Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4860
- 4879)
4860. Well, I am dealing with internal sound,
but just pausing there, there is a studio issue and there is also
the amenity for the people working in the offices as well. The
Committee has no evidence at all from the Promoters as to what
the noise levels are that those people will be experiencing. Have
you formed any view at all and, if so, please indicate where you
have set it out or where it is set out in the evidence, what that
noise level will be?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Well, the general position
which underlies the system-wide approach to commercial buildings
of a modern kind is that typical external construction noise limits
which are usually in the range of 75 to 80dB(A) produce internal
sound levels in the low 50s which are not such a cause of significant
effect in the type of building which is why it was scoped out
of the Environmental Statement.
4861. In terms of the groundborne noise in terms
of the operation of the temporary construction railway, again
am I right, and you heard Mr Elvin, that the limit of the obligation
that is going to be required of the undertaker is again what is
now said to be an overriding obligation which is to employ best
practicable means or reasonably practicable? Is that your understanding
now?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Mr Elvin. who, I am sure,
will jump up if I have got it wrong, was pointing us to paragraph
5.1.1 of the information paper on construction mitigation, D1,
I think, and that was setting out the position regarding the Control
of Pollution Act and section 61.[16]
That is not the same as the issue relating to groundborne noise
from the construction and operation of the underground railway.
4862. So what is the qualification that you
understand to the obligation for groundborne noise?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) We find that in information
paper D10.[17]
I think that is where the words "endeavour to assure"
are to be found.
4863. Yes. I had thought Mr Elvin's clarification
was to say that 5.1 would override 2.7. Am I misunderstanding
that? I think Mr Taylor may have misunderstood the clarification.
I am looking to him. I do not want to spend time on this, but
I understood Mr Elvin's clarification was that 5.1 overrode what
was being said in D10 at 2.7 which was an obligation to endeavour
to ensure.
4864. Mr Binley: Mr Jones, I think that
is what we understood too. Could Mr Elvin clarify that?
4865. Mr Elvin: That is what I said,
sir.
4866. Mr Jones: Mr Thornley-Taylor, the
obligation, therefore, is no longer to "endeavour to ensure",
but to use "reasonably practicable" and "best practicable
means".
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) I hear what is said, sir.
4867. So again in terms of that obligation,
I will not repeat it, but it is subject to the same qualifications
that you have already indicated when we explored this phrase earlier.
That is right, is it not, as far as you understand it?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) The Committee will remember,
or possibly not, the session we had on groundborne noise, the
position at Camden, and I set out our position then at some length.
4868. Well, I do not know about that because
I was not here then, but the position seems to have changed because
unless Mr Elvin has changed, we now move from "endeavour
to ensure" to an overriding obligation to use "best
practicable means", so I just want to focus on today. I asked
you some questions about the limits and caveats of "best
practicable means" which the Committee has just heard and
I do not want to ask them again, but the Chairman can recall that
the same caveats would apply to this application of groundborne
noise as well.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) I think it has the same
effect. If you look at it negatively, nobody would require the
nominated undertaker to do something which was either unreasonable
or at unreasonable costs or which was impracticable.
4869. Mr Binley: You should not expect
learned counsel to know what might have happened in these proceedings
beforehand and you really ought to answer the questions he asks
rather than allude to previous ones.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) I apologise. I am very
happy to repeat the evidence, if it helps.
4870. Mr Jones: I would just suggest
to you, Mr Thornley-Taylor, and then I will leave it, that it
is not actually the situation that you reverse the obligation,
as you have done, and say that anything other than what is reasonably
practicably requires something which is on its face unreasonable
because what I will be suggesting is that something that requires
best endeavours is not unreasonable, but it is a higher standard
than the ordinary standard of reasonably practicable or with all
those caveats and best practicable means. I am just suggesting
to you that it is not right to flip it round the other way, as
you have approached it, and say that anything else would be of
itself unreasonable.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) I recall very clearly
when Sir Hilary Scott was chairing our committee when we were
drafting those sections of the Control of Pollution Act that in
section 72 defining "best practicable means" as "reasonably
practicable", with the insertion of "reasonably"
was a very big qualification of the meaning of the term and I,
as a mere mortal, do look at things both ways because it helps
me to understand them and I do not recommend that we require the
contractor do anything unreasonable.
4871. I am not suggesting that they be required
to do anything unreasonable. I am suggesting they use their best
endeavours. Thank you very much, Mr Thornley-Taylor.
Re-examined by Mr Taylor
4872. Mr Taylor: When EMI move from 12
Goslett Yard into 127 Charing Cross Road, they have the opportunity
to reconfigure the use and the facilities provided within 127
Charing Cross Road, do they not?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) They do.
4873. Now if we are concerned about the potential
impacts on the uses within that particular building of construction
noise, particularly airborne noise, we need to bear in mind the
current level of noise experienced by that building, do we not?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Indeed.
4874. I have in front of me the Environmental
Statement, volume 2, and I want to turn to page 169 and perhaps
we can look at table 8.17 on this page, Mr Thornley-Taylor, which
I am sure is burnt on your memory.[18]
We can see a number of receptors where, as I understand, noise
measurements have been taken in the Tottenham Court Road area.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes.
4875. If we look at WE27, Goslett Yard, we can
see a daytime LAQ 12-hour measurement of 67dB(A).
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes.
4876. And we can see at 138 Charing Cross Road
75dB(A) and indeed night-time LAQ eight-hour figures of 64 for
Goslett Yard and 73 for 138 Charing Cross Road.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes, we have.
4877. Now, what sort of noise environment is
that? Is it a quiet environment, a noisy environment or an average
one?
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) The Charing Cross Road
noise levels are comparatively high. They are representative of
frontages on heavily trafficked roads in London, as you would
expect. Goslett Yard is a bit quieter because it is a side-street
with a virtually negligible amount of traffic in it.
4878. If we turn the page in the ES to page
170, volume 2, we look at paragraph 8.7.151, vibration and groundborne
noise from underground construction activity.[19]
The Environmental Statement explains that in the location of Tottenham
Court Road, "Adherence to the measures set out in Appendix
B1 will ensure that no significant adverse impacts will occur
due to the movement of equipment and excavated material trains
in the tunnel. These measures include fastening the rail to sleepers
using resilient rail pads, or adequate elasticity to the support
of the track system between the rail foot and the sleeper, or
tunnel invert where reasonably practicable".
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes.
4879. You were asked whether or not there be
any assessment of the impact of, amongst other things, groundborne
noise from the construction activity upon the property at 127
Charing Cross Road in the Environmental Statement.
(Mr Thornley-Taylor) Yes.
16 Crossrail Information Paper D1-Construction Code:
Noise and Vibration (LINEWD-IPD1-023). Back
17
Crossrail Information Paper D10-Groundborne Noise and Vibration
(LINEWD-IPD10-003). Back
18
Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 2; page 169 Baseline
Noise Measurements at Representative Noise-sensitive Receptors)
(LINEWD-ES10-145). Back
19
Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 2; page 170 section
8.7.1.1 (LINEWD-ES10-146). Back
| 
