Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7100
- 7119)
7100. Insofar as operational noise of the escalator
is concerned, retail use is not a use which is ordinarily classified
as sensitive in the same way as, for example, is a recording studio
or a concert hall or uses of that kind. Our position is that there
is no reason to expect that the operation of the escalator following
the conclusion of the works will bring about any significant adverse
noise impacts upon the occupation of the hypermarket in this case.
7101. Insofar as highways are concerned, we
have indicated to the Petitioner that there are a range of controls
in the Bill and as part of the environmental minimum requirements
whereby the Promoter intends to work with local highway authorities
to control and so far as practicable minimise the impact of the
works on the operation of the highways and access to premises
affected. We have indicated that pedestrian access will be maintained
and that as far as reasonably practicable we will maintain vehicular
access though there will be occasions here and elsewhere where
that will not be possible to achieve as a result of the works.
7102. Sir, finally, returning to the question
of compensation, perhaps the point which has not come out entirely
clearly hitherto but may have some relevance or have some bearing,
and perhaps even give some comfort to this Petitioner, you have
heard submissions thus far in relation to Section 10 of the Compulsory
Purchase Act 1965 which gives rise to the right to claim compensation
for the effects of public works which diminish the value of one's
land in circumstances where the land is not actually acquired
for the purposes of the scheme. It is important to stress that
where access to private property is obstructed for the purposes
of public works then compensation is in principle available for
any resulting loss of value to the land affected by that obstruction
during the course of the works. That is the principle established
and recognised by the House of Lords in the hotel case, of which
you have heard mention already in submissions.
7103. If a land owner is a business which is
dependent upon maintaining access to his premises and is unable
to function as a result of such an obstruction for the duration
of the works, as I say, it is a matter of principle, a claim for
compensation may lie under section 10 in such circumstances. Of
course, it always depends on the particular facts of the case,
but I thought it right to draw the Committee's attention to that
provision which is potentially of some relevance to some of the
Petitioners. No doubt you will have heard them and you will no
doubt hear more during further sessions of the Select Committee.
Unless there is anything else I can help you with in relation
to this Petition, that is all I propose to say.
7104. Chairman: Mr Buckingham, do you
want to have any further time?
7105. Mr Buckingham: No, thank you.
7106. Chairman: Mr Taylor, if you can
resume.
Cross-examined by Mr Straker
7107. Mr Straker: Mr Taylor, I wonder
whether you can take first the information paper which appears
at the back of P75. Within that, and it begins at page 118, at
page 119, at paragraph 2.4, we find a reference to the criterion
for the Crossrail assessment, that is correct, is it not?[79]
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
7108. There we find the basis, do we not, upon
which the exercise has proceeded as far as Crossrail is concerned?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
7109. We see there that it records the proposition
that airborne noise from mechanical and electrical service plants
is not significant if a certain contingency is reached and that
contingency includes the proposition that the contrast between
the rating level and the background noise level is not more than
+5dB?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
7110. So it is referable simply to mechanical
and electrical service plants, it is not referable exclusively
to ventilation shafts?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) They are
in the electrical and mechanical service plants.
7111. Yes, but it is put in general terms?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) No, it is put in very
specific terms.
7112. Yes, mechanical and electrical services
plant.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
7113. So it is put in those terms to embrace
all mechanical and electrical services plant?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
7114. It makes the proposition that if the contingency
is satisfied, such airborne noise is a matter of no significance?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is more than a proposition,
it is part of the scope and methodology adopted for the environmental
statement on which Crossrail consulted with the local authorities
several years ago now.
7115. Very well. If it is more than a proposition
so be it, but it is certainly a proposition that is being advanced
and that is a matter of no significance if one has reached a position
of +5dB over the background noise level?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) As I say, it is more than
a proposition, it is part of the scope and methodology of the
environmental assessment process and the basis of the design policy
which is set out in this draft information paper.
7116. Have I put the matter, whether you want
to categorise it as a proposition or otherwise, correctly that
it is a matter of no significance that one is achieving a figure
of +5 over the background noise level?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The reason I mentioned
the environmental statement is because the word "significant"
is an important word in the context of the law relating to the
assessment of the environmental effects and one is obliged to
discover the significant effects for the development. That is
why that particular word is used, and the threshold of significance
is if the rating level should differ from the background noise
level by more than +5dB.
7117. Very well. I shall proceed upon the proposition
that it is not significant. Can you help me therefore with this?
Can you go over the page within this document, which is within
P75 on the following page, page 120.[80]
Do you see 2.12?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
7118. There we have received the information
that the degree of attenuation required is site dependent because
there might be different levels of background noise. "The
nominated undertaker will be required to use reasonable endeavours
when designing the shafts to reduce the noise below the assessment
criterion"?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) Yes.
7119. That assessment criterion is what we have
just been taking about at 2.4 which carries the point, so it is
said at 2.4 as a matter of insignificance whether one is +5?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) +5 is the threshold of
significant effect.
79 Crossrail Ref: P75, draft Information Paper, Noise
from Fixed Installations (HAVGLB-14704-119). Back
80
Crossrail Ref: P75, draft Information Paper, Noise from Fixed
Installations (HAVGLB-14704-120). Back
| 
