaches his task, and how he works. He builds to exacting industry standards. He himself is an engineer as well as an acoustician; he is not merely a construction man. In my submission, you can rely on his practical skills and judgment. He is an informed man at the sharp end of the industry. He has said to you that the 8dB difference between the NC25 (that is the level of the construction noise of the temporary railway) will be heard as the standard within the studios of NC20-3 third band octave. Putting it another way, where you have got NC25 as the standard for the temporary railway, NC25 there and NC25 within the studio do not equal NC25. 20006. Mr Taylor in his evidence to you used the expression that he felt the company was subject to the roll of the dice. I think what he meant by that was that there is a level of material uncertainty which threatens the business. If the Promoters are right, so be it, then there will be no further action taken. If they are not right what the Promoters are, in essence, saying to you is: "If we get it wrong then there is no recompense available to Grand Central Studios". So they allow themselves the luxury of getting it wrong and walking away if they cannot get it right. In my submission, that is not an acceptable situation for a world-class company to face, and if that situation arises I am asking you to put a provision in the Bill relating to compensation. At the end of the day, this is a situation where we say, based on the evidence of Mr Bell and Dr Hunt, that there are real and genuine doubts about the accuracy of the model and what flows from that is we cannot maintain the existing standards in our studio which, as common ground, have to be maintained for us to continue. That is the critical factor you have got to address when you are making your recommendations. 20007. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That concludes that particular hearing. We now move on to the next hearing which is the Association of Professional Recording Services and UK Post Limited. 20008. MR LEWIS: It is actually the Professional Recording Studios and there is another joint Petitioner, his name is UK Post, so it is joint Petition. I have a prepared written statement and I have timed myself 15 minutes tops, I hope. 20009. CHAIRMAN: Very good. 20010. MR LEWIS: I will try not to mention decibels! 20011. Sir, in simple terms, everything you hear every day on the radio, television, film and new media in the UK was almost certainly touched, altered and controlled by a member of the UK post-production industry. My clients are the principal trade bodies who represent this industry. My clients ask that Crossrail provide the best possible mitigation for the sound and vibration that the construction and operation of Crossrail will cause. My client's charge is that Crossrail have so far failed in its duty of care to balance damage to local industries and cost to the public purse against the cost of providing the best possible mitigation against sound vibrations. 20012. The APRS is a trade organisation whose primary aim is to develop and maintain excellence at all levels within the UK's audio industry. It was established in 1947 and has over 250 members. The APRS aims to promote the highest standards of professionalism and quality within the audio industry and is concerned with, among other matters, standards, training, technical and legal issues. Its members include recording studios, post-production houses, mastering, replication, pressing and duplicating facilities and providers of education and training as well as record producers, audio engineers, manufacturers, suppliers and consultants. 20013. UK Post and Service is a trade organisation which represents the post-production and special effects' sector at home and internationally. It was established in 2004 and has 146 members. Seventy per cent of those are in London and 30 per cent of the total are based in Soho. UK Post and Services supports and promotes the industry, acts as a strategic lobbying body, and focuses particularly on fiscal, legislative and workforce issues affecting the industry. Its membership encompasses companies involved in visual effects, visual and audio special effects, physical effects, animation, picture and sound editing, computer generated images and interactive media. 20014. The UK has a global reputation in the media industry and attracts a great deal of overseas and domestic business. The industry in London is situated namely, as we have heard, in the Soho area and constitutes the centre of excellence for the industry for the whole of the UK for sound and picture services to the advertising and film industry. UK Post commissioned a report in October 2005, undertaken by Oxford economic forecasters. It valued the film, post-production and special effects sector at £370 million. That figure does not take into account all the television post-production activity in Soho. The industry is a significant contributor to UK PLC. Its strategic importance is the envy of many. For illustration, Malaysia, one of the emerging tiger economies, has established a multi-media super corridor or city trying to emulate the concentration of excellence at locations such as Hollywood and UK Soho represent, so we are under competition. 20015. The importance of Soho to the UK post industry is illustrated by the map which you have seen showing the location of the many studio facilities in the Soho area. It might be useful if it was put up again. As you have seen, there are a number of studios situated directly above or close to the proposed Crossrail line. Many of these studios are members of or represented by the APRS and UK Post and Services. 20016. My clients' members can broadly be described as "cottage industries". Most of them are small business built up from by entrepreneurs like Ivor and Carol, often having worked their way up through the industry learning the ropes. 20017. Although they operate in a competitive environment, they rely on each other to a great extent, not just because each of them plays different but complementary roles in the film and television industry, but also because they encourage and maintain the idea of Soho being a place to go for the services which they offer. This concentration of services in such a small area of Soho is unique in the world and allows for a level of efficiency and creative excellence second to none. 20018. Examples of the type of the work carried out by the Petitioners' members include the creation of the title sequence for the BBC's coverage of the 2006 Football World Cup, the special effects in the recent BBC television series, Ocean Odyssey, and the recording of the Elvis impersonator in the now famous Radio 2 advertisement. Further examples of special effects include world leading examples like Gladiator, Harry Potter, and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, all created in Soho. 20019. Studios usually have only one chance to carry out a project. They have to be booked for a specific time and often there is one opportunity for the work to be done. It would be unacceptable for studios to have to cancel, delay or postpone work due to noise interruptions caused by the construction or operation of Crossrail. 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. 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 yard stick 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 Thornley-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 add 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 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 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 individual 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 could be agreed that Crossrail 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, 30 db will be okay. 20040. In fact, until recently, my clients were under the impression that Crossrail would be willing to carry out such surveys and I hope that is still the case. It is disputed that he said it, but I have a note of a meeting which Mr Thornley-Taylor said that he would carry out as many surveys as my clients wanted. We are not so unreasonable as to hold him strictly to that, but the validity of the logic of establishing a baseline survey of the existing noise pollution in Soho before the arrival of Crossrail seems unarguable. You may well ask what the point of taking these measurements would be? The obvious answer is that once Crossrail has been constructed and up and running, it will then be easy to determine whether additional noise is attributable to Crossrail and if such is the case to quantify the extent of the increased noise pollution. Without such a baseline noise survey, Crossrail will be unaccountable for any damage they might cause to the Soho post-production industry, let alone the theatres and numerous other entertaining venues in Soho. 20041. Next if I could come on to floating slab track and/or other mitigation measures. The Promoters have already assumed, I understand, that floating slab track will need to be installed beneath the London Palladium, in recognition of the noise sensitive use to which the theatre is put, and now we have heard that it will be installed under GCSS's Studios. My clients have no issue over whether the Palladium should be treated as a special case but what they would say is if a theatre, which is more likely to put on musicals and variety performances and high drama deserved it, then the post-production industry deserves it too. I would remind you of my words about Ms James' experience. My clients ask that the nominated undertaker be required to use the very best noise mitigation measures available at the source and if that is floating continuously welded slab track, so be it, for the section of the railway passing beneath Soho between Regent Street and Charing Cross Court Road both east and westbound in both tunnels. 20042. I should remind the Committee of the evidence which was heard from the Promoters about the need for floating slab track and its cost and it was a long time ago, a case brought by Camden on behalf of the local authorities. The evidence came forward during the generic ground-borne noise which the Committee will remember hearing from Camden as long ago as days ten and 11 on 8 and 9 February last year. You may or may not remember but the whole issue of the cost of floating slab track arose and Mr Thornley-Taylor was required to put some figures to the Committee for the cost per kilometre. I have turned up the note which was handed in which I will circulate. The document is called "Crossrail Tunnels - Predicted Floating Slab Track Costs". 20043. CHAIRMAN: Call that A226. 