Examination of Witnesses (Questions 17840
- 17859)
17840. If that is accurate, what type of disturbance,
if any, is Ms Jeffery is likely to suffer from the presence of
the trains in the tunnel?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) If the Committee would
cast their minds back to an exercise when we listened to 40, a
10 dB difference is a halving of loudness, so it would be a very
small effect indeed.
17841. One of Mr Jeffery's specific concerns
and one of his daughter's concerns was how will noise and vibration
be monitored once the railway is up and running?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor): There are two ways of
responding to that. The first is when the railway is first commissioned
there will be extensive measurement from end to end by all manner
of parties, not just the Promoters, the designers of the track,
the local authorities, it will be heavily measured because a lot
of people will be very interested to see how the predictions have
turned out. More importantly, and probably underlying Mr Jeffery's
concern, is how over the years monitoring will ensure that it
does not deteriorate. In the previous days of evidence before
the Committee the issue of maintenance of the track was raised
and, in fact, the London Borough of Camden has requested improvements
for the wordings in IPD10 about how the track will be maintained.
It currently is being finalised as to what the ultimate new words
will be to satisfy Camden's concerns, but generally speaking,
there will be a continual process of monitoring not only the condition
of the track, its components and the resilience support for the
rail which achieves these low levels, but also, most importantly,
the condition of the running surfaces, the rail surface and the
wheel trades to ensure that if they deteriorate, which they will,
they always do eventually, they will be subjected to routine maintenance,
rail grinding, wheel turning, in time to prevent the predicted
noise level from being exceeded.
17842. Finally, I suppose the question which
Mr Jeffery really wants answered is what if it all goes wrong
and the noise does exceed the criteria set? What steps can be
taken?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor): If it were to go wrong,
it would be for one of three reasons. One would be a construction
error, in which case it would be something readily apparent, the
contractor would have been at fault and it would be put right.
Another less likely possibility is a design error. For example,
the wrong type of rail base plates had been installed for some
reason. That also would be rectified because it would be contrary
to the contract. The third possibility would be that there were
some completely unforeseen local conditions, some large boulder
between the tunnel and the house, or the building had piles which
nobody knew about that come down to the proximity of the tunnel.
In general, one has to say, it is a finite possibility but in
this particular location it is extremely unlikely to occur. I
cannot foresee any realistic prospect of that kind of cause of
excess noise going on. Those are the three possibilities, apart
from lack of maintenance, which I have spoken about already.
17843. Those are all the questions I have, sir.
17844. Chairman: Mr Jeffery, would you
like to ask any questions?
Cross-examined by Mr Jeffrey
17845. Mr Jeffery: If I may, please.
May I ask what form of rail and/or track is assumed in generating
these noise contours?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor): The contours assume from
end to end that there is resilient base plate support for the
rails. It is said in the Environmental Statement that in some
places there will be a more effective form of track isolation
where there are special requirements, but in order to produce
contours which do not suddenly jump about all the contours in
this exhibit are for resilient base plate support of the rail.
17846. It assumes resilient base plate support
of the track but it does not assume resilient slack track as such?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor): It does not. I would
say in the event that it is found when the detailed design is
carried out that for some reason in this locality the predictions
are higher because it is discovered that there is some feature
which causes these contours to become out of date and some new
ones will be produced on the predictions being produced, that
if hypothetically they did show that the noise level would go
over 40, then a higher degree of mitigation would be included
in the track to prevent it. There will not be any residential
property anywhere on the system that receives more than 40. If
it is necessary to have any form of enhanced mitigation it will
be provided during the design stage.
The witness withdrew
17847. Chairman: Ms Lieven, would you
like to make a final statement?
17848. Mr Elvin: I will, sir, but I will
make it extremely brief. Of course one utterly understands Ms
Jeffery and her father's concern in that they find a rather large
tunnel going underneath their property. I will submit to the Committee
that once one looks at the evidence there is really no reason
to be concerned about this property. First of all on settlement,
it has been assessed, it falls into the negligible to slight category.
If, despite that assessment, there is some movement then that
would be remedied by Crossrail, and the detail of the process
is set out in information paper D12 on noise. You have just heard
the evidence. It is highly unlikely that there will be any disturbance
from noise in this property from the operation of the railway.
If the assessment was completely wrong for utterly unpredictable
reasons then Mr Taylor has just been through the steps which could
be taken. I would submit about this property that although one
understands the Petitioner's concerns, there really is no reason
to believe those concerns would be substantiated.
17849. Chairman: Mr Jeffery, would you
like to say anything else?
17850. Mr Jeffery: I have not prepared
anything else, but may I take this opportunity to thank you for
allowing me to be able to appear in front of you and express our
concerns.
17851. Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. Can we call the next Petitioners, Barbara and Tony Wheeler?
Ms Lieven, would you like to make any comments?
The Petition of Barbara and Tony Wheeler
The Petitioners appeared in person.
17852. Ms Lieven: The Committee already
knows where the Wheeler's property is. It is 1 Baldock Street,
which I am indicating up there.[3]
This is the Blackwall Tunnel, Approach Road to its east. So far
as the tunnel is concerned, the issue is very similar to that
of Ms Jeffery. The tunnel is slightly higher because it is rising
to get to the portal at the Wheeler's house. The top of the tunnel
is some 11 to 12 metres below the Wheeler's house, so it is about
a three metre difference between their house and the Jeffreys'.
