Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6280
- 6299)
6280. Sir, that brings what we wanted to say
to the Committee to a close. To sum up, we think that the Bill
and the surrounding documents offer insufficient protection to
us in relation to noise. For the reasons I have explained, and
will not rehearse, we think that it is unfair that, as subjects
of compulsory acquisition notices, we have no right of compensation
against Crossrail where the noise threshold, whatever it may be,
is exceeded. The Bill makes provision for such compensation and
that is why we have been asking Crossrail for an undertaking on
the point. We think that an undertaking that the noise levels
in our properties will not exceed the residential threshold, whether
that turns out to be 40 or something lower, would redress the
current imbalance and produce a fair result. We, therefore, ask
the Committee to consider the points on our behalf. Sir, thank
you to you and the rest of the Committee for bearing with me and
I shall be more than happy to answer any questions.
6281. Chairman: Mr Human, do you wish
to add to that submission or are you content?
6282. Mr Human: Thank you, sir, I have
nothing to add.
6283. Chairman: Mr Taylor?
6284. Mr Taylor: Sir, the Committee has
already heard from Mr Thornely-Taylor with regard to the way in
which the commitment set out in Information Paper D10 operates.[18]
I do not know whether you wish me to call him to deal with those
matters again or whether you prefer me just to move on to make
submissions in response.
6285. Chairman: We are well aware of
the points which have already been made to the Committee, but
that does not mean you should not address the points in the Petition
which have been made.
6286. Mr Taylor: Well, I will certainly
address those in submission, if I may, now. Information Paper
D10 provides a commitment that the nominated undertaker will be
required to design the track support system so that the level
of groundborne noise near the centre of any noise-sensitive room
is predicted in all reasonably foreseeable circumstances not to
exceed 40dBLAmaxS in respect of residential properties. That commitment
does not mean that the level of groundborne noise within the Petitioners'
properties will be as high as 40dBLAmaxS; indeed Mr Thornely-Taylor
has explained to the Committee on Day 8, paragraph 2,351 that
that 40dBLAmaxS level is not a target. In fact the actual noise
within properties will vary across the project. The commitment
has been designed so that any uncertainty in the model will be
taken into account in the design process, as you will recall.
Mr Thornely-Taylor has modelled that the likely impact on the
Petitioners' properties will be a noise level of 28dBLAmaxS, as
set out in the letter to the Petitioners that Ms Meldal-Johnsen
has already referred to, dated 24 March 2006, which I believe
is before you. Now, that level, the likely level that Mr Thornely-Taylor
has identified, is below the level of protection offered to sound-recording
studios.
6287. The project has identified that the standard
track form which uses resilient base-plates will be used and the
rail will be continuously welded, and that is explained in Information
Paper D10, paragraph 2.8. In 1994, Mrs Human was provided with
a draft undertaking which was never concluded and I think it just
may be of interest to look at clause 4(a) of page 5 of that draft
undertaking for a moment to see what was being offered then so
that we can compare it with what is being offered now.[19]
If we look at the bottom of the page, here we can see that the
undertaking was that: in the construction and maintenance of the
authorised works, and in working the railway comprised therein,
"the Company shall . . . employ all means which are reasonably
practicable (i) to minimise noise and vibration to and within
the protected property by inclusion beneath the protected property
of a permanent, resilient track with continuous welded rail designed
to the specified noise and vibration aims", so it is a resilient
base-plate with continuously welded rail.
to-007).
6288. If we can turn on in the document, I think,
to a later page which is the definition of the `specified noise
and vibration aims', which I think is page 7, we can see at (ii)
on this page: "the term `specified noise and vibration aims'
shall mean (1) for noise inside any building forming part of the
protected property—a level of noise not exceeding a maximum
sound level of 40dB(A) caused by a vibration transmitted through
the ground due to the passage of one train". So it can be
seen that that is exactly the same commitment as is provided by
Information Paper D10, a resilient base-plate with continuously
welded rail and a design aim of 40dB(A) as a maximum.