20044. MR LEWIS: You will see in Mr Thornley-Taylor's paper it says that the additional cost of floating slab track comes out at £1.49 million per km. It goes on to say in paragraph five that the total cost of FST so far is approximately £7 million, see paragraph five. In paragraphs two to four there is an explanation of where the floating slab track was likely to be needed. The Palladium section is amongst the sections mentioned in paragraph two and I think that is the Argyll Street section. There are a few more areas mentioned in paragraph three referenced by window numbers, none of which is near Soho. Paragraph four mentions that nine other buildings may require floating slab track. I am not sure if they are in Soho, they may be and if they are I may have misunderstood the position. 20045. In any event, my clients do not dispute Mr Thornley-Taylor's calculations as to the cost per km because they do not have the technical expertise to do so. Using a ruler against the scale provided on the deposited planes I worked out that between Regent Street and Charing Cross Road, that is the Soho section, the track length east and westbound combined is about 1.8 km. I am sure I will be corrected if that is wrong. That comes to £2.69 million extra cost using Mr Thornley-Taylor's figures for the whole of Soho. 20046. The position of my clients is that this figure of £2.69 million is not an excessive amount of money to spend in the context not just of the overall costs of Crossrail but also set against the value of the post-production industry to the UK. It is less than the cost of fitting out one of the top quality studios in Soho. 20047. I would reiterate that I am not saying continuously welded rail will necessarily provide enough mitigation to meet the criteria of every existing studio, and I would stress again that individual members have their own views of what those criteria should be. You will no doubt ask yourself why put FST in over the whole of the section? The answer to that is that Soho is unquestionably the leading area in Europe, if not the world, for the type of noise sensitive activity which I have described. If floating slab track is used throughout Soho, first, it may well have the effect of ensuring that stringent noise criteria applicable to the studios already there are not breached. You will know from the map of sound studios in Soho that they are concentrated in the centre of Soho, which is currently a tube-tree zone. Crossrail will change that fundamentally, 20048. My second point is that the use of FST will also have the real advantage of ensuring, if Crossrail are right about its noise mitigation capabilities, that new studios will continue to be attracted to the area in the future. That is vital to my clients' members' interest because whilst they might be in competition with each other for business, the whole reason they are all so successful is because of the reputation of the Soho industry as a whole and that should not be jeopardised by Crossrail. 20049. I will finish off by using a well-worn adage - these Petitioners are concerned about noise pollution and in their view the principle that the polluter pays should be adhered to. The Promoters have a duty of care to minimise the damage that Crossrail will cause as it is contracture and operated afterwards. That they appear, from information paper D10, to have taken no serious account or consideration of the needs or even the existence of a Soho-based post-production industry seems almost unbelievable. The Promoters should behave in a responsible way towards the UK Post industry, not in a cavalier way, but which I am afraid my clients believe is the case based upon the comparatively benign treatment of other noise sensitive industries. 20050. I must make clear that the submissions made today are without prejudice to any that may have been made or may be made in the future by individual members of the two organisations. As already stated, the APRS and UK Post and Services fully support their individual members' cases. 20051. MR TAYLOR: Sir, I am afraid that in order to respond to that I am going to have to ask for an adjournment for a short period. The reason that I say that is we have been asking for some time from the APRS and UK Post and Services for an indication of the undertakings they are seeking. The first indication we have had was from Mr Lewis just now. So there are matters raised in relation to the uncertainty, particularly with regard to background noise for which I need to take instructions. 20052. CHAIRMAN: How long do you need? 20053. MR TAYLOR: I would imagine I would need five or ten minutes. 20054. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven? 20055. MS LIEVEN: I was only going to suggest that we might proceed to the City's petition which would take Mr Cameron and I between 45 minutes and an hour and then perhaps Mr Taylor can interpose back when that is finished. 20056. CHAIRMAN: I think that is reasonable. 20057. MR CAMERON: I would be very grateful for that because we have been waiting, I would say, patiently and we are anxious to complete our presentation today if we can. The sooner the better, as far as we are concerned. 20058. CHAIRMAN: We know the feeling. Mr Taylor, if you can come back, thank you very much. 20059. MS LIEVEN: We do of course have the Residents Association of Mayfair who we would like to complete this afternoon if possible at all. 20060. CHAIRMAN: In response to your last suggestion, I think the view is if you want them to be heard today you will have to try and keep to your time. 20061. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, sir, I am going to do my utmost to do that. If we can move on to the next topic which we have all been waiting for for a day and a half and it is a topic, I am happy to say, which is entirely new to the Committee because we are moving to a station the Committee has not heard anything about whatsoever so far, which is Isle of Dogs. You may remember that the Isle of Dogs Station was deferred from the main hearings because in the light of issues raised by Petitioners and stakeholders in the area, we agreed to go away and have quite a fundamental rethink about both the form of the station at Isle of Dogs and also the construction methodology. 20062. If I can say that the City's concern is entirely around the impact of Billingsgate Market and it is quite a significant point so I am going to say relatively little about the Isle of Dogs Station and in the couple of weeks' time when other Isle of Dogs' Petitioners come back Mr Mould will give you more information about it. 20063. There is a model outside but given the shortage of time, I was not going to ask Mr Berryman to take the Committee through it today; you do not need it for this Petition. Perhaps we can see where we get to as to whether or not the Committee ---- 20064. CHAIRMAN: I think in the light of that it might be sensible to leave it until we hear the next Petition. 20065. MS LIEVEN: If I can very briefly explain what we are doing. 20066. CHAIRMAN: Mr Cameron, before I proceed with that decision, have you seen the model yet? 20067. MR CAMERON: Yes, I have seen the model and so have my clients. We do not ask you to go and look at it, we know that it does not show Billingsgate Market on that. 20068. MS LIEVEN: I had agreed with Mr Cameron about the line we are taking in advance. Sir, this is an aerial photograph showing the north block in the West India Quay complex and just to orientate the Committee, this is the area of the Canary Wharf development and I am showing you now the bottom of the Canary Wharf Tower, (indicating) the iconic building in Canary Wharf, if you can call it that. Just to the north we have Aspen Way, the dual carriageway which goes down into the Lime House Link which the Committee may be familiar with. 20069. The proposal is to construct a new station underground, some 30 meters underground, under the north dock. The station will involve two station entrances. If we can bring up the next photo montage, please. The station entrances will be constructed in the dock. This is architecturally probably the most exciting bit of Crossrail the Committee has seen so far. You can see that the escalators will come up from underneath the dock up into the station entrance and then on this entrance there is a short walk across on to the key side on the north side of this entrance. The Committee do not need to be too bothered at this stage about the precise position of the different entrances. 20070. If we can move on to the next photo montage. Just to orientate, this is the eastern entrance. One can orientate oneself again by the Canary Wharf Tower and the Billingsgate side is to the right of the photograph. The issue that arises in this Petition is about the construction methodology. If we can have the next image up, please. In the Environmental Statement there were two different construction methodologies being assessed. The reason for this is that our original construction methodology caused great concern to the Canary Wharf Group because of the amount of noise they felt it was likely to generate, so we went away and had a re‑think about how we would do it. The Canary Wharf Group are keen on one methodology; Crossrail have developed a different one and there is still a good deal of further discussion and detailed design which Mr Berryman can explain to you either today or on another day as to which to go ahead with. This is the plan for scenario 1, the first methodology. The detail does not matter very much, but one thing does matter which is that the whole of this part of the dock, the north dock, is surrounded under water by a structure called the Banana Wall. Despite a great deal of speculation over the years of Crossrail, the reason why it is called "the Banana Wall" is that it is banana shaped, it is on a curve and it is a Grade I listed structure and it goes all the way around the dock. It is quite an important feature in terms of choosing a construction methodology because, as a Grade 1 listed building it is extremely important that it does not fall down, so considerable efforts by all the engineers of this site have been put into different ways of ensuring it stays up. 20071. The Billingsgate site lies here and is, of course, a fish market, as the Committee will be well aware, and I should say that the City of London Corporation are the owners of the Billingsgate Market and then there are marketeers who have licences within the market. The issue that arises between us and the City on this Petition, the only outstanding issue, is that we are very happy to talk to the City and I will show the Committee in a moment words that we would be happy to use in these circumstances. We are very happy to talk to the Petitioner about which method is chosen, the detailed design, the impacts on Billingsgate and the mitigation measures which may be needed for the market. I should explain the reason why mitigation measures may be needed: both scenarios involve some drainage of water from the dock. One involves complete drainage from that part of the dock; the other involves partial drainage and that will have an effect, or