In terms of the impact, I think Mr Berryman would give the same
evidence. The Wheelers are in a slightly different position overall
in respect of the Crossrail project to Ms Jeffery's. If I can
have put up 035.[4]
The Wheeler's property is there. I cannot describe it better for
the shorthand writer, I am afraid. It is difficult to cross-refer
between the two plans. In terms of the tunnel, there is no material
difference from the position of the Ms Jeffery's but it is correct
to say that during the construction phase the Wheelers will be
impacted upon by the work site on Wick Lane and around the corner
into Wrexham Road for a fairly limited period of time. I will
call Mr Berryman very briefly to explain what will be going on
but that is the only difference. They will have a construction
impact which will be more direct than that on Ms Jeffery's property.
Sir, I will leave it there at this stage, if I may.
17853. Mrs Wheeler: I would like to read
a short statement, please.
17854. Chairman: Mrs Wheeler, I have
got a very low voice but your voice is even lower, can you raise
it slightly for the Stenographer?
17855. Mrs Wheeler: From our meetings
with Crossrail, it is difficult to know what the exact impacts
on our lives and our house are going to be. It is difficult for
us to have confidence in predictions of noise, vibration and settlement
effects. What we have wanted to hear is that we will have no noise,
no vibration and no problems with settlement, but Crossrail cannot
offer us that assurance. On the question of noise and vibration,
we have been told that noise levels inside our house should not
exceed 32dBA. The explanation we have read and have been told
is that at that level there is a low probability of adverse comment.
Where exactly we will be on that low probability we will not know
until after the tunnel is built. Thirty-two dBA is calculated
as an average but does not tell us the peaks of the noise we may
hear from trains running beneath us every two to three minutes
at peak times. Crossrail believe they can achieve their noise
and vibration targets by using standard continuous welded track
beneath our home. We will not know if that turns out to be correct
until after the tunnel has been built. If the noise and vibration
levels are breached, the only recourse we will have would be financial
compensation. If the choice of track turns out to be the wrong
one it will not be re-laid. We would like to be assured that beneath
our house, in view of the fact that we are only 11 to 12 metres
from the tunnel, we would have the best available quality track
to achieve the optimum reduction in noise and vibration. We are
asking for floating slab track to be used and not continuous welded
track. We would also like to know that the construction railway
would be built to a sufficiently high standard to keep well within
the desired noise and vibration limits. In view of the adverse
impacts of the Crossrail scheme on our small neighbourhood it
would be of benefit to all the residents of Baldock Street, Wrexham
Road and Ridgdale Street who have tunnels beneath or near their
homes to have floating slab track. We would like to outline our
concerns about settlement. We are only 11 to 12 metres above one
tunnel and Crossrail have the option to reduce that further with
a three metre vertical deviation if they find it necessary. Our
house is also only 11 to 12 metres away from the second tunnel,
and settlement is predicted for 30 metres either side of each
track. At the overlap the effects from each of the tunnels are
added together. When we met with Crossrail's tunnelling engineer,
he explained that as the house was directly on top of one tunnel
we may be lucky, the whole house may drop in one piece, but with
the second tunnel in such close proximity we think the house is
at great risk of differential settlement. We have reached Stage
2 of the settlement assessment procedure. The house is in risk
category 3. In the Promoter's response document, paper D12, this
is described as, "buildings might be at risk of sustaining
damage in excess of acceptable levels", so we will therefore
be going on to Stage 3, a more detailed assessment consisting
of a structural survey and successively refined modeling outlined
in D12 of the Promoter's response document. That says, "to
refine the analysis to see if a more accurate approach results
in the risk of damage reducing to an acceptable level". We
are not reassured by this. We would like an assurance that following
the stage 3 assessment the basis on which the protective measures
are decided will be on the basis of there being no risk damage,
not an acceptable level of damage. Until the assessment is done,
the risk of damage is unknown, but at this point we are asking
for the highest degree of protective works to be done in terms
of maximum and not minimum. As we understand it, the best way
of stabilising the house which would reassure us would be to underpin
it. We hope the Select Committee will be sympathetic when we request
that the best mitigation measures are taken to lessen the impacts
of the Crossrail scheme. The scheme has already caused immense
disruption to our lives and caused us a great deal of stress at
a time in particular when I am making every effort to avoid stress
as in April I am expecting a baby. We have seriously considered
selling our house as we are uncertain whether the house, with
all the diversion works and work sites, the effect of construction,
and operation of the railway, will be a suitable environment in
which to bring up a young child. If the best mitigation measures
for sound-proofing against the effects of work sites, noise, vibration
and settlement are ensured it would make our lives more bearable,
and should we feel it necessary to move house at some time, would
safeguard the impacts on the house and enable us to sell it in
a reasonable condition.
17856. Chairman: Thank you very much.
Can we have a copy of your statement? Do you have any witnesses?
17857. Mrs Wheeler: No.
17858. Chairman: Ms Lieven?
17859. Ms Lieven: Sir, if I recall Mr
Berryman I will try to keep the repetition to a minimum. I hope
Mr and Mrs Wheeler were here when Mr Berryman gave evidence. I
am not going to ask him all the same questions.
Mr Keith Berryman, recalled
Further examined by Ms Lieven
3 Crossrail Ref: P132, Ham and Wick Sewer Diversion-Locality
of Petitioners (TOWHLB-29104-030). Back
4
Crossrail Ref: P132, Ham and Wick Sewers Diversion-Sketch 5,
Option 5-Additional Provision Plan and Construction Sites (TOWHLB-29104-035). Back
|
