Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5800
- 5819)
5800. Mr Welfare's question relating to Mr and
Mrs Wood, as far as the question of whether or not it is reasonable
for Mrs Wood to carry on her business in the property is concerned,
is that a matter that will be judged solely by the Secretary of
State or is there an independent element in deciding that issue?
(Mr Smith) There would be an independent element;
the lay member will also consider whether they felt that was reasonable
to do. So, as I explained yesterday, Crossrail will not be judge
and jury on these things, but the lay member can and will make
an independent report to the Secretary of State on individual
cases.
5801. Finally on Mrs Ennals. I will ask Mr Berryman
to explain what is happening at the Hunter Avenue worksite later
because obviously that is something that he can deal with rather
than Mr Smith. Mr Smith, you did say that a claim might be possible
if there was nuisance. Can you explain in relation to the Compensation
Code what nuisance means? In particular if the works are carried
out with all reasonable care by the Nominated Undertaker would
there be any claim in nuisance?
(Mr Smith) No, in short. The fact is that if
anybody owns a house and they have a development site, say, over
the road or alongside, we do suffer temporary disruption, shall
we say, but provided that no legal rights are infringed then we
cannot claim from that developer, and exactly the same situation
applies to Crossrail here. Provided Crossrail act reasonably there
should be no claim.
5802. Ms Lieven: Those are the only points
I have, sir.
The witness withdrew
Mr Rupert Thornely-Taylor, Recalled
Examined by Mr Mould
5803. Mr Mould: Mr Thornely-Taylor, before
I ask you any questions can you assist the Committee in this way?
The question of airborne construction noise and mitigation measures,
including those which apply at source and in relation to those
you class as receptors, those who are affected by noise, that
is as matter upon which Tower Hamlets London Borough Council are
to petition the Committee as a legal authority, that is correct,
is it not?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) I believe that Tower Hamlets
will be representing all authorities on that point and you will
be hearing a generic case about it.
5804. That of course embraces the impact of
noise generated by worksites?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it does.
5805. In relation to surface noise from the
operation of Crossrail following completion of the project, that
is a matter upon which Newham London Borough Council are acting
as legal authority in the same way, is that correct?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is what I understand.
5806. Turning then to my questions for you today.
Yesterday a number of Petitioners expressed concern about the
assessment process method that has been deployed in order to understand
the degree to which those living near to the Crossrail works will
be affected by noise and by vibration generated by those works.
Can you explain to the Committee how that process works and comment
on it in relation to its consistency with prevailing legal and
environmental standards and the object of that assessment in relation
to what it is trying to achieve?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The Environmental Statement
preparation is of course a legal requirement and of necessity
takes place quite early on in the planning of a project. It follows
well-established procedures for environmental assessment and part
of that procedure is the prediction and assessment of likely levels
of construction noise, or the specific requirements. As part of
that process best estimates are made of likely methods of working,
duration of working and types of plant which enables those preparing
the Environmental Statement to have a preliminary estimate of
who might ultimately be eligible under schemes for noise insulation
and temporary re-housing. It is important to recognise that while
the results of that process are set out in the Environmental Statement
that is not a definitive statement of who is ultimately going
to be eligible; it is the likely position at the time of preparation
of the Environmental Statement. The process involves first of
all considering broadly over what distance significant effects
are likely to occur—and it is significant effects that the
law requires that one assesses—and the duration, and that
produces a scope within which the predictions are made and the
conclusions reached as set out in the ES, as it is known.
5807. Does distance from the works themselves
have a part to play in that method?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it does because clearly
it is necessary to restrict the computation, the intensive noise
prediction work to an area within which you could be sure the
likely effects will occur. So the noise model that is used has
a distance within which consideration is given and within which
all the significant effects ultimately fall.
5808. Yesterday one of the Petitioners, I think
it was Mr Sabin, who lives, if you recall, at Hunters Mount, expressed
concern as to whether differences in topography and the impact
that they may have on noise impacts from the worksite, had been
provided for in the assessment process.[5]
Can you comment on that?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Certainly
within the spatial scope that I have described topography is taken
into account. I should say that significance is not by any means
the same as audibility. We heard yesterday a number of residents
pointing out that they are in the natural amphitheatre and they
can hear things taking place at the station from some distance.