may have an effect, on the water table underneath the market, so there may need to be mitigation measures around the market. I am not going to describe those in detail, Mr Berryman can do so if you need to hear them. We are very happy to consult with the Corporation in detail about what measures are taken, but the Corporation wants us to go further, they want to have a right of approval over our works, so they are not just consulting on works but they can say "no" if they do not like the methodology we choose and then the matter would have to go to a decision‑making structure by the Secretary of State, effectively there would be an appeal, a bit like a planning appeal. We are extremely concerned about that idea because it is easy to see that if any landowner has that right of approval the potential for delay to the project, therefore the potential for increased cost, is extremely obvious. If we were only talking about one landowner on the whole route then perhaps that is something that could be lived with - and I will come to the example of Smithfield in a moment - but it is easy to see that at a site such as the Isle of Dogs there are at least two other landowners who have a very considerable, and some would say greater, interest in the construction methodology that the City, that is the Canary Wharf Group who, of course, are the pre‑eminent landowners around here and own the vast majority of the land around the dock, and the British Waterways Board who own the dock itself and who are statutorily responsible for it. We say, and Mr Berryman will explain this in evidence, that it is simply unacceptable to be in a situation where various third parties have the right of approval over our works and can force us to go to the Secretary of State for an ultimate arbitration process and the delays and costs are quite unacceptable. Very briefly, the City refer to the fact that we did agree such a right of approval at Smithfield. Again, this is asking the Committee to cast its mind back a very long way to February of last year, but you may remember that we are digging a ticket hall next to Smithfield Market, which is the meat market near Farringdon. There are a number of very significant differences, which Mr Berryman will go through in detail, but, principally, you will remember that the part of the Smithfield market we are digging under is a Grade I listed building, we are going directly underneath it with our escalator shafts and there are works that have to be carried out within the market building. We say Smithfield is quite a different situation. I am sorry to have explained the differences between this in a bit more detail, but I think it may be quicker to do it that way than to wait for them to come out later. 20072. Finally, this is the agreement we have entered into with British Land and UBS at Liverpool Street and the Committee will remember that thanks to the Committee's very wise decision we are building a further ticket hall at Liverpool Street just outside the British Land and UBS building. UBS have sensitive computer equipment in their basement and they have been very concerned about the impact of works on their building, so we have agreed with them in paragraph 10 of this undertaking, I do not think it is necessary to read through it in detail, but what it is is a detailed agreement as to consultation with them, including timings for consultation, subject of consultation, how we will consider their representations and we are quite prepared to enter into an equivalent agreement with the City of London at Billingsgate, we are just not prepared to give them the right of approval. 20073. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I think that is probably all you need to know about the Isle of Dogs for this Petition, although there is a great deal more you will need to know for some of the later Petitions. 20074. CHAIRMAN: One of the things that is being suggested is that we pay a visit to this particular site before the next hearing. Could that be arranged? 20075. MS LIEVEN: Sir, it certainly could. I do not think you need to for this Petition. This is a matter of engineering and principle. Whether you really need to for the other Petitions I think is primarily a matter for you, but we can certainly arrange it. 20076. CHAIRMAN: It can be arranged? 20077. MS LIEVEN: Yes. 20078. CHAIRMAN: Mr Cameron? 20079. MR CAMERON: Sir, this appearance on behalf of the City relates to one issue only. It relates to Billingsgate Market and the issue in dispute has been quite properly described by Ms Lieven. 20080. It is our case that the Billingsgate Market is very unusual and there are five main respects in which it is unusual. It is a large open‑plan structure, that is the first point. 20081. The second point is that it is supported in three different ways and if I can explain that by asking that the Promoter's exhibit 2 be put up. I have not got the full number but I am told it is exhibit 2 which I need to refer to. Sir, if you look at this cross‑section and if you look at the right‑hand drawing at the moment, it does not matter at the moment whether you look right or left, but on the right‑hand drawing you can see a cross‑section through Billingsgate Market, on the left‑hand side of the market you can see that it is built on piles which go down into the dock. Then you have got which has the hatching on it, the Banana Wall and the market is built partly on top of that wall and then, as you move to the right of the diagram, is the third area which is shown as made ground. This large, open‑plan structure is founded in these three different ways, piles into the dock, the Grade 1 listed Banana Wall and the made ground. The drawings available to the City indicate that the market hall, when it is over the made ground, is supported by a ground bearing slab and by shallow foundations. That is my second point as to why it is unusual. 20082. The third point is this: the City Corporation is given power by Parliament to operate and control the market so this is not any normal commercial or industrial user, this is a market operated under parliamentary authority. 20083. The fourth point is that this market, and I say you have heard about this already because others have referred you back to evidence you heard in February 2006 and I am afraid I can refer you back to day 7, January 2006 when you heard some representatives of the Market Traders Association, the London Fish Merchants Association. Just for the record, it is on day 7. It begins at paragraph 1978 and there is the evidence of a Mr Evans and a Mr Lyons and it runs on to 2024 and then you heard evidence from Mr Smith from the City Corporation. Because it is a fish market, it operates to rigorous hygiene standards. Why is that relevant? It is relevant because if there is any settlement at all and there is some damage to the building those hygiene standards cannot be maintained and, therefore, the market cannot operate, so it is very different to an office or other building where you might be able to manage with a crack in the wall, you cannot manage with a crack in the wall in Billingsgate Market. That is the fourth unusual circumstance which is rigorous hygiene standards. 20084. The fifth point, sir, is this: the market traders, the small businesses which operate as fish merchants, do not have property interests which would give them an entitlement to compensation. They are, in the main, small businesses. They are highly susceptible to disruption of their trade or adverse impact on their stock. So those are the five reasons why we say that Billingsgate Market is different and why it is special. 20085. What the Promoter is proposing to do is to make substantial changes to the conditions by de-watering, or partially de-watering, the dock. The point I wish to make is they do not know what they propose to do at the moment because they have got these two options. Because they do not know what they are going to do, they do not know what mitigation measures that they are to propose, and, as a result, they do not know what the effect will be on the market. If they did know what they were proposing, the Petitioner, the City, would be able to go to them and say, "This is what you are proposing and we would like to make a contribution at this stage and we would like you to change this or that in the method of working you are proposing", but we cannot do that because they do not know themselves what it is that they are going to do and what the consequences will be. What we are asking you to do, sir, is to adopt a practical solution which is to say because this Petitioner, that is the City, has a special case because of this building, the nature of the building and its use, because the Promoter cannot take what they are going to do because they do not know, therefore this Petitioner cannot get involved in methodology at this stage, rather than saying, "You should not let them do it and go back to plan A", which was a coffer dam and did not involve so much de-watering which would be one option for us to say go back to where they started. We are not saying that, we are saying the practical solution is to say to them that they must adopt the approach which they did adopt at Smithfield partly for the very same reasons, that is the effect on market traders and partly because it is a listed building. Billingsgate is not, they should adopt that approach and that the City should be given a chance to approve their plans once they have worked them up. They will not be held to ransom because the arrangement which we are putting forward is the same as Smithfield and that has a position, where Ms Lieven has rightly told you, if agreement cannot be reached there is a way of resolving the dispute. That is a provision which is found in a number of heritage deeds. If it is acceptable for heritage issues, what we ask you to determine is why is it not acceptable that Billingsgate Market which, because of its particular circumstances, is special and because this is a case where the Promoter does not know what he wants to do. So what I would like to do, before calling a witness briefly, is to put before you a copy of the deed that relates to Smithfields, so you know exactly what it is that we are asking for. 20086. CHAIRMAN: We will list this as A 229. 20087. MR CAMERON: Thank you, sir. Sir, this is the Smithfield deed and the parts that are relevant are 2.2 and 2.3. I will not read them out because they are in front of you and what you can see in 2.2, sir, is that: "the nominated undertaker must submit to the Common Council the works details for those works for its approval in writing", and then 2.3 once they have got approval they should carry out the works in accordance with the approved details, but if there is an impasse, you go to clause 4 and clause 4 is an arrangement whereby it can go to the Secretary of State for determination. 