Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6940
- 6959)
6940. None of these documents represents national
planning policy, do they?
(Mr Methold) No, it does not.
6941. It is not part of national planning policy
that existing noise levels should be reduced.
(Mr Methold) Not at current. We should be aware
that PPG24 national planning policy is currently being reviewed.
It will be issued as PPS24. We understand that that is likely
to happen this year and certainly the papers that I have been
reading are indicating that elements that I have identified as
being weaknesses in current planning policy are to be addressed
and will be reviewed and included in PPS24.
6942. Has a draft of PPS24 been produced?
(Mr Methold) No, it has not. The consultants
involved in providing that draft have given papers at the Institute
of Acoustics conferences.
6943. You refer on LBH22 to the Defra document
Towards a National Ambient Noise Strategy 2001.[55]
That was issued for consultation, was it not?
(Mr Methold) It was.
6944. Has a national ambient noise strategy
been produced?
(Mr Methold) Not, it has not. It is behind
programme.
6945. If we turn to LBH24, the European Directive
you have referred to, has the EU identified particular noise limits
that should be applied when designing fixed installations?[56]
(Mr Methold) Not as yet, no. I
believe it is part of the programme to do so, as is the programme
to eventually reduce noise levels across Europe on all Member
States.
6946. That is all I wanted to ask about policy,
at least at the national level. Can we turn to look at your draft
undertaking, which you very helpfully set out at LBH50.[57]
As I understand it, you have got, essentially, two parts: there
is part a) which encapsulates your point about the design criterion
being background noise level minus 5, and then you have got part
b) which identifies particular absolute levels: 45 dBA LAeq,5min
(night time) and 50 dBA LAeq,1hr (day time). So you have got a
sort of absolute design target as well. Is that a fair way of
characterising the undertaking you seek?
(Mr Methold) It is, yes.
6947. Let us deal with the first part, part
a), the minus five below the background. Of course, you made it
perfectly clear that the Promoter says that the appropriate level
to adopt is plus 5 dB above the background noise. The approach
the Promoter is advocating derives from BS4142, does it not?
(Mr Methold) For assessment of complaints,
yes.
6948. BS4142 is recognised by PPG24 as the appropriate
approach to adopt when examining noise from fixed installations.
Is it not?
(Mr Methold) Correct.
6949. PPG24 does not identify any other approach.
(Mr Methold) Not specifically,
no.
6950. If we turn to LBH10, you have set out
what BS4142 says about the various levels of difference in noise
levels between the background noise and the rating level.[58]
Around plus five is identified in BS4142 as of marginal significance.
Yes?
(Mr Methold) Yes.
6951. Would you accept that a difference which
is of marginal significance is a level that will not cause an
unacceptable degree of disturbance?
(Mr Methold) No, I do not accept that.
6952. You advocate minus five. BS4142 does not
give an indication of the significance of a minus five, does it?
(Mr Methold) It does not.
6953. Can you tell me how many fewer people
will be annoyed if minus five is adopted as opposed to plus five?
(Mr Methold) I cannot tell you that, no.
6954. Can you tell me whether there is any scientific
evidence at all to show that there would be any difference in
terms of the impact upon people, for adopting a minus five level
as opposed to a plus five level?
(Mr Methold) Well, the minus five has been
set specifically to deal with not just what we are talking about
here, which is complaints, but also to avoid noise increases in
both the LA90 and the LAeq—I hope I made that point in one
of my slides, showing that the Promoter's design aim of plus five
would actually allow an increase in LAeq and LA90. Our design
aim of minus five has been tested to ensure that it actually removes
any of those increases. So it has a double-edged purpose.
6955. So the minus five is designed to address
the background creep point. That is what you are saying?
(Mr Methold) It is one of the factors, yes.
6956. But in terms of actually what effect it
will have on the people who are exposed to noise from fixed installations,
the reality is that there is no evidence, is there, to demonstrate
that the adoption of minus five will have any material benefit
to those people as opposed to the adoption of plus five?
(Mr Methold) As part of the review to the national
planning policy PPS24, some commissions have been made by Defra
to look at this specific issue. One of the important aspects that
has arisen from that research is that the 5 dB penalty that is
applied to specific noise levels may not be appropriate in all
cases. They are actually looking at advocating a plus 10. So the
situation we have in terms of 4142 is that we could actually be
underestimating the likelihood of complaints based upon the latest
Defra research that is coming in.
6957. With the greatest respect, Mr Methold,
I do not believe you answered my question. I will put the point
again to give you an opportunity to answer it. There is no evidence,
is there, that the adoption of the minus five figure will produce
any material benefit to those people who are likely to be affected
by noise from fixed installations as opposed to the adoption of
the plus five figure? You have got no evidence and you can produce
no evidence. That is right.
(Mr Methold) I have no evidence with me, no.
I do know that we have a situation on the Channel Tunnel Rail
Link where complaints have been received for one of their fixed
installations at L90+1, which is indicating that in that particular
situation a design aim of L90+5 was inappropriate. It is very
much along the lines of the evidence we gave on groundborne noise
where we have to look at the actual situations where we have problems
arising from the use of these design aims, and that is one particular
situation.
6958. To achieve a minus five figure is likely
to impose additional costs on the Crossrail project compared to
a plus five criteria. That is inevitable, is it not?
(Mr Methold) It is. I believe that the cost
is minimal for ventilation shafts and I would also make the point
that Thameslink 2000 were quite prepared to accept this condition
for all other fixed equipment and, therefore, the cost was inherent
for that project.
6959. I will come on to Thameslink 2000, do
not worry. I will not forget that. In terms of your evidence in
relation to costs, am I right that you have not presented any
information at all to the Promoters in relation to the research
you have conducted on costs?
(Mr Methold) That is correct.
55 Committee Ref: A81, Defra-Towards a National Ambient
Noise Strategy 2001 (HAVGLB-14705-022). Back
56
Committee Ref: A81, Directive 2002\49\EC Assessment and Management
of Environmental Noise (HAVGLB-14705-024). Back
57
Committee Ref: A81, Undertakings Sought-Noise from Fixed Sources
(HAVGLB-14705-050). Back
58
Committee Ref: A81, British Standard 4142:1997 Method for rating
industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas
(HAVGLB-14705-010). Back
| 
