Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4360
- 4379)
4360. That is the clause 20 disapplication.
There is also another one which provides a defence if there are
proceedings brought for statutory nuisance for noise. This is
clause 21. There is a defence if it relates to works which are
permitted by the Bill. I imagine that is a common form too.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, and indeed it
is very similar to the defence which arises from the grant of
a Section 61 application. I was a member of Sir Hilary Scott's
Committee, back in the early-1970s which drafted that part of
the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and it has been in operation
since then, increasingly so in recent years, quite apart from
any specific disapplications in specific Acts. If you have got
a Section 61 consent it is a defence against statutory nuisance
procedures that you have complied with the terms of the consent.
It is only the removal of the direct route to a magistrates' court
that arises from the disapplication.
4361. So is clause 21 a common form, providing
for a defence?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) In my experience
of being an expert in Bills in Parliament, Transport and Works
Orders and Harbour Revision Orders, these disapplications come
through in all those cases.
4362. What do the local authorities say?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) In recent years I
think they have recognised them as normal for very large, civil-engineering
projects. It is true to say that when this first appeared, at
the time, I think, of the Jubilee Line Extension, there was some
concern, but I am unaware of local authorities being concerned
now, given the widespread practice of including these provisions
in Bills and Orders.
4363. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4364. MR TAYLOR: My Lords, I find myself
in the same position that Mr Mould found himself in a short while
ago. I have got submissions that I can make about the noise issues
in relation to the Spitalfields Petitions, which I can do now
very briefly, or I can do it at a later date if you would prefer
that.
4365. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to go through
points in the Petitions?
4366. MR TAYLOR: I was not going to go
through points.
4367. CHAIRMAN: Not with Mr Thornely-Taylor.
4368. MR TAYLOR: Not with Mr Thornely-Taylor.
I was rather just going to summarise what our position is on the
noise issues.
4369. CHAIRMAN: It does not matter. The
point is that I do not want to keep Mr Thornely-Taylor here if
he is not going to be needed for answering questions. You can
address us tomorrow.
4370. MR TAYLOR: I can indeed.
4371. CHAIRMAN: Does anybody want to
ask Mr Thornely-Taylor any questions?
4372. BARONESS FOOKES: You have been
extraordinarily helpful.
4373. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Yes,
we are grateful.
4374. CHAIRMAN: Thank you again for your
help.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
Thank you, my Lord.
4375. MR TAYLOR: Thank you.
The witness withdrew
4376. MR ELVIN: Just before the Committee
rises for the day, I promised, in response to a question earlier
in the week, two of the latest project bulletins which are circulated
to residents. I said I would provide the Committee with two examples.
I will give them to Mr Hackett for circulation to the Committee.
4377. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Elvin.
4378. MR ELVIN: Can I also say that the
latest message I have had suggests that Mr Berryman is feeling
better and that he expects to be able to attend tomorrow.
4379. CHAIRMAN: So the Spitalfields Society
and Mr Berryman to answer questions from them.
| 