No mistake must be made that because a significant effect is not
identified nothing will be heard; there is a step between hearing
things and there being significant effect. People in the more
elevated areas we heard about yesterday are actually outside the
distance of which significant effects are predicted to occur.
5809. Another point raised yesterday was the
degree to which the assessment process is able to embrace noise
impact on the community as a whole as opposed to individual householders.
First of all, in so far as the assessment process that you have
just described in summary is concerned, does it change depending
on whether the area in which the assessment is taking place is
one which is heavily or sparsely populated?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is an objective process
which is the same at all sites. Obviously in a densely populated
area there are many more houses included in the model and the
topography reflects this. But otherwise it is basically the same
system wherever the predictions are being made.
5810. In so far as what might be described as
community impacts are concerned, is there at any stage in the
process of assessment and the consideration of mitigation measures
that might be available—whether at source or at the receptors'
end—any account taken of community impact?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, there is, because
clearly if a significant number of people, for example, would
be offered temporary re-housing there is a community consequence
to that and the Environmental Statement in the Community points
out that the prediction is that 35 people would be eligible for
temporary re-housing, and that could have a significant community
effect over and above the specific noise effects.
5811. Can we turn to the question of regulation
and the controls which are in place in that respect whilst the
work is going on? We have heard a little on this before from you,
but summarise, please, what is the extent, if any, to which the
Crossrail Bill and Crossrail scheme proposals change the statutory
controls on noise and vibration under the Control of Pollution
Act 1974?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The only change in the
Bill is a dis-application of the right of a person to make a complaint
direct to a Magistrate or when there exists a notice under Section
61 of the Control of Pollution Act. Apart from that the position
is not changed by the Bill and the well-established national provisions
and established practice for construction noise mitigation applies
to Crossrail.
5812. Who is the regulatory body that operates
the statutory control regime under that statute in relation to
Crossrail?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The regulatory body would
be Brentwood Borough Council, as provided for in Section 61 of
the Control of Pollution Act.
5813. What is the statutory standard against
which that regulatory body operates those statutory controls?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The statutory controls
are effectively the power to bring about the use of the best practicable
means and the method of working and plant used for the site.
5814. So is this right, that the constructor—in
this case the Promoter or the Nominated Undertaker—would
need to bring proposals before the regulatory body, Brentwood
Borough Council, to show that best practicable means were to be
employed in relation to the works which were the subject of the
Council's consideration under the Control of Pollution Act?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) That is right. One further
matter as far as this Bill is concerned, I believe I am right
in saying that it does change the route of appeal against a notice
or a consent issued under Section 61 to the Secretary of State,
instead of the Magistrates' Court. I hope I am right.
5815. That was the point you were making a moment
ago.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) There are two different
points. There are two modifications to the Control of Pollution
Act in the Bill, if I am right.
5816. In so far as the local authority's role
is concerned, that role, as I understand your evidence, does not
change in relation to Crossrail and that would apply generally?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) No, indeed. The appellant
tribunal would either be a Magistrates' Court or the Secretary
of State.
5817. A final point on the 1974 Act, does it
embrace control over vibration as well as over noise?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes, it does. It expressly
provides for the word "noise" to include vibration.
5818. In the light of the environmental assessment
that has been carried out in relation to the works at Shenfield,
is there any expectation of any significant vibration impact being
experienced?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) No significant vibration
effect is identified in the Environmental Statement.
5819. Can we then turn, in the light of the
concerns expressed by the Petitioners yesterday, to consider the
mitigation package that is expected to be available in relation
to the Shenfield worksites? First of all, mitigation at source.
What is proposed in that respect?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Three things. There are
explicit references in the Environmental Statement to the noise
barriers that are provided for, both around the worksites at the
height of 3.6 metres and alongside the railway at 2.4 metres.
There is explicit reference to the acoustic enclosure and the
fixed plant, and they are over and above that, as I have already
explained about securing the best practicable means throughout
the works through the Section 61 process.
5 Crossrail Environmental Statement, Shenfield Station
Project Works & Impacts, Map NE17(ii) (LINEWD-ES17-102). Back
| 
