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.
| 
