Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4800
- 4819)
4800. The glazing at 12 Goslett Yard as it currently
exists, is it double glazed?
(Mr Tilley) No.
4801. Is 127 Charing Cross Road double glazed?
(Mr Tilley) There is secondary glazing along
the front elevation of the building, the Charing Cross elevation
of the building, and certain of the offices, the corner offices
on the Goslett Yard elevation of the building.
4802. So if, when you are doing your reconfiguration
of 127 Charing Cross Road, it is important to place particular
noise sensitive activities in close proximity to the double glazing
to attenuate the noise, then you have had the opportunity?
(Mr Tilley) We have had the opportunity obviously
because we are redesigning the building to take into consideration
the requirements of the business as to what actually works for
EMI Music Publishing. We would not, however, be designing the
building to take into consideration impact from the Crossrail
scheme if that caused us to dramatically alter our plans for the
building itself, because what is fundamental to us is to ensure
that we have a suitable layout to enable the running of EMI Music
Publishing as opposed to negating any adverse impact from the
actual Crossrail scheme itself.
4803. The last point I have relates to consultation.
Are you aware of the Information Paper F3, Community Relations,
and the Undertaker to provide in that relating to provision of
information regarding the measures to be taken to minimise or
mitigate adverse effects of the construction works?
(Mr Tilley) I have seen this; I do not know
it word for word.
4804. Perhaps I can draw your attention to paragraph
2.5(ii) on page 1 of F3?[15]
This is an undertaking that, "The Nominated Undertaker will
be required to produce information sheets of the works to be carried
out, detailing expected disruptions and the measures being taken
to minimise or mitigate adverse effects of these works, at least
two weeks prior to the construction activity taking place. Information
sheets will also be distributed in the case of overrunning, unplanned
works or emergency operations." Then (iii), a similar undertaking
to provide information relating to tunnel boring. Does that undertaking
to provide information regarding the mitigation measures to be
provided meet your concerns about consultation, which is raised
in the third undertaking set out in the letter?
(Mr Tilley) This is obviously
a generic response to try and cover as many situations as possible.
What we are looking for is a greater comfort to deal with our
specific concerns, and I have brought it up before in the past
in our meetings with Crossrail that when you are in a situation
and you are trying to run a business, if you do not have a control
measure actually in place that you can enforce to protect your
business, and you have to go via a local authority route, or whatever,
that can obviously delay any response to the actual problem that
has arisen. Our concerns were that we wanted to ensure that we
are safeguarded in the first place through soundproofing, et cetera,
of ballast mats for track and having agreed noise level restrictions,
et cetera. So that the contractor is actually aware of our requirements,
and should we actually exceed the agreed specified noise levels
that we actually have a streamlined and efficient way that we
could ensure that our business can continue, and it would not
actually continue to be interrupted from the noise resulting from
the Crossrail project.
4805. Mr Taylor: Thank you, those are
my questions.
4806. Mr Binley: Mr Jones, would you
like to re-examine?
4807. Mr Jones: Sir, I will be very brief.
Further re-examined by Mr
Jones
4808. Mr Jones: Mr Tilley, you were asked
a question by Mr Reuben Taylor in respect of whether you had commissioned
any noise readings in respect of the noise climate within 127
Charing Cross Road as it currently stood; do you recall that?
(Mr Tilley) Yes, I do.
4809. Have you seen any information presented
to you by the Promoters that they have carried out an exercise
as to what the current internal noise level is at 127 Charing
Cross Road?
(Mr Tilley) No, not at all.
4810. In your discussions have the Promoters
indicated to you what they estimate the noise levels to be during
the construction phase—just the construction phase—when
they say that the operators will use the best practicable means,
or whatever, and what those noise levels are that you could expect
at 127 Charing Cross Road? Have they mentioned any noise levels
to you—
(Mr Tilley) No.
4811. . . . in respect of construction noise?
(Mr Tilley) Not specifically, no.