20088. MR CAMERON: Sir, that is what we are asking for. I am going to call one witness who is going to explain the engineering difficulties but I hope that will not take too long. I hope you are clear, sir, on what it is we are asking. 20089. CHAIRMAN: Of course, you are charged by Parliament with responsibility for this area, but you are not the only one, the British Waterways Board is also charged with a similar responsibility. Do you exclude them from any solution that you are proposing or include them? 20090. MR CAMERON: No, sir, we do not exclude them. I cannot speak for them but if you considered it appropriate, sir, because they are responsible for the Banana Wall, which could be affected by these works, if they were given a similar arrangement that would be entirely sensible and they could participate in the approval process. 20091. CHAIRMAN: It is not just the Banana Wall, it is also what is within it, which is the water which is the most worrying thing of all. They also have responsibility for that, not only the Wall itself but also the management of the water. 20092. MR CAMERON: They do, sir, and the effect of the works will be if it is to de-water the dock, the dock will then be filled up again once the works have been carried out and any adverse effect is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the water, if there is an adverse effect it is likely to be on the Wall and on the stability of Billingsgate Market which lies partly on the wall and partly on the other side of it. 20093. CHAIRMAN: The thing about draining anything is that you find all kinds of things there, and of course, because of construction, other things can happen which cause what is within that wall. All I am asking is that you are not the only one accredited in the parliamentary area, I am asking is whether or not you would accept that if we did go the way that you are asking that you would also include British Waterways. 20094. MR CAMERON: Yes, we would, sir. Are you happy for me to call Mr Monaghan? 20095. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR PAUL MONAGHAN, Sworn Examined by MR CAMERON 20096. MR CAMERON: Mr Monaghan, you are Paul Monaghan, is that right? (Mr Monaghan) That is correct. 20097. You are a principal engineer with the City of London Corporation, is that right? (Mr Monaghan) That is right. 20098. Your qualifications, please, in brief? (Mr Monaghan) I have got a civil engineering degree from the South Bank University. I am a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers and also a member of the British Dam Society and a chartered engineer. 20099. Prior to working at the City of London Corporation, you were a senior engineer with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, were you? (Mr Monaghan) Yes, there was a gap in between, but I was at Tower Hamlets when all the major reconstruction was being built, such as the lines of DLR and Canary Wharf and we were monitoring the structure of case of the authority and we became responsible for those. 20100. If I could please ask for the Promoter's exhibit 2 to be put back on the screen. Just using that diagram, can you explain to the Committee in brief how the Billingsgate Market is constructed and the ground on which it stands? (Mr Monaghan) If I work from left to right, in the dock there is an extended quay, built before we took ownership which is founded on piles and columns through water on the dock and the port is supported on that. If you look, there is a step change in the building, a section on the quay over the Banana Wall and behind the Wall again, was an original dock building which was refurbished, that is founded on the quay, also on the dock wall and behind the wall and then to the right‑hand side is the main market hall which has a ground bearing slope, the ground slopes set in the ground separate from the structure and the structure from the record drawings we have is shown as supporting shallow foundations in the main ground. 20101. We can see that the diagram on the left shows the tail of the Banana Wall embedded in the Harwich formation and on the right it is embedded in the gravels. Does anybody know whether it is embedded in the Harwich formation or the gravels? (Mr Monaghan) These are based on the Promoter's drawings, they are the Promoter's estimate of what they think is the case. At the moment there is no certainty on which formation we have got. There is a considerable difference between the gravels and Harwich formation. The Harwich formation provides what is described as an occlude which has got a lot of clay material which prevents materials transferring through and the gravel is very porous, which is a fundamental difference. There probably is a change where it occurs and what change that is we do not know. 20102. What are the consequences of not knowing that as the type of mitigation that you require if you de-water the dock? (Mr Monaghan) It means there will be probably more than one type of mitigation. It would be uncertain where it occurs and where it changes and the interface between the two would be difficult management. At the moment the Promoters have come up with a number of options which are all based on assumptions and require further investigations. 20103. I would like to ask you now about the two scenarios put forward by the Promoter. If we can have the Promoter's exhibit 1, please. This is scenario 1, I do not need you to describe it all but just the part that is going to be different when we go to scenario 2, what should we be looking at in scenario 1? (Mr Monaghan) The fundamental difference for this one is the water is retained in the dock, shown in a colour blue, and it provides a support to a lesser degree than is current to the Banana Wall and then there is a small island built inside the dock and before the water tabling are taken any further otherwise it would be carried out. 20104. Billingsgate Market, top right‑hand part of the plan, and there is a bit shown in my version of it in a pinky-purple colour, what does that show? (Mr Monaghan) From my understanding, that is a pontoon working area which is a floating plant on the dock containing access and various plant materials, but it is fundamentally floated within the dock. 20105. Could we then look at exhibit 3, please, which is scenario 2. It is the same part that I am interested in and that is the Billingsgate Market and the adjacent dock. What is the proposal there? (Mr Monaghan) The fundamental difference is taking all the water away apart from the very western end of the dock where they would deposit all the contaminated silt, so it is fundamentally for the silt and there is a large burren (?) constructed to any of the exposed Banana Wall. By exposed, any of the quay was excessive from the dock as opposed to the Canary Wharf side where the Banana Wall is encased within the structure. 20106. In general terms, if you de-water, or partially de-water, the dock, is it known what effect that will have on the stability of the Billingsgate Market? (Mr Monaghan) In precise detail, it is not known what the effect is but the Banana Wall is somewhat unique in that they are not a traditional wall, they are built and constructed so that the walls supports the front face and supports the back face and in removing the water you create a hydraulic pressure from behind the wall and the wall tries to push forward. 20107. Will mitigation works be necessary in order to stabilise the market if the water is let out of the dock? (Mr Monaghan) My understanding is that mitigation is a central requirement. We have asked a question of the Promoter, "Has the dock ever been emptied before and why is it maintained at such a high level?" It is not really known to do that. 20108. So if you do not know precisely what the Promoter is proposing and you do not know what mitigation works are being proposed, have you been able to get involved in the process of the design of those mitigation works? (Mr Monaghan) We have been in discussion since the AP 3 was announced. In recent terms we have looked at systems that would help minimise impact, such as the recharge well system and things like that, but without knowing the detail we cannot form an opinion on what would be required and we have suggested in discussion with them concerning what we think would help resolve some issues but we do not know what all the issues are. 20109. What they are saying is, to use Ms Lieven's words, they will talk to you about it before they do it. In more formal words, they will consult you but what the undertaking you have taken at Smithfield is if you are able to approve the process, am I right in understanding that what the City of London Corporation are asking for here is the right to approve the works? (Mr Monaghan) Yes, and that is fundamentally to approve the works in a manner that does not cause damage to the markets and the market can continue trading. We are not saying we want to approve everything, we just want to approve those aspects that mitigate that damage to ensure the market can remain in operation. The standard requirements of the setting is that it allows, to a certain extent, surface damage, surface finishes and minor decoration. As was explained earlier, under the EU regulations in hygiene that is unacceptable. 20110. MR CAMERON: Thank you. I have no further questions for you, but maybe from someone else? 20111. MS LIEVEN: I do not think I will cross‑examine. I will proceed to call Mr Berryman if that is acceptable. 20112. MR CAMERON: I do not know if the Committee have any questions for Mr Monaghan? Thank you very much, Mr Monaghan. The witness withdrew
MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled Examined by MS LIEVEN
