Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12200
- 12219)
12200. I am less concerned about the type of
equipment.
(Mr Ireland) What I am saying is even using
the very best equipment we were only able to discern quite large
changes in concentrations in particulates. When we referred to
the particulates which you say would go off the sites and become
part of the general atmosphere, you are talking many, many fractions
of a microgram, which would not be measurable well beyond the
limited measurements.
12201. Mr Taylor
12202. Mr Taylor: I do not have any questions
for Mr Ireland.
The witness withdrew
12203. In closing, dust control is addressed
in detail in the Construction Code in information paper D1, as
the Committee is already aware.[52]
Dust management plans will be produced for each worksite. Dust
management plans will identify the mitigation techniques to be
employed and, indeed, the relevant local planning authority has
control over what measures go into the plan within Schedule 7
of the Bill.[53]
12204. So far as the portal site is concerned,
Tier 3 is to be adopted, that results in the highest standard
of dust control reasonably achievable. In addition, emergency
control measures will be adopted to address any pollution incidents
arising in relation to dust.
12205. You will have seen already that site
inspections will be undertaken. It may be that a person will be
identified to be responsible for examining the efficacy of the
techniques on each site.
12206. There are a large number of measures
that can be utilised to control dust on site, as you have seen.
Indeed, those proposed by Crossrail and the Promoter in the Construction
Code are much more significant than those that have been adopted
in relation to the document of Light Railway. The real issue here
is whether or not monitoring via a machine will add anything in
terms of making control more effective. You heard from Mr Ireland
that he preferred to have a person on site rather than to rely
on a machine. The reason for that is quite straightforward. A
machine cannot tell you what the source of the dust is, a machine
cannot tell you which particular management technique needs to
be used more effectively or what alternative technique should
be introduced to cater for the particular problem which might
be arising.
12207. So far as the particular undertakings
proposed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea are concerned,
they firstly asked for baseline monitoring. You have heard from
Mr Ireland as to the difficulties of establishing a baseline.
It cannot be done on any reliable basis because of the seasonal
fluctuations in levels, day on day, week on week, season by season,
and year on year.
12208. So far as identifying a particular standard
to be applied above and which action should be taken, the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has failed to put forward to
you a particular standard that it proposes. It has not identified
that there is any UK standard for dust deposition rates, above
which—which is accepted—a nuisance will arise. The
undertaking seeks further discussion on that.
12209. In my submission, it is a hostage to
fortune to require an undertaking that requires this to be agreed
in the future, because there is no means of discerning now whether
the project can meet that threshold without further measures being
required to be taken which may affect the delivery of the project
as a whole and may have implications for the particular tunnelling
techniques concerned and the way worksites will be managed.
12210. The technique proposed by the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea does not have any relevance in terms
of the protection of human health. It measures dust and cannot
be used as a proxy for PM10. The monitoring proposed will not
help in the provision of information in relation to the impact
of dust on human health.
12211. The proposal put forward by the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea therefore cannot be justified
by health concerns. The fact that health concerns are mentioned
in the Petition, in my submission, is misplaced and misfounded
when what is actually being measured is dust, not PM10.
12212. The reality is that Westminster City
Council has control over the measures that will be introduced
on the portal site and it has not raised any concerns. I am instructed
that the Secretary of State will ensure that Kensington and Chelsea
will be consulted in relation to the dust management plan.
12213. So far as the other site is concerned
in route window W1, obviously the Royal Borough is the relevant
planning authority, so the controls that are in Schedule 7 will
apply.
12214. To summarise, there is no reliable basis
for discerning a baseline. There is no agreed basis for identifying
a threshold, and there is no means of determining whether the
project can meet the as yet identified threshold without further
measures to be taken which might affect the delivery of the project.
12215. Monitoring adds nothing that will assist
in the day-to-day control of dust and it is unnecessary.