4812. Mr Jones: Thank you, sir.
4813. Mr Binley: Thank you very much
Mr Tilley; the Committee is most appreciative.
(Mr Tilley) Thank you very much.
The witness withdrew
4814. Mr Elvin: Sir, we will call Mr
Rupert Thornley-Taylor, who the Committee has seen before, and
I am going to ask Mr Thornley-Taylor to take him through his evidence,
which relates simply to the noise issues.
Mr Rupert Thornley-Taylor, Recalled
Examined by Mr Taylor
4815. Mr Taylor: I am going to call you
Mr Thornley-Taylor because I notice that that is the convention
Mr Mould has adopted, for obvious reasons! Mr Thornley-Taylor,
so far as the proposal to relocate the sound recording studios
is concerned, what mitigation measures can be adopted in the design
of the relocated studio to ensure that the noise levels within
it will be acceptable?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) The normal approach to
designing a sound recording studio is to place the floor of the
studio on vibration isolators and then construct the walls and
roof on that floor so that it is isolated from the main structure,
and it is then possible to achieve very low noise levels inside
the studio, probably even lower than is needed for the kind of
use that is applicable here.
4816. If that were done and if no mitigation
was provided with regard to the track running through the tunnels,
what level of noise would you anticipate would arise within a
studio designed in that way located, as it is proposed, on the
first floor of the building in 127 Charing Cross Road?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Without difficulty a studio
of that kind could meet the most demanding requirements of studios,
below 35dBA required. Of course the Northern Line, as we know,
runs up Charing Cross Road, and although Mr Tilley did indicate
that it is not a problem in 12 Goslett Yard, I would imagine that
in constructing a new studio, because of the presence of the Northern
Line, it would be appropriate to apply the kind of measures that
I have just mentioned.
4817. So if the studio is going to be moved
the sorts of levels that we have been discussing—30dBL(A)Max.S
- can be obtained within that studio without even requiring any
mitigation work to the running tunnels of Crossrail, is that the
position?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Even, hypothetically,
if Crossrail were constructed like the Northern Line, which it
will not be, there would be no difficulty.
4818. Obviously we know that there are mitigation
measures that can be applied to the running tunnels of Crossrail,
both during the operation of the construction of the railway and
indeed during the operation of the railway. What is your view
as to the appropriateness of specifying at this stage precisely
the nature of the mitigation which should be provided in relation
to the construction railway and the prolongation of groundborne
noise?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) I think it would be curiously
constraining for the contractor because there are many different
ways in which the effect of the temporary construction railway
can be mitigated, one of which is actually not to have a temporary
construction railway at all but to use rubber tyre vehicles instead.
Conventional railways are quite common but there are several ways
of providing vibration isolation between the track and the tunnel
in its temporarily constructed state, and while it is perfectly
true that a resilient under ballast mat is one of the measures
it is by no means appropriate for all locations, and I would not
recommend specifying it precisely at this stage.
4819. If it were suggested that the noise environment
within 127 Charing Cross Road should be controlled during the
construction operations relating to Crossrail—and I am not
just confining this to groundborne noise, it comes in airborne
noise as well—that the construction should be constrained
to the noise levels within the building as a whole, not just within
the sound recording studio, and are kept to below 30dBL(A)Max
what would be your response to that suggestion?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) I think it is a very impractical
thing to try to do because the norm for construction noise control
is to specify and monitor and control noise levels outside the
façade. If for some special reason you move the point of
monitoring and control inside it becomes almost impossible to
do anything about it because obviously activity goes on inside
the building; that is why there is concern about noise level,
and that activity itself generates noise. So you would never be
able precisely to check whether or not it was being achieved,
unless for protracted periods the activity inside the building
ceased, so that you could do noise measurements, and that would
defeat the object. I have not come across, except in possibly
very special circumstances, any case where it is has been practicable,
has been possible to control construction noise by using internal
noise elements.
15 Crossrail Information Paper F3-Community Relations
(LINEWD-IPF3-001/2). Back
| 