20113. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, I am not going to introduce you as I think you are well-known to everybody in the room and these Petitioners. Can we go straight to the heart of the matter here? In respect of impact on Billingsgate Market, can you explain to the Committee what the likely impact is and what mitigation measures you would anticipate being needed? (Mr Berryman) Obviously, we expect the likely impacts to be negligible because we intend to take the appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps what I should explain is what the risks of impacts on the market would be. Could I have Figure 4 up, that is 002 on the chart? This is the slide you saw a few moments ago showing what the likely geology is in the area of the market. As Mr Monaghan says, we are not quite sure whether the toe of the wall (this thing is called the Banana Wall) is in the Harwich formation or whether it is in the gravel, and that will have an impact on how the water behaves in this area. I think the first thing to say is that the settlement impacts on this market are rather different from those which arise when we are driving in tunnel because the main determinant of the way that this building will settle or not settle is to do with the water level in the ground which supports the building. The matter that is concerning the City Corporation (I am sure they will not mind me suggesting this) is if we lower the water level in the dock to this level or an alternative to this level then there will be lowering of the ground water which already exists behind the Banana Wall. What that will lead to is settlement of this building. The building is a large, open-plan building, so settlement normally would not cause too much trouble to the building itself but there would be a concern that it might cause cracking of the floor. I think that was the point they would be worried out. We would propose to ameliorate that by making sure that the water table in this area was not lowered. We have a number of methods of doing that. 20114. Do you want to explain by reference to 007 how you might do that? (Mr Berryman) Yes. As you have seen from the cross-section, this section in front of the market is a false quay which is supported above the dock water on piles. We can get underneath there and put down a whole row of inclined wells (I think Mr Monaghan referred to this in his evidence) which we can use to pump water in and to recharge the ground water behind the wall. We can also have, if necessary, another row of walls around here, again to recharge the water. That would have to be by agreement with the Corporation, of course. The point about this is that the impact on the ground water level is unlikely to go back this far; it is quite likely that the recharged wells along the front will be sufficient to ameliorate the situation. 20115. Would any of those recharged wells involve going into the market? (Mr Berryman) No, they would not. 20116. In terms of designing the detailed mitigation measures and, indeed, deciding the construction methodology in the dock, is the project prepared to involve the City in the process of working up those methodologies? (Mr Berryman) Yes, of course, we would expect to do that. We have a pretty good working relationship with them and we would expect that to continue, and that they would be involved in this. 20117. Can you explain to the Committee why we are so concerned about not giving the City what I would describe as rights of approval over the works rather than a right to be consulted? (Mr Berryman) Yes. There are a number of interested parties in this area, as I think you explained in opening, but the particular ones are the market themselves (the Corporation), The Canary Wharf Group, which are all this estate on the south side, the British Waterways Board, which is responsible for the docks and the maintenance thereof, and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which is the local authority in this area, and which will have concerns about the Banana Wall, which is a Grade I listed structure. So there are a number of different parties who will have different interests and different priorities as to what they regard as the most important factor. For instance, the Corporation, I am sure, will be particularly concerned about settlement of the dock; the local authority who is responsible for the Banana Wall, backed up by English Heritage, will have different concerns about, perhaps, whether or not we can drill holes through the Banana Wall. People will have different priorities and we have to get the best fit between them. If we give the right of approval to the City Corporation we would also have to give it to the British Waterways Board, and to the local authority, and it would be impossible to come up with a solution which satisfied all of them, which would mean constant rounds of arbitration, and so on. What we do want to do, and we are very happy to do, is involve them all the way along the process with all the interested parties and make sure we get the best fit for everybody. 20118. CHAIRMAN: I quite understand where you are coming from - you are building a railway - but I see nothing wrong with those parties you have just referred to being involved. They are statutory bodies. (Mr Berryman) Absolutely nothing at all wrong with them being involved; we could not do it without them being involved. We are not talking about whether they are involved and consulted and work with us to develop the right solution; what we are talking about is someone having the right of approval or not. That is a different thing; that is going to the next level of entitlement, if you like. We would expect them to be fully involved with us. 20119. MS LIEVEN: Can you try and explain, Mr Berryman, the potential implications for the project if landowners with this level of concern - not just at Canary Wharf but thinking, perhaps, of UBS at Liverpool Street - did have a right of approval? I think the City is suggesting that we are being a bit precious about this and "Well, you can always appeal to the Secretary of State and there is a process that can sort this out". In terms of actually building Crossrail, what do you see as the problem there? (Mr Berryman) I think the problem is if you have got very, very many parties who need to approve the works it becomes almost impossible to get an agreement on how the work should go forward. You have a constant round of negotiations with different parties to try and bring them together. At the end of the day, we are all trying to achieve the same thing. We will be having prevention of settlement of the market building, the Banana Wall, or any of the other buildings around the dock, as our highest priority. We are not trying to suggest that that is not an important priority; what we are saying is the way to deal with it is by negotiation, consultation and bringing everyone all together rather than giving one party or another the right of approval. 20120. In terms of the construction programme and the potential delays from giving one or more parties the right of approval, how critical is the work in the North Dock to the critical part of the construction programme for the Crossrail project? (Mr Berryman) It is quite critical. The tunnelling will be coming in this way (indicates) and going out that way (indicates). Before the tunnelling can go through we have to get these end walls, at least, of the box (preferably all the walls round the whole box, but definitely the end walls). So it comes fairly early in the programme that it has to be done. So time will be quite an important factor. 20121. The other thing I wanted to ask you about was Smithfield. It has been put by the City that we have given a right of approval to the City over the works at Smithfield and that, therefore, we are perhaps making a bit of a fuss about nothing about not doing so at Billingsgate. Are the two positions comparable? (Mr Berryman) The two positions are significantly different. The point about Smithfield is that we are actually going to alter the building; we are not just going to go underneath it or go near it; we are actually going to take part of the fabric of the building down and put it back up again, and altering it significantly. The point there is that Smithfield is also a Grade I listed building, which this building is not - it is not listed at all (the Corporation or the local authority is responsible for that) - but the main difference is that we are going in and physically altering the building; moving the plant within the building and all that sort of thing. We do not intend to do anything like that at all with Billingsgate; we just happen to be building near it. 20122. MS LIEVEN: Those are all my questions for Mr Berryman. Is there anything else you wanted to say?
Cross-examined by MR CAMERON
20123. MR CAMERON: Mr Berryman, the original proposals for the North Dock were to create a coffer dam and to retain the water on the outside edge of the coffer dam. Is that right? (Mr Berryman) That is correct. 20124. You changed those proposals in part because of concerns from other Petitioners about the noise impact of driving the piles. (Mr Berryman) Not just from other Petitioners but also from the market. 20125. It is the noise impacts. You have changed the proposals and as a result of changing the proposals you are now considering dewatering the dock. (Mr Berryman) Either partially or fully dewatering the dock, that is correct, yes. 20126. You do not know, at the moment, whether it is going to be partial or full de-watering. (Mr Berryman) No, we have assessed both possibilities in the Environmental Assessment. 20127. You do not have fully worked up proposals at the moment, do you? (Mr Berryman) I think we have them to the extent of knowing that they are feasible and that either of them would work. 20128. You have not decided on scenario one or scenario two. (Mr Berryman) No, we have not decided yet. 20129. As a result, you have not decided on the necessary mitigation measures, have you? (Mr Berryman) We have decided on the mitigation measures that will be necessary for scenario one or for scenario two. What we have not decided, obviously, is which of those mitigation measures we are going to take because we have not made the primary decision as to which method of construction we are planning to use. 20130. At the moment, there are unknowns in relation - and I take as an example - to whether the toe of the Banana Wall is embedded in the gravel or in the Harwich formation. (Mr Berryman) Yes, indeed that is true. We will be doing further site investigation to determine that. You may not be aware that we have a continuous programme of site investigation which has been going on now for something like four years, which refines and closes down on the areas of concern. We organise a campaign every year of site investigation and we will be bringing this forward fairly soon - I think it is this calendar year. I am not absolutely sure without checking. We will be doing a whole series of bore holes actually in the dock to establish the ground structure (?). 20131. All that is planned future work, and one of the reasons you need to do that is in order to design the appropriate mitigation measures, and before you have done that you cannot finalise the design of the mitigation measures. (Mr Berryman) No, no, that is fair comment. It is more than that; it is also to inform the decision about which of the two possible construction methods is used. 20132. Whether or not you are actually working within the building, the effect of your works, whichever construction method is used, will be to have an effect on the stability of the building necessitating measures of mitigation. Is that right? (Mr Berryman) If we use scenario one, it is very unlikely that we would even need to do the recharge wells that we have shown on this plan which is up now. That would arise only in the case of scenario two. 20133. At the moment it is not known, and absent your proposals, whether within a building or outside it, Billingsgate Market and its traders could carry on trading. It is only because of your proposals that there will be or could be an effect on the market. That is a statement of the obvious, to which you no doubt agree. (Mr Berryman) No, I do not agree, because I do not think our proposals will have any impact on the traders in the market; it is our intention to make sure that they can trade uninterruptedly throughout the process of constructing these works. 