Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7020
- 7039)
7020. Can you look, please, at page 71 of 125,
paragraph 3, because I want the Committee to understand how a
proposal works in the planning field.[67]
If you look at paragraph 3, please, you see there that it refers
to where the development plan is material to the development's
proposal. Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act requires
applications to be determined in accordance with the plan unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. Then it goes on to
say that development plans should give developers a degree of
certainty. This document PPG24, is this part of the development
plan?
(Mr Methold) The local authority
development plan?
7021. Yes?
(Mr Methold) I do not believe it is.
7022. Thank you. When considering a proposal,
would one consider first the development plan?
(Mr Methold) One would normally do that, yes.
7023. If one looks on within paragraph 3 and
paragraph 4, it is indicating that there should be policies referable
to noise taking account of the guidance in the rest of this note,
do you see that text?
(Mr Methold) I do.
7024. As far as the policies that you have referred
to, the UDPs and the local plans which you have exhibited to this
Committee, can you help the Committee as to whether they would
have been prepared in the light of this planning policy guidance
24?
(Mr Methold) Certainly, the contents of this
document would have been taken into account which is a requirement
that we are alluding to here, but I believe the local authorities
do not necessarily have to adhere in the entirety to this document.
I think they can exercise their local knowledge in developing
their own policies and standards accordingly.
7025. The development of the policies and standards
by the local authorities, is that subject to control by the Secretary
of State?
(Mr Methold) I do not know.
7026. Very well. Can we look on, please, in
PPG24 to annex 4, which begins at page 87 of 125, and then we
see in annex 4, do we, examples of planning conditions which can
come to be imposed pursuant to the planning policy guidance 24?[68]
(Mr Methold) Yes.
7027. If you look on, please, to page 89 of
125, we see condition number 17 there on that page which refers
to "the rating level of noise omitted from the site shall
[not exceed] [be lower than] the existing background noise level"
and so forth.[69]
Then it reads on, I do not need to read out the balance of the
text. It refers to the measurements and "assessments shall
be made according to BS 4142". My question of you is this,
please, does this document, PPG24, suggest or recommend any particular
figure to be imposed in such a condition?
(Mr Methold) No, it does not.
7028. If you look on in the document, please,
page 90 of 125 specifying noise limits, "Type of Limit: depending
on circumstances, it may be appropriate to set either", I
do not need to read on.[70]
In this case, we know what is being suggested by the promoter,
is such a suggestion carried through or made in PPG24?
(Mr Methold) Sorry, can you repeat
the question.
7029. We know the suggestion by the promoter
LA90+5 and my query of you, please, is whether such a suggestion
is made within PPG24?
(Mr Methold) No, it does not.
7030. Thank you. I want to ask you next, please,
putting PPG24 to one side, a question or two, if I may, about
the undertakings recorded as being sought on LBH50 contained within
that set of slides which was put in this morning.[71]
If you remember, on LBH50 at 1b there is a reference to the rating
level not exceeding a given figure at a position one metre from
the window of any residential or noise sensitive property and
50dB measured or predicted at a free-field external position.
You were asked questions about this which proceeded upon the basis
that the World Health Organisation figures, if carried through
to effect, would secure or require a heavy diminution in traffic.
Do you remember that line of questioning?
(Mr Methold) Yes, I do.
7031. Does the imposition of a rating level
carry the consequence that existing traffic is required to be
removed from the roads?
(Mr Methold) No, it does no. The rating is
quite specifically related to the noise from the new source that
is being introduced, it is not the all encompassing noise, everything.
7032. Does the rating level imposed here have
any effect upon the existing activities in terms of reducing or
affecting those existing activities?
(Mr Methold) No, it does not.
7033. Thank you. Can you go within the same
bundle of slides, please, to LBH15.[72]
You were asked questions as to whether or not you could say how
many people would be advantaged by the circumstances of having
a basis other than dB90+5. Do you remember that line of questioning?
(Mr Methold) Yes.
