Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7000 - 7019)

  7000. I think I may have confused you. Assume that the Crossrail station has been built with the vent shaft and a third party developer comes along and wants to get planning permission to put a compressor into their restaurant and that is going to run 24 hours a day. In assessing whether or not to grant planning permission or what conditions to impose, the local authority would apply BS4142, would it not?
  (Mr Methold) It would apply its own policies, I suspect.

  7001. And it would have to identify background noise levels.
  (Mr Methold) Yes.

  7002. The background noise level, on your approach, that would be identified would be that which would occur during the period when the vent shaft for the Crossrail station was not operating, because that would be the quietest part.
  (Mr Methold) Yes.

  7003. So in terms of background creep, it must be the case, must it not, that Crossrail will not affect the background L90s for subsequent developments.
  (Mr Methold) That is only going to be the case if it is being put forward in periods when the ventilation shafts are not being operated. We know the electrification equipment—transformers, etc—will be operational 24 hours a day, so that argument really only stands in the case of ventilation shafts.

  7004. Creep, as I understand it, is only a problem when development occurs in a piecemeal fashion. Is that right? One development after the other.
  (Mr Methold) Well, it is the natural planning process. A developer will come along at some time. I have already said, hundreds of applications go through the local authority system.

  7005. You are aware, are you not, that the design criteria in the draft IP applies to all fixed noise sources at each site collectively?
  (Mr Methold) Correct. As a single developer I would expect that.

  7006. So, to that extent, it is not a case of a vent fan adding to noise that, whatever else, might be at a particular station adding another 5 and so on and so on. It is all taken into account in one hit.
  (Mr Methold) Absolutely. It is a single development.

  7007. That is the approach that was adopted on the Jubilee Line Extension. Yes?
  (Mr Methold) I am not certain but if that is the case then I am quite happy to accept it.

  7008. You are not aware of any complaints arising from the Jubilee Line Extension fixed installations?
  (Mr Methold) I am not aware of any complaints. I am also not aware of the actual levels that were achieved for that system. It may well be they achieved much lower levels than L90+5.

  7009. The local authority policies that have been adopted which we have already seen are designed to address continuous noise, are they not?
  (Mr Methold) Predominantly, yes.

  7010. They address concerns relating to the piecemeal development we have already discussed, incremental development.
  (Mr Methold) Yes.

  7011. Were they formulated with a nationally and regionally important infrastructure project?
  (Mr Methold) I certainly had to make that judgment on behalf of the local authorities. I said earlier that some of them do apply more stringent design aims on fixed installations, and in recommending that we go for a L90-5 I have had to be very careful in discussing this with the local authorities and making the point that I wanted to put forward to the Committee a credible and reasonable design aim that would fit in with the overarching requirement for a major regional infrastructure project. That is why we have gone for L90-5.

  7012. Mr Taylor: Thank you very much. Those are all the questions I have.

  7013. Chairman: We will adjourn now until 2.30. Can I remind everybody here that if they need refreshment there is tea and coffee along the corridor.

  7014. Mr Mould: Can I just inform the Committee that I am instructed by Mr Walker that Regent Street Association were in the process of withdrawing their Petition this morning, so I think it unlikely that they will in fact appear before you.

  7015. Chairman: We are grateful for that, but I would like to place on record that if talks did proceed through the night, or whenever, rather than not turning up they could have made a telephone call earlier on. If you could express that view back to them via their agents.

  7016. Mr Mould: We will certainly do that.

  After a short adjournment

  7017. Chairman: Mr Straker, what we are going to do now is we are going to resume by finishing off this session with Mr Methold on the noise issues. After Mr Methold is finished we will have the next promoter to come in to speak to the Committee and then the questions you have to deal with that issue. Then we will return to the second witness and then the Petitioner.

  Re-examined by Mr Straker

  7018. Mr Straker: I will then re-examine, if I may, on the cross-examination which occurred before we broke. Just while you sort your papers out, Mr Methold, the first matter I want to re-examine on is the question of PPG24. You will remember you were asked questions about PPG24 which is contained within the file which was given to the Committee and is numbered P75. PPG24 begins at page 70 of 125 and in the right-hand column the numbering is given.

  7019. First of all, if you turn to PPG24, you were asked about this document as to whether it constituted the national planning policy guidance. Do you remember that question?
  (Mr Methold) I do, yes.


 
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