20134. However, absent the mitigation measures, they could have and probably would have an impact on the market. Is that right? That is why you need mitigation. (Mr Berryman) Well, that is a statement of the blindingly obvious. If you are doing construction works which result in ground movements then you have to take mitigation measures. Of course you do. 20135. At the moment, you do not know the precise nature of those mitigation measures. That is agreed between us, is it not? (Mr Berryman) We know what mitigation measures we may need to take with scenario one and we know what mitigation measures we may need to take with scenario two. We do not know which of those we are going to do because we have not chosen which of those construction methods we will be using. 20136. We have already established, and I do not want to go back on it, the uncertainty as to the precise nature of the mitigation measures because you do not know the precise ground condition. (Mr Berryman) That is certainly one of the uncertainties. There are a number of other factors which are involved as well. 20137. As far as the principle issue and dispute between us is concerned, which is whether the Corporation should be able to approve your plans when you work them up or whether you just consult, there can be no objection in principle to a landowner and statutory market operator having the ability to approve the plans because you have agreed it in relation to Smithfield. There is no in principle objection, is there? (Mr Berryman) I think there is an in principle objection, yes. As I have already explained to the Committee, the reason for agreeing to that at Smithfield was that we are physically altering the building in a very significant way, as you know. You will recall the evidence that we gave on this point about a year ago where we had taken substantial parts of the roof down, we were underpinning the building in the actual live part of the market. We were going inside it to do works, so it is only right and proper that, as the owner and operator of a building where we are going inside the building to alter it, they should have the right of approval; I think that is fair enough. The situation with Billingsgate is completely different. We have no intention of going inside that building and interrupting their trading in any way whatsoever. 20138. In terms of the principle, there is no in principle objection to the constructors of the railway having to obtain approval. Whether you draw the distinction because you go inside the building or not, there is no impediment to somebody having the right to approve works, is there? (Mr Berryman) We have not given it to anybody else, and certainly the only reason we would have even considered it at Smithfield was, as I say, that we are physically altering the building, we are changing it inside. The scale of the works here is of a different order of magnitude. 20139. But here, unless you carry out the mitigation measures, and you accept that some mitigation measures will be necessary, at least in one scenario and probably in both, there is going to be an effect on the building which will be adverse, whether caused inside or outside. Is that not right? (Mr Berryman) No, that is not right. There will certainly be extremely unlikely to be any effect at all on the building with scenario one. In scenario two, if we can get away with just putting the recharged wells underneath the false quay along here (indicating), there would also be no impact on the building. The building would not even be aware that we were there. 20140. You say that, but you are physically altering the support of the building by altering the ground, by altering the water levels, and you are carrying out works which could have an effect on the banana wall on which the building stands. Both those points are correct, are they not? (Mr Berryman) I do not think the banana wall actually provides any support to the building but we are certainly not intending to affect the groundwater. The whole purpose of using recharged wells, if we do do that, is to ensure that the groundwater regime stays exactly as it is now. 20141. I do not want to talk at cross purposes but absent the mitigation measures, which may be groundwater wells pumping more water in or taking other action in relation to the water, there is likely to be an effect on the ground on which the building stands, so absent some action in mitigation there is likely to be an adverse impact on the building. Do you agree? (Mr Berryman) Potentially, yes. Having said that, our predictions are that the impacts, even without mitigation, will be negligible. We only get into stage two of the settlement analysis because the settlement is so low. However, we have worked these ideas up just in case our predictions prove to be too optimistic. 20142. You have explained why you think Smithfield is different but, if at Smithfield you can cope with a statutory market operator and building owner approving details there can be no reason in principle why you could not cope in terms of the construction process with a statutory market operator approving the details at Billingsgate. (Mr Berryman) No, that is not the case, simply because you have really given it away in your question. The statutory market operator, the local authority, the building owner are all the same person. We only have to get one approval because all of those are functions by one body. At Billingsgate all of those functions are actually held by three or four different bodies. 20143. But in many parts of this railway you are going to have to get approval from different people. You do not just say, "Because we have to get approval for one thing from one person it is all too difficult and therefore we should not have to get approval from anybody", which is what you are saying. (Mr Berryman) No, that is not true. Generally speaking, the only people we get approval from are local authorities where we need to get planning consents, section 61 approvals and all that sort of thing, and that is fine because that is one body which can make a judgment about what is the best thing for the occupants of this borough. What you are talking about here is getting approval from one body. If we gave them the right of approval we would need to give it to all the other people that I have already mentioned and that is an entirely different situation from something where you have just got one organisation which is responsible for approvals. 20144. But it may cause you difficulties if you have to get approval, you say, and in terms of the actual practicalities there is no physical impossibility of obtaining approval from more than one person, is there? (Mr Berryman) I often say when I am sitting in this chair that nothing is impossible in engineering but obtaining approval from more than one person for the same thing probably verges close to that. 20145. You were just saying how reasonable the City were in dealing with you. You cannot say that it is impossible, can you? (Mr Berryman) It is not impossible, of course it is not impossible, but it is very difficult and time-consuming. I am sure members of the Committee themselves will have experienced trying to get approval from a number of different approving bodies on matters for which they may need to do so. 20146. You have explained how it is on a critical path. Why can you not start developing these plans and obtaining approvals at an early stage? You do not have to leave it till later, do you? If you know that you have to obtain approval from the City under the deed then you can start early. You can alter your programme so that you get approval early and then there is no reason why it should hold up the programme at all, is there? (Mr Berryman) One of the reasons for having two scenarios is to give the contractor, when appointed, some flexibility as to how he actually does the work, and I think that is probably obvious from the Environmental Statement, and of course that does put a time constraint on things because when the contractor is appointed he will want to start work as soon as is reasonably possible. Of course, we can work up the ideas further and we intend to do that and we need to consult with the City Corporation. I think a statement has been read out that we are quite happy to sign up to about consultation. 20147. It is not going to be effective consultation if you are going to leave it to the nominated undertaker to decide which of those scenarios, is it, because you cannot resolve the issues early? (Mr Berryman) It will not be the nominated undertaker. It will be more likely the specialist contractor who is appointed by the nominated undertaker, but we can work towards getting solutions for the two scenarios, of course we can, and we will do that. I do not think there is very much between us. What we are talking about really is whether we have a right of approval or whether we work together to collaboratively work out a way of doing the job. 20148. MR CAMERON: Thank you, Mr Berryman.
Re-examined by MS LIEVEN 20149. Just a couple of points, Mr Berryman. First of all, Mr Cameron placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that there are two alternative construction methodologies here and that what that meant was that we did not know what the detailed mitigation measures for Billingsgate would be, but is there anything unique to the Isle of Dogs about not yet having drawn up detailed measures for a particular building or is that a situation which arises elsewhere? (Mr Berryman) No, it is a situation which arises all along the route. Generally speaking, we have developed in principle methods of mitigation but the detailed design of mitigation measures, obviously, is not done yet. I believe some of it is just starting, as you would expect at this stage of a design. 20150. The only other thing I wanted to check with you is that he pressed the point that, absent mitigation measures, there may be some impact on the building at Billingsgate. Is it the case elsewhere on the route that, absent mitigation measures, Crossrail might well have settlement impacts? (Mr Berryman) Indeed it is. This is by no means one of the - I was going to say worst examples; that is perhaps the wrong expression to use - most critical buildings on the route where mitigation measures will be needed. I think some of the buildings around Soho Square, for example, St Patrick's Church or the Huguenot church there, are good examples of buildings where mitigation is absolutely essential to prevent damage to the buildings. 20151. MS LIEVEN: Thank you. That is all.