12216. Mr Cameron: I would like to make
my submission under five points within the time available. The
first point of issue is can I say that the borough welcomes the
measures set out in Tiers 1 to 3. Mr Denington described them
as comprehensive. That is not the issue. The issue is should the
Promoter be required to carry out dust monitoring before and during
the works to see whether or not those measures have achieved their
intended objective. That is the issue. Point 2 is risk and nuisance
attributable to dust. There is very little dispute between the
parties that the area which concerns Kensington and Chelsea, C1
and W1, is either high, being the highest risk score of the whole
project in C1, or medium, W1, and therefore on point 2 there is
a high risk.
12217. The third point is the need for dust
monitoring. Mr Ireland specifically said that there was a need,
and the dispute between the parties is how you go about it. What
the Promoter suggests is on-site inspection or what I characterised
as the tick-box exercise, no equipment referred to, a person on
the site checking whether measures have been taken. That is on
the one hand, and on the other hand there is the suggestion made
by the council that there is scientific equipment used on or on
the boundary of the site to monitor conditions before and during
operations. That is the choice. Which is to be preferred? The
council's suggestions are consistent with GLA good practice guidance,
past experience, giving the example of the Kensal Green Gasworks
site, and experience elsewhere in London, and that is Channel
Tunnel Rail Link, Docklands Light Railway Extension, which are
examples given on Mr Denington's page 41.[54]
In my submission it is clear that need is agreed. The dispute
is as to the method and the council's method is far to be preferred
because it is consistent with good practice guidance and is far
superior to some person on the site ticking boxes.
12218. My fourth point is to examine the Promoter's
reasons for resisting the request. The first reason raised is
the practicality of obtaining base line information. That really
is not a good reason because it has been done elsewhere in London.
It has not only been done elsewhere in London; it was also done
on the Kensal Green Gasworks site which is route window W2, so
that really is not a sufficient answer. The second point under
this heading is to look at paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 to the Bill,
which Mr Taylor refers to in his submissions. What that enables
a local authority to do under suppression of dust is to refuse
to approve dust suppression measures on specific grounds. Those
grounds are the same as those found in paragraph 6 in the table
at page 131 of the Bill, and they are that the arrangements ought
to be modified to preserve the local environment or local amenity
and are reasonably capable of being so modified, so all they can
do is to say that the arrangements have to change.[55]
They could impose conditions but that is not of great assistance
to them because they can only impose conditions, and it is paragraph
7.5 of Schedule 7, "The district planning authority may only
impose conditions on approval for the purposes of this paragraph
with the agreement of the nominated undertaker", so if the
nominated undertaker does not agree to a condition requiring base
line monitoring and monitoring during the works, there is nothing
the local authority can do. If the Promoter wanted to rely on
paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 all he has to do is stand up here through
Mr Taylor and say that he will procure that the nominated undertaker
will agree to a condition for base line monitoring and monitoring
during the works. You have not heard that and therefore the reference
to paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 does not provide the council with
sufficient comfort. It does not allow the council to say, "You
must monitor the base line. You must monitor during the construction
period."
12219. My fifth point, in conclusion, is this.
As I said in opening, it is a modest request at modest cost which,
if acceded to, could make a real difference to people's lives
in the vicinity of this potentially dusty work site. All we are
asking is that there should be some means of independent verification
to determine whether all the measures taken by the Promoter are
effective or not. So much more effective it would be if there
was monitoring rather than the man or woman with the sheet ticking
boxes.
52 Crossrail Information Paper D1-Crossrail Construction
Code, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
53
Crossrail Bill, Bill 1, 18 May 2005, Schedule 7, www.publications.parliament.uk Back
54
Committee Ref: A132, Existing Good Practice-London Borough of
Newham (KENSRB-31405-042). Back
55
Crossrail Bill, Bill 1, 18 May 2005, Schedule 7- Planning conditions,
Part 2- Development in the area of a unitary authority, www.publications.parliament.uk Back
| 