7034. If we look at LBH15, the report of the
Wilson Committee records that many people who are annoyed do not
complain for one reason or another, although they may be disturbed
as much as those who do complain. 4142, the British standard is
concerned with complainers, is that right?
(Mr Methold) That is a method of containing
that British standard relating solely to the likelihood of complaints,
yes.
7035. It is concerned with those who have either
written in or telephoned or however they have carried through
their complaint?
(Mr Methold) Yes.
7036. Does that reflect the number of people
who are disturbed or annoyed?
(Mr Methold) I think this passage is making
it clear that it does not necessarily form a robust method of
identifying those people who have been disturbed or annoyed.
7037. I think in your document you have produced
an illustration in graphic terms, and we have got the LBH11 out,
where we see there a graphical representation of the BS4142 position,
complaint marginal L90+5, complaint unlikely L90-10.[73]
If one looks at the background noise level line there which is
graphically represented, it was being asked of you, are there
people who, if I can put it this way, are below the rating level
L90+5 complaint marginal who are going to be advantaged by the
approach of the Petitioners over the approach of the Promoters.
Help the Committee, if you can, please, as to whether there are
people within that range whose amenity will be affected?
(Mr Methold) Certainly the rating
of the L90+5 as this graphic shows still indicates the marginal
significance of complaint, so on the basis that our preferred
design aim is aiming to go below that is moving towards the situation
where a complaint would be unlikely, so it is better in that regard.
I think I alluded to one example where we know that another railway
project has suffered complaints based upon L90+1 for a situation
where the electronification equipment had features which made
the ear detect it a lot easier. I am also aware of some of the
responses I had from the local authorities when I wrote to them
on this issue of examples where they have indeed had complaints
recorded at rating levels which are below L90+5. I think there
is evidence to suggest that there is complaint likelihood below
an L90+5. In the same correspondence, I asked the very direct
question of whether complaints had been received for the standards
that the local authorities impose, in other words, the L90-5 and
the L90-10, and in all cases where that response was received
they have said they have not had complaints. Some of these local
authorities have been using their policies for 10 to 15 years.
7038. Thank you. One final matter, if I may,
by way of re-examination. Can I ask you to look at LPH29, please.[74]
You told us earlier how these planning documents are prepared
in the light of the PPG24 or whatever other guidance is in place.
I want your help for the Committee on this matter, please. It
was asked of you as to whether or not the plans and the policies
of the local authorities there listed took into account a project
of regional or national significance. Help us in this regard,
please, if we take West Minister as the example on page LBH30,
there they have an adopted unitary development plan. First of
all, as to Crossrail as a project as being in the wings, if one
can use that expression, for how long now?
(Mr Methold) At least 15 years,
I would say.
7039. The West Minister City Council adopted
UDP. UDP has been introduced in the planning regime comparatively
recently, can you help the Committee as to whether that came before
or after Crossrail came in to, as I put it, the wings?
(Mr Methold) I believe this particular version
of West Minister City Council's standards was a fairly recent
inclusion within the last four or five years.
67 Crossrail Ref: P75, Planning Policy Guidance 24:
Planning and Noise, Noise Policies in Development Plans (HAVGLB-14704-071). Back
68
Crossrail Ref: P75, Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and
Noise, Annex 4-Examples of Planning Conditions (HAVGLB-14704-087). Back
69
Crossrail Ref: P75, Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and
Noise, Annex 4-Examples of Planning Conditions (HAVGLB-14704-089). Back
70
Crossrail Ref: P75, Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and
Noise, Annex 5-Specifying Noise Limits (HAVGLB-14704-090). Back
71
Committee Ref: A81, Undertakings Sought-Noise from Fixed Sources
(HAVGLB-14705-050). Back
72
Committee Ref: A81, Design Aim Philosophy (HAVGLB-14705-015). Back
73
Committee Ref: A81, British Standard 4142-Graphical Representation
(HAVGLB-14705-011). Back
74
Committee Ref: A81, Local Authority Standards and Guidance-Part
1 (HAVGLB-14705-029). Back
| 