Examined by THE COMMITTEE 20152. CHAIRMAN: Just one question. Is there any history of the building having been empty before? (Mr Berryman) It was obviously empty when it was built. Sections of it have been empty but not this particular bit. The banana wall is an interesting structure. It is quite an old structure. It was built by a chap called Liam Jessop in 1802 or thereabouts. It actually extends all around the extensive range of docks which exist at what is now Canary Wharf and Canary Wharf themselves have dewatered several of them from time to time, although not this particular one, but there is no reason to believe that this is any different from any of the others which have been dewatered. 20153. KELVIN HOPKINS: On this principle of the banana wall, is it rather like the retaining walls of railway passages where they slope upwards? (Mr Berryman) Yes, it is a similar sort of principle. The shape of the banana wall was partly dictated by the kinds of vessel which used the docks when they were built. In modern times the wharves have been extended out over the dock, but when they were built ships would moor directly against the dock and so the shape of that was conducive to that. 20154. But if the water level varied a lot they would need to be built in this particular way to restrain the earth behind, presumably. If they were just straight and the dock stood empty there would be the possibility of them collapsing inwards. (Mr Berryman) That is right. They are gravity walls and that is why they are that shape. As I say, they stood pretty well for a long time. We have had a look at the historical factors of safety when various things have been done to the water levels in the docks. 20155. I am not suggesting that you do these extra works now but, for example, you know where the long walls fan out at St Pancras into the mainline. (Mr Berryman) I know the lines. 20156. So do I, and before they did the electrification they pinned them in. (Mr Berryman) Yes, with ground anchors. 20157. That is right. Is that the same kind of principle? (Mr Berryman) That is an idea that we have looked at for another part of the dock wall, not the bit underneath the market; we do not think it would ever be necessary there. There is another little bit - it is off this plan; it is kind of there on this plan - where we may have to go to ground levels, but, as you are aware, it is a well established method of stabilising these things. The complicating factor is that the banana wall is Grade I listed even though you cannot see it, touch it or experience it with any human senses. 20158. CHAIRMAN: In relation to that answer you gave, if the soil structure is part of the foundations what is the difference between that and at Havering where you would not drill through a wall to get access? (Mr Berryman) At Havering the wall is a buttress wall. 20159. Is that not? (Mr Berryman) No, it is not. Havering is a series of arches laid out in a horizontal plane. If you can imagine a railway viaduct rotated through 90 degrees and laid on its side, it resists the earth pressure by the arch action of the ends of the buttress and concentrates the forces very specifically down into the nibs which form the front of the buttresses. This is a different kind of wall. It is a gravity wall. It is almost as Mr Hopkins described it, laying back on the ground. You can see its shape on the cross-section and it works in a different way. It is purely a gravity wall. 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 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 p 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. 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 30 dBLA(max), 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 Thornley-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 Thornley-Taylor has explained previously his view that the 30 dBLA(max) 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 GCSS, 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 GCSS explained in response to questions from Mr Binley yesterday that GCSS 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 30 dBLA(max) 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 petition organisations a methodology for the measurement of background noise based upon the methodology that was adopted to measure background noise at GCSS, and that is all I have to say. Thank you.
End of CJ turn 4.45 Julie to follow 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. 20180. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We move to the residents of Mayfair ---- 20181. MR LEWIS: Sir, I am sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to mention something which I had asked Mr Newberry to mention but he forgot to do so. I know you are going on a site visit tomorrow - at least you were - and the invitation is extended by Grand Central for Members to come and visit the premises during the course of the morning. 20182. CHAIRMAN: We are very grateful for that. Can I just say I have had a look at the programme and it is very extensive, so I am not sure we are going to have time, but I will have a talk with the Clerk to see if it is possible. 20183. MR LEWIS: Thank you, sir.
The Petition of the Residents' Society of Mayfair and St James.
MR ROBERT MCCRACKEN QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.
20184. MS LIEVEN: Sir, given the time I am sure we are not going to be able to hear the substance of this Petition but I do want to make very brief submissions as to why the Committee should not hear the substance in any event. That matter, I suspect, we can deal with in the time we have this afternoon. 20185. Sir, you will recall that these Petitioners have appeared before in their Petition against the main Bill. You will recall that their principal point was to advance the northern alignment route and an alternative alignment to the Bill route. Sir, the Committee, despite my suggestion that it was outside the principle of the Bill, did hear evidence on that matter: evidence on behalf of the Petitioner from Mr Winbourne and Mr Shabus, and evidence on behalf of the Promoter from Mr Berryman, who was cross-examined. 20186. So far as I can see from the evidence that has been produced to us, the documents from those Petitioners last night, they are now seeking to raise the northern alignment again. That is their principal, if not their only, point. I do ask the Committee not to hear those submissions or evidence on that matter for three short reasons: first of all, alternative alignments go to the principle of the Bill and are outside the remit of this Committee. Secondly, the issues about the northern alignment have nothing to do, in truth, with AP3. The only possible relationship to AP3 is that the residents have raised some points about the costs of Bond Street Station and whether there is a cost-benefit analysis for the AP3 scheme as a whole as opposed to for the original scheme. In my submission, that still goes to the principle of the Bill and, perhaps, more importantly, or more substantively, as Mr Berryman explained last time this Petitioner was heard, the reasons for rejecting the northern alignment were not because of a cost-benefit analysis that had been carried out, it was because the northern alignment did not provide the passenger benefits which the Crossrail scheme did. 20187. So, in my submission, this falls outside the terms of AP3 and should not be heard in this part of the hearings. Thirdly, going right to the heart of it, the Committee have already heard this evidence on 18 April 2006, and Mr Berryman explained in some detail our reasons for not pursuing the northern alignment, including what is sometimes called the Wigmore Street variation of the northern alignment. Obviously, one can have an alignment and have endless variations of it, and at the last hearing in April of last year the Wigmore Street variation was raised and Mr Berryman explained why he did not think there was any merit in that. So it is a matter that has been dealt with in its substance already. So for those three reasons I would invite the Committee not to hear this Petitioner. 20188. MR McCRACKEN: May it please you, sir, and the Committee. This Petition is brought on behalf of a group of residents. Their homes and the area in which the live is affected. The Committee should be very cautious before refusing to hear what they have to say. Their Petition was submitted to the Clerks and vetted in the usual way. The Clerks did not consider that the Petition was one that failed to raise matters that related to AP3. 20189. The Promoters of the Bill have submitted in writing a response to the Petition. That written response does not raise the points that Ms Lieven has raised this afternoon. In the ordinary course of events, where a Promoter considers that a Petition is inadmissible for the sort of reasons Ms Lieven has given, then that is a point that could, should and would be raised in the written response, whether or not, on a without prejudice basis, the written response went on to deal with matters of substance. 20190. Thirdly, a meeting took place, I think, almost a month ago between the Petitioners and the Promoters. This point was not raised at that meeting. So there have been at least three occasions where if this were a good point rather than a point raised because it is convenient at a quarter to five to, as it were, ease the programme of the Bill, it would have been raised on all, probably, of those three previous occasions. It has not been raised on any of those previous occasions; in my submission, for very good reason, because it is a thoroughly bad point and it hardly does justice to what may be the substantive answer which the Promoters might have to points which the residents' association wish to make to the Committee. 20191. The issue which is currently before the Committee is whether AP3 is, to put it in its broadest terms, a good idea or not, and in deciding whether AP3 is a good idea it is indeed necessary to compare AP3 with the alternative route which the residents' association put forward. It was interesting to hear Ms Lieven suggest that the alternative route put forward by my clients was first put forward at the last session at which their substantive objection to the principle of the Bill was considered, because actually the alternative route that they put forward was put forward about a decade ago. Unfortunately, the Promoters of Crossrail appear (for whatever reason it is unnecessary to speculate) always to have looked not at the actual alternative put forward by my clients but an entirely different scheme which has not been promoted by my clients for something like a decade. 20192. I can demonstrate very briefly why Ms Lieven's points are, in my submission, thoroughly bad. I think the Committee will have a bundle of documents that Mr Winbourne would propose to use. 20193. CHAIRMAN: This is A230. 