Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6920 - 6939)

  6920. LBH47 is the achievability of alternative design aim.[47]

  (Mr Methold) I was interested with the response from the Promoter that the main reason they could not accommodate Thameslink's design aim was because of the existence of ventilation shafts on their project, so, always one to take up a challenge, I looked at that particular situation in more detail. From the information we have been provided by the Promoter, plus other information I have found from some research, we have been able to identify what we believe would be the additional mitigation and hence costs associated with meeting our preferred design aim of L90-5 for vent shafts. The first point to make is that at least 16, and I think it may be 18, out of the 26 shafts already meet L90 -45—and that is assuming the lowest L90, according to the information the Promoter has put forward. We know that the Promoter has assumed some level of attenuation within the ventilation shafts as part of their basic impact assessment at this stage. Knowing the performance that that offers, we were able to approach suppliers of the mitigation to understand what additional mitigation, and hence costs, would be required to achieve our preferred design aim. The results from my costing exercise reveal that, across the entire route of all the vent shafts, we are probably looking at a cost of around about £100,000 for additional hardware costs. That does not include any additional labour costs or maintenance costs, et cetera; it also does not take into account the effect that the additional attenuation may have in terms of the performance of the vent shaft. I am not in a position to see whether it would, overall, affect the airflow, for example, from the vent shaft, but this, in my mind, is a very insignificant cost in the context of what we are trying to achieve in environmental noise management. This costing does err on the side of caution, in my view. I have assumed, where I can, that mitigation has been applied more so than it would necessarily be required. From my preliminary analysis, I do not accept the Promoter's position that they cannot reasonably achieve our design aim of L90-5 using a minimum L90

  6921. That is LBH47, where you have posed the question: Can it be done? and then answered it. Could we turn to LBH48, to the meaning of the phrase "best practicable means".[48] What is the purpose of introducing that?

  (Mr Methold) The purpose is that the Promoter has said that it does not want to adopt a more stringent design aim because it feels it cannot achieve it. We have introduced this issue of best practicable means. During the groundborne noise evidence it was debated at great length. We feel it is a tried and tested method of allowing the Promoter to put its case if it really feels that it cannot achieve a more stringent design aim on the grounds of engineering practicability and financial implication. We would be looking to apply this criterion to our proposed design aim, so that there is an opportunity for the Promoter to come to the local authorities and say, "We really do not think we can achieve our L90-5. We may be able to achieve L90+1." That is the normal process for a local authority when a developer is putting forward a project, if it really cannot be done, and the local authority is sympathetic to understanding those reasons. I do not intend to read that out again because I think we have covered that in some depth previously

  6922. We then come to LBH49, a summary of the position, where you record in bullet points that which you have been through in the preceding text.[49]

  (Mr Methold) It is. This is just a final page on our position. There is concern by the local authorities if their power to serve abatement notices is limited on the basis of the Railway Act 1993 and the Promoter's ability to claim status as a statutory authority. As such, it is very important for the local authorities to achieve a more appropriate design aim for this project. The Promoter is not prepared to be constrained to the noise levels that were predicted as part of the development of the ES. This is an interesting aspect. When we looked at the achievability of our design aim, I noted that 16 or 18 of the shafts already meet our preferred design aim. That is because some of the noise levels that are being shown are well, well below even our preferred design aim.

  6923. Pausing there. The Environmental Statement is showing certain noise levels less than the L90-5 but the Promoter is being allowed, if the matters proceed as forecast, to build to a higher noise level.
  (Mr Methold) That is right. They are reserving their position, essentially, to work up to their design aim, despite the results they are showing in the environmental statement. That is important because we know they have incorporated some level of mitigation in the vent shafts and our concern would be that they could remove that and still meet their design aims.

  6924. Would you turn to the third bullet point on LHB49, please.
  (Mr Methold) At the start of the evidence I alluded to my views on the use of a complaint threshold for design purposes. I think we have elaborated further on that throughout the evidence. We do not think that the Promoter has taken on board more recent strategic trends and guidance in this area; in particular, the issue of creeping noise levels and the net effect that that has on absolute noise levels. I believe we have discovered quite a major flaw in the use of the modal value for defining the background noise level for this project. There is major conflict with the local authorities' policies and guidance on new fixed noise sources. The Promoter has ignored the Thameslink approach, and that is a two-fold issue really: consultation with local authorities up front and agreement, and also undertaking their own contemporary review of criteria and also more recent guidance. I hope I have shown that there is technical justification for a standard based upon our L90-5. It is what the local authorities use day-in and day-out with hundreds of applications that pass through the system. My preliminary analysis indicates that L90-5 is achievable for this particular project, considering the vent shafts. We would like to still apply a BPM clause to any agreement for situations where the Promoter feels that L90-5 really cannot be achieved for very good reasons, if that is the case

  6925. In that situation, it would be the best practicable means to be applied
  (Mr Methold) That is correct.

  6926. Then you come to LBH50, which is the undertakings sought from the Promoter, which is designed to achieve the minus 5, is it?[50]