6289. So far as enforceability is concerned,
the Secretary of State has given an undertaking that he will take
such steps as he considers are reasonable and necessary to secure
compliance with the environmental minimum requirements, and you
will remember that that commitment was given by Mr Elvin on the
first day. The environmental minimum requirements include a commitment
in Information Paper D10. The enforcement of the EMR has already
been explained to the Committee by Mr Anderson on Day 13, paragraphs
3,922 to 3,924 and by Mr Elvin on Day 14, at paragraphs 4,024
and following. The environmental minimum requirements will be
a contractual requirement imposed on the nominated undertaker
by the Secretary of State and that is a model which has been used
successfully on the CTRL scheme.
6290. My learned friend is asking me to make
the additional point that, in the light of that, we do not anticipate
that there will be any reasonable prospect of the 40dB(A) level
being exceeded. If that were to occur, then the National Compensation
Code provides a mechanism for compensation in a manner which has
been set by Parliament for a number of years, and we say that
is sufficient to deal with the concerns that the Petitioners have
raised.
6291. Chairman: Just for clarity, the
Petition which was being negotiated at the time, you are saying
that more than meets the criteria contained in all of that?
6292. Mr Taylor: We are saying that we
are offering exactly the same undertaking, albeit it is not an
undertaking offered personally to the Petitioners, but it is offered
by the Secretary of State through Parliament through the process
that I have just explained, so there is no difference between
what was being offered then and that which is being offered now.
Indeed Mr Thornely-Taylor has calculated what the likely impact
will be and it is likely to be significantly below the 40 level
simply on the basis of, as I understand it, using the standard
track form, even without the introduction of floating slab tracks.
6293. Chairman: I understand what you
are saying, but they have come to you and said, "Can we start
from there with that as the basis?", which is the major plank
of their Petition, saying, "We want this as a minimum",
and what you are saying is, "We are reaching that by the
undertaking given by the Secretary of State"?
6294. Mr Taylor: Yes.
6295. Chairman: Can you not then provide
a letter of comfort which will say that in relation to that? Indeed,
if you will give me just a second, I will call the Petitioner
back to see if they are satisfied with that undertaking.
6296. Ms Meldal-Johnsen: Thank you for
the opportunity to say a few more words, sir. There are actually
a couple of points I would like to make in response to that. Firstly,
in case Mr Taylor misunderstood us on the question of 40 and 28,
in terms of what we are asking for from an undertaking, we know
that the actual predicted level of noise in our properties is
much lower than the residential property threshold significance,
and it is only an undertaking at the significance level we are
looking for, be it 40 or, if the Committee decides to bring that
down after they have heard from noise experts to, 35 or whatever
it may be, so I hope there was no misunderstanding on that.
6297. Secondly, whilst we can see Mr Taylor's
point, that the substance of the undertaking before you, the draft
one, and that of the one given by the Secretary of State are similar,
there are two things I would like to say. The first is that it
makes a difference for us to have something personal which you
can wave under a prospective purchaser's nose as it gives them
more comfort and puts us in a stronger position should we need
to sell before completion. The second thing is that I do recognise
that what we are asking the Committee for goes beyond what is
in that draft undertaking, which is a right of compensation where,
even though all measures are taken as they are supposed to be,
as set out in the Environmental Statement, nevertheless, because
Crossrail have miscalculated and got things wrong, the noise levels
are exceeded. Mr Taylor has mentioned that that is something that
the National Compensation Code provides for, but, on our understanding,
which I set out to you earlier, it does not so provide. We have
asked Crossrail about this on several occasions, including in
our last letter, and I asked them to confirm in advance of today's
proceedings that our understanding of that is correct because
I did not want to waste your time. We have not yet been told how
under the National Compensation Code we could make a claim given
those circumstances, and I would appreciate hearing that.
6298. Chairman: Mr Taylor, would you
care to respond to those points?
6299. Mr Taylor: The key point here is
the nature of the undertaking that has been provided and that
is to design this railway to a level which will ensure there will
be no significant impact on the Petitioners' properties, and that
is what is given in the commitment in IPD10. You have heard the
evidence on that and you have heard evidence about whether 40,
30 or 35 is the right level and I am not going to trawl over that
matter again.
18 Crossrail Information Paper D10 Groundborne Noise
and Vibration, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
19
Crossrail Ref: P73, 1992-93 Draft Crossrail Bill Undertaking
to Alison Human (WESTCC-1405-005 Back
|
