Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13160
- 13179)
13160. CHAIRMAN: If they had been given
they would have been on the register. The register is open to
inspection by anybody and therefore it was open to inspection
by your clients and if they did not inspect it, they did not inspect
it.
13161. MR GOODMAN: Yes, that follows.
I just have a few questions for Mr Berryman. First of all, you
gave some evidence about the Channel Tunnel. I wish to ask you
about the construction code of practice in respect of the Channel
Tunnel because as I understand it that code of practice incorporated
a test that the standards adopted must not be environmentally
worse than those in the Environmental Statement, the so-called
NEWT test.
(Mr Berryman) This is a very complex area of law. The person
who is most fitted to talk to this matter, on which I think he
considers himself a great expert and I am sure he is right, is
Mr David Elvin who is very, very knowledgeable on the NEWT principle
and why it is no longer lawful.
13162. MS LIEVEN: I do not think Mr Goodman
is talking about the Channel Tunnel. I think he is talking about
the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, which is a completely different
thing. As far as why we have not followed what is known as NEWT
but have gone to a more onerous standard is concerned, that is
a matter of the technicalities of European environmental law which
I am not qualified to comment upon, but if the Committee wish
to know more then Mr Elvin is here to answer your questions.
13163. CHAIRMAN: Let us have the question
again now that Mr Elvin has come in.
13164. MR GOODMAN: Essentially there
are two questions and they have both been answered. One is that
NEWT has not been followed in this case and the other is that
it was followed in relation to the CTRL. That is all I was seeking
to establish.
13165. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Did
I not hear you say it was more onerous?
13166. MS LIEVEN: What we are doing is
more onerous, yes.
13167. MR ELVIN: NEWT is a concept which
really has had its day because what it involved doing was looking
at the overall environmental impacts and then saying, "Well,
if something broadly consistent with that impact happened somewhere
else and not in another place you could transfer impact."
Under an environmental impact assessment that really does not
work. You have to assess the likely significant effects of the
project in respect of the area where the project will have effect.
NEWT is not consistent under European law nor UK law with the
environmental impact assessment. NEWT is not followed because
we are now carrying out an environmental impact assessment which
is more onerous. It does not allow us to shift around and say,
"If we don't have this amount of noise in this location it
is all right if we have it in another location". We have
to assess the likely effects in each location and then we set
our parameters and our environmental minimum requirements, which
are based on a whole package of assessments and mitigation measures
across the whole scheme, rather than just trying to balance one
impact here with one impact there. It is not as crude as NEWT,
it is much more sophisticated, but it is more onerous. I would
dearly have loved us to be able to do NEWT because it is a lot
easier!
13168. MR GOODMAN: I am not going to
cross-examine Mr Elvin much as I would enjoy doing that! I would
like to ask a couple of questions about the settlement. Do you
have the two-page document relating to Network Rail in front of
you or can that be passed to you? Perhaps we could have that put
up on the screen, please.[12]
In relation to 8.2, you were asked about this by your counsel
and the answer you gave was that the same general principles were
applied by the code of construction to be followed on the Bill
scheme as set out in 8.2 and 8.3.
(Mr Berryman) That is a slight misunderstanding.
It is set out in our settlement policy and, where appropriate,
people who think they may be affected by settlement can enter
into a settlement deed with us, which is in an agreed form. It
has the same effect as the words written in that paragraph, but,
if anything, it is more detailed.
13169. If such a settlement deed is entered
into in accordance with your policy will you then compensate for
heave, as indeed is set out in 8.2?
(Mr Berryman) We would compensate for ground movement. Settlement
or heave are just different terms for ground movement.
13170. BARONESS FOOKES: One is up and
one is down.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed, my Lady. It is extremely unlikely but
possible that we would cause heave, but certainly if we did that
it would be covered by the deed.
13171. MR GOODMAN: So you would compensate
for heave?
(Mr Berryman) If we caused any we would, yes.
13172. I have been asked whether you would register
that as an undertaking?
(Mr Berryman) I have just said it in evidence.
13173. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, our policy
on settlement, which includes heave, is set out in an IP and in
our settlement deed. If there is an issue on that then Mr Berryman
can be cross-examined on that, but we are not going to give undertakings
that change the settlement deed and change the settlement policy
at this stage. I want that to be clear.
(Mr Berryman) I just want to make it clear that the settlement
policy does include damage caused by ground movements whether
it is laterally, vertically or horizontally; whichever way it
moves, that is all covered. I do not know how I can make it any
clearer, my Lord.
13174. CHAIRMAN: I understand perfectly.
13175. MR GOODMAN: Those behind me are
seeking to have it registered as an undertaking. You are not willing
to give that as an undertaking, are you?
(Mr Berryman) To the best of my knowledge and recollection
it is already clearly covered in the settlement policy. I am sorry,
my Lord, but I cannot see the point of giving an undertaking for
something we have already committed to.
13176. So the only reason that it will not be
given is because you are satisfied it is already committed to?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
13177. You talked about the Cavendish Square
alternative and you told us a number of reasons why you considered
it to be inferior. You said there were no environmental advantages,
is that right?
(Mr Berryman) That is right.
13178. There are long corridors on the interchange,
it is 100 metres from Oxford Street—
(Mr Berryman) An additional 100 metres from Oxford Street.
13179. More pedestrian traffic?
(Mr Berryman) No. I said it is further away from the desired
line of where the pedestrians want to go to. I used the word pedestrian
traffic, you are right, but I did not say it was more, I said
it was further away from the desired line.
12 Crossrail Ref: P80, Network Rail-Code of Construction
Practice-Construction of Airdrie Bathgate Railway and linked improvements
(SCN-20080508-012) Back
| 