  (Mr Methold) That is correct. We had two undertakings that we were developing here. The draft for discussion purposes is quite pertinent here. The Promoter has issued a draft information paper which I believe it wants to work on further after these particular hearings This is really setting out our initial position, which is the use of best practicable means, but we also want to achieve a rating level below the background of more than 5, so L90-5. In (b) we are introducing some absolute noise level limits. In this day and age, it should not be too difficult to design to those types of noise levels They are in fact the ones that the PPC regulations for major industrial installations advocate as an opening series of noise levels and setting these noise levels protects creep at the very high noise levels. so we have got two strands, really, to our own position on this. The second undertaking relates specifically to public address systems, which we believe is much more of a local issue and station managers do have their own powers to control public address systems.[51] Also, we are mindful that in the majority of cases where this is an issue for Crossrail these systems are already in existence and it may be that they are an issue already or are not an issue. I think it is much more appropriate that each local authority is involved in the particular public address systems. I think, from the wording I have seen this morning proposed as an undertaking from the Promoter, that has been achieved.


  6927. Mr Straker: Thank you very much, Mr Methold. Thank you very much, sir.

  Cross-examined by Mr Taylor

  6928. Mr Taylor: Good morning, Mr Methold.
  (Mr Methold) Good morning.

  6929. I want to start by asking you some questions about the national planning policy. The Promoter has prepared a bundle of documentation in the blue folder, which hopefully the Committee has before it. I think that should be P75. If we turn within the blue folder to PPG24, page 70, the last few digits at the top right-hand side, we see Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 "Planning and Noise" and that represents current national planning policy on the planning of noise. Does it not, Mr Methold?
  (Mr Methold) It does, yes.

  6930. That policy is applied to all applications for new noise-generating development.
  (Mr Methold) It is, yes.

  6931. If we turn within the document to paragraph 10, which is on page 72 of the folder I have got, at the bottom of that page, under the heading "Development Control Noisy Development" we see paragraph 10 which states: Much of the development which is necessary for the creation of jobs and the construction and improvement of essential infrastructure will generate noise. The planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development. Nevertheless, local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance."[52] Do you see those words?

  (Mr Methold) I do.

  6932. It is plain from that, is it not, that the objective of national planning policy is that development should not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance due to noise?
  (Mr Methold) Correct.

  6933. That is the test which it is appropriate to apply when considering noise from fixed installations in relation to Crossrail. Is it not?
  (Mr Methold) Yes.

  6934. You have referred in passing in your evidence to the Mayor's strategy on ambient noise. I think if we turn in A81 to LBH25, you have set out some extracts from the Mayor's ambient noise strategy for 2004, and we can see that the stated aim is to minimise the adverse impacts of noise on people living and working in and visiting London.[53] Yes?

  (Mr Methold) Yes.

  6935. That abstract is prepared in the context of the national planning policy PPG24, is it not?
  (Mr Methold) It is. I believe it is also moving onwards towards a different view. I think there are different aspects. We are talking about adverse impacts here; I think that is different to "unacceptable degree of disturbance".

  6936. I see. So your evidence to the Committee is that the Mayor's strategy does not reflect national planning laws.
  (Mr Methold) I am sure it does reflect national planning policy but I think it moves further than national planning policy.

  6937. If it reflects national planning policy, Mr Methold, we have to interpret the word "adverse" in relation to "adverse impacts" as meaning impacts which cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. Do we not? In order for the two documents to be consistent.
  (Mr Methold) I do not see the link. I am sorry.

  6938. If we turn, in your document A81, to LBH18, you have got the heading "Strategic Trends & Guidance".[54] You set out here references to a number of documents, which as I understand it you are saying, essentially, suggest that existing noise levels should be reduced. Is that right? Is that the trend you are identifying from the strategic documents?

  (Mr Methold) I think, in the longer term, the targets are that noise should be reduced, not increased.

  6939. That, you say, comes out of these documents?
  (Mr Methold) There is a general trend certainly in the Environmental Noise Directive. At the European Commission the fifth and sixth frameworks make it quite clear that over a period of time they are looking to reduce noise levels.


47   Committee Ref: A81, Achievability of Alternative Design Aim (HAVGLB-14705-047). Back

48   Committee Ref: A81, Best Practicable Means-Environmental Protection Act 1990 (HAVGLB-14705-048). Back

49   Committee Ref: A81, Summary Position (HAVGLB-14705-049). Back

50   Committee Ref: A81, Undertakings Sought-Noise from Fixed Sources (HAVGLB-14705-050). Back

51   Committee Ref: A81, Undertakings Sought-Noise from Fixed Sources (HAVGLB-14705-051). Back

52   Crossrail Ref: P75, Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise, Development Control, Noisy Development (HAVGLB-14704-072). Back

53   Committee Ref: A81, London Mayors Ambient Noise Strategy `Sounder City'-2004 (HAVGLB-14705-025). Back

54   Committee Ref: A81, Strategic Trends and Guidance (HAVGLB-14705-018). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007