Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10700
- 10719)
10700. Sir Peter Soulsby: The way I understand
it, the petitioners are obviously concerned about the passing
of tunnel boring machines but that is an inconvenience that can
be dealt with. I understand the point that you are making that
the particular needs of the church are such that Ms Serota is
not convinced that a limit of 25 decibels will be inaudible and
is going to be one that will not prevent them from continuing
the work that they are doing there.
10701. As we have had explained to us in the
past, there are technologies available in the construction of
the track that will provide what she has very helpful described
as bubble-wrap. The one that we have particularly focused on in
the past is floating track, which is the embodiment of that bubble-wrap
in terms of construction. We have had quite a lot of evidence
on this, and it is that 25 Db in a concert hall is inaudible and
would not, in fact, cause any diminution of the quality or the
silence which is obviously so important to them.
10702. Mr Elvin: That is the level you
must not exceed if these sensitive locations are to function without
impact, bearing in mind their special needs for quietness. Of
course, it is much lower than the normal standard of 40 or 35.
Can I remind the Committee that in our groundborne noise and vibration
IP D10 at paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 we give an assurance in relation
to such sensitive properties, and if there were to be an issue,
and if the predictions turned out to be wrong, then those mitigation
measures would have to be employed which are listed in 2.8 and
include matters such as a floating slab.[3]
At the moment, it does not appear likely that noise levels would
be likely to cause problems to such a sensitive location, but
if there were the proper mitigation measures would be employed
in order to keep it below the special level for such locations.
10703. Chairman: Ms Serota, if you think
25 is too high, what do you think is the right level? How much
lower down would you want it?
10704. Ms Serota: I would like Arup Acoustics,
who presumably are involved in some way, to give their expert
advice because they are my favourite experts. I have not been
able to talk to them about this because of a conflict of interest.
10705. Mr Elvin: Would it help if I offered
to get our experts, and I will get Mr Thornely-Taylor when he
comes back from Edinburgh to write a letter to the festival and
explain the position?
10706. Chairman: And meet with them?
10707. Mr Elvin: Yes, and meet with the
festival and explain the position. I am quite happy to do that.
10708. Chairman: Would that be okay with
you, Ms Serota?
10709. Ms Serota: It depends if I agree
with the outcome.
10710. Chairman: Whatever the outcome
would be would be reported to us and we would have to make a decision
on the Petition anyway.
10711. Ms Serota: That sounds very fair.
10712. Chairman: I am wondering whether
it would help in the proceedings of that.
10713. Ms Serota: Certainly. Arup Acoustics
are my favourite acoustic consultants, they absolutely know what
they are doing and they are the best.
10714. Mr Elvin: I am sure we can find
some way of accommodating that.
10715. Chairman: I think that would be
most helpful. Again, I think there are very special circumstances
with this particular building, and if there are any ways that
can be found to help we should try and find those. Is there anything
else?
10716. Mr Elvin: I do not seek to disagree
with that at all. Mr Mould reminds me of evidence given on day
8 by Mr Thornely-Taylor and, if you recall, it was his general
evidence on noise issues. If I can, for the record, give you the
transcript numbers, it is day 8, 2349 and 2350. You will recall
that he explained that the recommended level was 25 dB, and he
told you about hearing the tube rumbling when Mrs Jones went to
see Billy Elliot at the Palace Theatre. Mr Thornely-Taylor's view
was that rumbling would have been well above 40 Db and that 25
is not audible within the auditorium.
10717. You have then got at paragraphs 2350
through to 2351 the fact that the experience with the Jubilee
line has demonstrated his views on those matters and that modern
technology means we can be certain that the levels which are predicted
from the usage of rail, which is a known quantity, can be properly
predicted. We are as confident as one can be that those lower
levels will be achieved and they will not be audible. Having said
that, we accept the special position of Christ Church, and as
a special location if the levels look as if they are going to
be exceeded, then mitigation measures will be put in place as
are necessary to achieve the relevant standards.
10718. Chairman: I am grateful that you
reminded us of that evidence. You followed it by saying that the
special circumstances relating to Christ Church are as such that
we cannot take Billy Elliot against what we are talking about.
What we will do is you have very kindly agreed to arrange this
meeting and then you will write a note to the Committee. Ms Serota,
you can also write back to the Committee on how you found the
usefulness or otherwise of that meeting which is going to be arranged,
then we will deal with that in our decision-making.
10719. Ms Serota: Is it possible for
Arup Acoustics to recommend what the level should be taking Christ
Church as Christ Church rather than Victoria Theatre?
3 Crossrail Information Paper D10-Groundborne Noise
and Vibration, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
| 
