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
| 