20194. MR McCRACKEN: If the Committee would be so good as to look in A230, about tab 3, there is set out a revised planning balance sheet covering broad brush comparisons between Crossrail and the Crossrail northern interchange route, including engineering costs, environment, valuation compensation and disturbance issues following AP3. I am going to take one item from that which demonstrates clearly that my clients should not be refused standing to make the points that they would like to make. 20195. If the Committee turns to that tab, there is discussed the relative merits of Bond Street Crossrail Station, AP3 version, and the Bond Street Crossrail northern interchange route, which is the alternative that my clients seek. I am going to ask that there be screened the second page of this document, which, at the top left-hand column, continues (dealing with Bond Street the Promoters' version - and the Committee will see in the first five lines): "The station requires now the demolition of six very expensive West End properties, of which the latest, on the north retail side of Oxford Street, is alone valued by me on an obviously 'spot' basis at £50 million." That estimate is one which, at this stage at any rate, the Committee should treat as being a sound estimate, and in deciding whether or not Mr Winbourne's evidence should be heard today then that is the evidence he wishes to give. It must be a basis on which the Committee considers whether or not it is relevant. 20196. "On top of all this folly, no Tube interchange is possible with overcrowded Oxford Circus. Crossrail provides no breakdown of its base costs, but it can be assumed that the station cost was (say) £500 million before the latest three demolitions required partly to relieve predictable Bond Street Tube Station overcrowding due to JLE eastern section. Now a further £150 million approximately is to be added on to the uncertain base costs but it seems likely to add up to £700 million." 20197. It may be that after the Committee hears our submissions it is either persuaded by them or it may be it is not persuaded by them, but on any view my clients ought to be able to be heard on this point, and Ms Lieven's suggestion that they should not be heard is one which, in my respectful submission, is without any merit. 20198. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, Mr McCracken. Can I just, first of all, say that whether or not something is introduced at a quarter to five is irrelevant to this Committee; we have met for many days, weeks, months and now we are going into years, on this matter and we will continue to do so until we get to a Committee decision. One of the reasons why we heard the Petition last time it came before the Committee was, although I viewed it and other Members of the Committee viewed it as being outside our remit, that we wanted to give the residents an opportunity to state their views and, therefore, we were being very cautious, in your words, in our way forward. 20199. Can I also say to you that one of the arguments you put forward was about the clerks not coming back to the residents and dismissing the grounds on which they could bring their case. It is not for the clerks to do such a thing, it is for the clerks to register that that application is being made and it is then for a Promoters to make the case as to whether or not they should be there, which is quite rightly what Ms Lieven has done. 20200. MS LIEVEN: Can I say very briefly, Sir, that the Petition does not focus on the northern alignment, that is why neither the clerks nor I raised the point. It was only when we got the Petitioner's evidence that we realised that what they were here to argue about was the northern alignment. That is just to put the clerks entirely at rest. 20201. MR MCCRACKEN: That, if I may say so, with great respect to Ms Lieven, indicates clearly and beyond peradventure of doubt that our application to strike is out before we have even given our evidence manifestly and must fail. If she says that even her reading of our Petition is such that it is admissible then manifestly until our evidence is being heard it is entirely inappropriate to say that we should not be able to present our Petition and call our evidence. No doubt, if our witness strays from what Ms Lieven regards as the straight and narrow, no doubt she will object and, indeed, I apprehend that the Committee will intervene should our witness stray from the straight and narrow. 20202. CHAIRMAN: Mr McCracken, by giving the Crossrail Bill a second reading the House of Commons already approved the principle of the Bill, that is the first thing we should remember. 20203. MR MCCRACKEN: That is not in doubt. The Residents Association of Mayfair do not come here to say there should not be Crossrail, what they do is they come here to say, Crossrail should not impose that degree of disruption on the life of the people of Mayfair, as is proposed, and it should not be as expensive as is proposed and it should provide more transport benefit. Within the principle of the direction of the House of Commons, there is no suggestion on our part that what the Committee should do at the end of the day is reject a solution that fits in with the direction of the House, it is simply a question of which, as it were, solution within the scope of the direction is the one that is in the public interest to approve. 20204. CHAIRMAN: I am well aware of that but the Commons also provided a number of instructions to us and defined what we may and may not consider. That included the route of the train line in certain places. You will appreciate that, you have read the documentation. 20205. MR MCCRACKEN: Sir, as I understand it, the alternative alignment that my clients promote is entirely consistent with the direction of the House. 20206. CHAIRMAN: I will give you another few minutes to prove that and listen to your case because I am not convinced as yet. 20207. MR MCCRACKEN: In that case, Sir, what would be helpful, if you could indicate the particular parts of the direction that you feel, as it were, prima facie we do not comply with, that would be easiest. If your clerk could give us a copy of the direction with underlined parts that you or she think we do not comply with, then I will make that good. 20208. CHAIRMAN: On the application which you have made, we are not convinced that you are dealing with matters connected with AP3. What I am going to do now is I am going to end the session and give you the right to write to the Committee about this matter and for you to make the case that you should be allowed to come back in front of us to make your argument. 20209. MR MCCRACKEN: I am bound to say, sir, that I cannot accept, on behalf of my clients, that the Committee is unable to tell me which parts of the direction it considers we are not compliant with. I am bound to submit, Sir, that that is a flagrant disregard of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. That is not a fair trial. If the Committee cannot tell us what part of the direction we are not complying with then we do not have an opportunity to respond to that and that is simply not fair, Sir. 20210. CHAIRMAN: Mr McCracken, I have offered you some minutes to put your case about how you are in line with AP3. I am going to offer you that again for the remaining few minutes that we have got to see if your case can go forward. It is not up to this Committee to prove your case, rather, Sir, it is for you to put to the Committee whether or not you are within the guidance of AP3 or not and I am giving you the next few minutes to make a decision. 20211. MR McCRACKEN: I am perfectly happy to do that, but what I need to know is which elements of the direction the Committee is provisionally minded to hold we do not comply with, and that is a very simple request. It must be something in the mind of the Committee because otherwise the Committee's provisional decision would be an irrational one. 20212. CHAIRMAN: Can I just say, this is a very complicated matter in relation to the points which you are raising here. What I intend to do is to allow the Committee to deliberate on the submissions you have made and then we will be in touch with you formally after we have met in private as to whether or not we will invite you back to your hearing. What I am saying to you is that the application you have made and the points you have raised within that application do not seem to conform to part of AP 3. We are going to meet in private with the clerks and with the members of this Committee and view both of those and come back with a statement. 20213. MR McCRACKEN: I appreciate that, sir. I have not made an application this afternoon, I have merely appeared here to present a Petition that has been accepted and to which no objection has been made before this afternoon. Ms Lieven has made an application we should be struck out. She has been unable to identify any part of the direction of which our Petition does not comply. She has been unable to identify any part of the direction with which our alternative route does not comply and, while I accept the Committee can, as a manifestation of the high court of Parliament, make a decision, of course I shall respect that decision. Nonetheless, absent an indication of the Committee of that part of the direction that it provisionally considers our Petition does not comply with, then of course I must reserve my rights in respect of such redress as is available where there is a failure to comply with the principle of natural justice by Parliament. 20214. CHAIRMAN: Mr McCracken, your business is the law and you will always reserve your right to whatever. This Committee is bound to hear evidence on the applications made. Your submission was outside AP 3. I have offered you time, albeit limited, and if necessary accepted your views and moved on with your views. You chose not to use that time. What I proceed to do now is that we will meet in private as a Committee with the clerk and go through that and write to you accordingly, but my view is your submission is not in line with what is our remit of AP 3. 20215. MR McCRACKEN: I respect that and the Committee has a note that, in my submission, if the Committee is not able to identify that element of the direction to which our case does not comply then our provisional decision is irrational, but I have to accept that. 20216. CHAIRMAN: The issue is we will be in contact with the reasons for our decision whichever way that may be. Ms Lieven? 20217. MS LIEVEN: Only if it helps, I am quite happy to say that we will write to the Committee within 48 hours setting out what aspects of the instruction I can tell you now but at three minutes to five - I slightly resent the suggestion I did not tell you because nobody asked me to - we could but at three minutes to five, it is perhaps not appropriate. We will write to the Committee within 48 hours and set out our reasons why the evidence that this Petitioner wishes to present on northern alignment should not be heard and that gives the Committee the Promoter's position and it also gives the Petitioner a clear understanding of the Promoter's position if he has not got one already. 20218. CHAIRMAN: That would be most helpful. We will look at all sets of evidence when we meet as a Committee. Can I repeat, Mr McCracken, when we had the last opportunity to discuss these matters in the Committee, we were very cautious in our approach and very generous in our approach where the case was being made that it was outside our remit and we let the evidence be heard and we will view what you have said today and what Ms Lieven will supply we will do that in private and get back to you. 20219. MR McCRACKEN: I am not going to repeat anything that I have already said because I sense it will probably not tend to persuade the Committee towards what, in my submission, would be a more just approach, but I was not there on the last occasion. My concern is only with their ability to present this Petition now. 20220. CHAIRMAN: Let me leave you with these words, the Committee accepts you are doing your job. |