Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6864
- 6879)
6864. Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen,
I was going to start with the Regent Street Association, but I
suspect that the security systems have caused a delay to the presenter
arriving. Normally I would break at 11.30 during the day for people
to get refreshments, but what I will do today is to leave that
until 11.45 and then suspend until the afternoon. That will give
Members of the Committee time to get down to Prime Minister's
Questions, if they are so minded to do that, and it will also
give them an opportunity to have a cup of tea before they enter
the Chamber, like everybody else. So I will start with the Havering
Petition, but before that would counsel like to say anything?
6865. Mr Mould: Yes. Could I pick up
one point on some unfinished business from yesterday? You will
recall that Ms Lieven mentioned we would circulate the Super Crossrail
and Super Link update report that was referred to yesterday by
Mr Berryman. Might I do that now? This will be document P74.
6866. Chairman: Yes. Mr Taylor, are you
dealing with anything?
6867. Mr Taylor: I was going to deal
with the first aspect of the Havering Petition.
6868. Chairman: Do you want to inform
us about anything before we proceed?
6869. Mr Taylor: I think it is probably
best if I leave the explanation of the issue to Mr Methold.
6870. Chairman: Mr Straker.
The Petition of the London Borough of Havering.
Mr Timothy Straker appeared on behalf of the
Petitioner
Sharpe Pritchard appeared as Agent
6871. Mr Straker: Thank you very much,
sir. As you know, Havering have three matters and it has been
agreed that the first matter to be considered before this Committee
should be the question of noise, and the essential area of dispute
is capable of being put in quite short form—and I will call
the evidence in a moment to reveal that, but if I just state it
at the moment in these terms. Sir, the Promoters have proceeded
by reference to a standard called BS 4142 and have provided for
an assessment which allows for what I shall call very crudely
at the moment—but it will of course be explained in a moment
or two—the background plus 5dBA for their installations—and
we are talking here in particular about ventilations shafts. Sir
the local authorities, on behalf of which the London Borough of
Havering is presenting a generic case, say that that is inappropriate,
especially bearing in mind that what that allows for is what has
been called by the relevant experts as "creep" in background
noise levels; so that we all suffer from an increasing level of
noise in our day to day lives rather than—as the present
policy suggests—as put forward by the local authorities
that one should aim for and should achieve a lower noise level
from the equipment which is put in place so as to achieve a better
result all round. That is the essence, crudely put, of the dispute
which has arisen. There is a subsidiary point which may be moving
away, and that is to say certain elements of the measurements
which have been undertaken on behalf of the Promoter. But what
I would now propose to do, sir, with your leave, is to call my
witness to deal with this particular matter, and who has prepared
a set of slides which are capable of being shown, and they are
also in documentary form, which I think has been distributed to
the Committee. Sir, can I call Mr Richard Methold to give evidence
before the Committee. Sir, as I understand matters, Mr Methold
has given evidence before so he will have been introduced to the
Committee, but I will do that again, if I may.
Mr Richard Hugh Methold Recalled
Examined by Mr Straker
6872. Mr Straker: Mr Methold, you are
Richard Hugh Methold?
(Mr Methold) That is correct.
6873. You have a Bachelor of Engineering Degree
with Honours in Electro Acoustics from the University of Salford.
(Mr Methold) That is correct.
6874. I think you have been a member of the
Institute of Acoustics and working in that field for over 14 years
in the assessment of environmental noise from industrial, commercial
and transportation schemes.
(Mr Methold) That is correct.
6875. You are a director of Southdowns Environmental
Consultants Limited, being an independent firm of noise and vibration
consultants?
(Mr Methold) Yes.
6876. I am going to ask you to turn to the material
which has just been put in front of the Committee so that we can
see from LBH 1 what it is that they are concerned with at the
moment through your evidence: that is to say, operation of airborne
noise from fixed installations, and those fixed installations
are recorded, are they, on LBH 2?[1]
(Mr Methold) They are indeed,
yes. It is probably worth explaining a little more about what
these fixed noise sources are exactly. This is why LBH 2 has been
prepared, just to give a list really of the major fixed noise
sources. It may be appropriate to go through each of these?
6877. Please do. I mentioned in my very brief
opening that ventilation was one of the matters of principal concern—that
is the second item listed—but would you go through these
items, please?
(Mr Methold) It is the matter of principal
concern but also let us remember that there are many other fixed
noise sources.
6878. Chairman: Just for the record,
this is A81.
6879. Mr Straker: Thank you.
(Mr Methold) At the top of the list on LBH
2 we have maintenance depots and of course we are really only
concerned with one major maintenance depot on Crossrail, and that
is the one proposed at Romford. Although this is located within
the London Borough of Havering I believe that we are dealing with
this specific local issue later on in the Select Committee hearing,
and I do not intend, therefore, to be discussing this in any great
detail today. The second one on the list is ventilation shafts.
These are spread across the route over the tunnelled sections
and I believe we have approximately 26 of these shafts located
across the tunnel sections. The third element on this list is
public address systems. Anywhere where we have a station upgrade
or an extension occurring the likelihood is that we will have
a modified or new public address system included. What I can say
is that we have had discussion with the Promoter on this particular
noise source and I understand, having looked at a commitment this
morning from the Promoter, that we may well have reached agreement
on dealing with this issue outside of the main generic noise concern.
The fourth item is stabling sidings. These are likely to contain
some form of public address system but also will have the stable
rolling stock themselves kept in the various sidings, and we know
from previous experience that electric trains do have their particular
noise sources associated with them. Lineside electrification equipment
includes feeder stations, transformers and these are notorious
for generating low frequency hums in the middle of the night and
also various other features like buzzes, et cetera. The final
one at the bottom is building services. Anywhere where Crossrail
is proposing to build a new building of some sort it is likely
to have some form of building services—air conditioning
units, et cetera. If we move on to LBH 3, this provides a list
of the supporting local authorities on this generic issue: Brentwood
Borough council, Westminster City Council, London Borough of Camden,
London Borough of Islington, the City of London, London Borough
Tower Hamlets, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea and London
Borough of Newham.[2]
This includes all of the local authorities that will be affected
by ventilation shaft noise. If we move on to LBH 4, this is a
basic overview of what we believe the problem and the solution
is—the disagreement between ourselves and the Promoter.[3]
If I read the problem: "Promoter's Design Aim is based solely
on the likelihood of complaint and does not provide sufficient
protection to nearby residents nor contribute to a sustainable
environment."
1 Committee Ref: A81, Crossrail Fixed Noise Sources
(HAVGLB-14705-002). Back
2
Committee Ref: A81, Supporting Local Authorities (HAVGLB-14705-003). Back
3
Committee Ref: A81, Petition Overview-Problem and Solution (HAVGLB-14705-004). Back
| 
