Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4340
- 4359)
4340. MR TAYLOR: That Directive, as I
understand it, has been transposed into England in the Environmental
Noise (England) Regulations 2006.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
Yes.
4341. Can you just explain briefly please what
those Regulations require the Secretary of State to do and whether
they define noise limit values that are appropriate to apply in
respect of anything?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) The first thing that
came from those Regulations was the creation of what are known
as `noise maps'. My own practice project-managed the London Traffic
Noise Map which is available on the web and has been for some
years. That is being followed by noise maps for railway noise
and aircraft noise and we are very close to seeing them published
by Defra. The next requirement will be for—
4342. CHAIRMAN: Do those maps show a
limit?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
No, they are simply snapshots of what the noise is in any location
in London in which you have an interest. You can go on to the
web and click on a location and find out what the noise level
produced by modelling, not by measurement, I should say, actually
is.
4343. BARONESS FOOKES: But it is factual?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) It is factual. It is intended to form
the basis of the next stage required by the Directive which is
for governments to formulate action plans. These are plans to
reduce noise if governments consider it is necessary. There is
no mandatory requirement to reduce noise and some governments
will do things. For example, in continental Europe, they have
a problem which we do not have of a particularly noisy kind of
freight wagon on the railways and they can reduce it by changing
the type of brake-blocks that are used. We do not use that type
of brake-block and it does not arise here, but that is something
that will be in the action plans of many European countries as
far as railway noise is concerned. But we do not know what DEFRA
are going to do in terms of their action plan. According to the
Directive they have until July this year to issue their proposals
and we will see what they come up with, but there is no indication
that they propose noise limits of any kind and they are not required
to under the Directive or the regulations that implement the Directive.
4344. CHAIRMAN: So, Mr Thornely-Taylor,
when one of the Petitioners says that the Directive provides the
framework for noise mapping on railways to ensure the imposition
of standards designed to protect residents, is that an accurate
description of the Directive?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
No, it is to enable governments to formulate limits if they consider
them necessary; there is no mandatory requirement.
4345. MR TAYLOR: What indication has
the UK government given as to whether it will be introducing limit
values?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
The indications are that it will not be introducing limit values.
4346. MR TAYLOR: I do not know if it
would help the Committee but we have in the course of preparation
a note relating to the Environmental Noise Directive and how it
is being transposed into UK law, which we can provide, if that
would be of assistance on this point, because it really is rather
a matter of submission rather than evidence.
4347. CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we could
not hear you.
4348. MR TAYLOR: I beg your pardon. We
have in the course of preparation a note relating to the way in
which the EC Noise Directive is being transposed into UK legislation,
which may assist the Committee in its consideration of this issue.
Obviously I am in your hands as to whether or not you want to
receive that.
4349. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman,
if there are no particular limitations or directions it may be
of academic rather than practical interest.
4350. MR TAYLOR: Which is actually what
the note concludes! I am in your hands on that.
4351. CHAIRMAN: I do not think so. It
will turn up in the form of some sort of regulation in due course.
It will go to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, who
may or may not remark upon it; it may get debated in the Chamber.
4352. MR TAYLOR: I am obliged. Moving
away from the European Noise Directive, Mr Thornely-Taylor, what
is the approach that is going to be adopted to the control of
noise from the shaft that is proposed at Hanbury Street?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
The approach is to use the British standard which exists for the
design of fixed installations, as I refer to them. It can be used
more widely than that, but in the Crossrail context that means
fixed plant such as ventilation shafts. This is based on a means
of predicting whether or not complaints are likely.
4353. CHAIRMAN: This is 4142?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
It is, my Lord. There is a system which I explained on day one,
which leads to a conclusion that at a level where the rating level
exceeds the background by around ten you can expect complaints;
if the rating level exceeds the background by around five it is
marginal as regards complaints; and then it says, quite rightly,
that if it is ten below the background that it is a positive indication
that complaints are unlikely and the reason is that the noise
would be completely inaudible. The Crossrail approach is rather
like the groundborne noise approach where just as there is a 40
LAmax,S upper limit for the operation of trains and tunnels so
the policy is that the marginal conclusion where the rating level
is five above background is the upper limit. But in most cases,
for the same sorts of reasons, the application of acoustical engineering
to the design of the shafts and the fans will produce much better
than that, and in fact the Petitioners in the Hanbury Street area
have been given the report prepared for Crossrail showing that
in many cases the noise level from a shaft will be much, much
better than that—we only need to retain that as an upper
limit for the few cases where space constraints, engineering difficulty,
proximity of the movers to the windows concerned is very short.
And even then there are still acceptable noise limits as a result
of the application of this policy.
4354. CHAIRMAN: Just before we leave
4142, I remember one of Petitioners saying that it is not very
robust, it is all based upon people complaining and there may
be lots of people who do not bother to complain and so therefore
there is no validity in it.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
It is a valid criticism to say that complaints are not a complete
measure of people's response to something, but it is also true
to say that as a policy and as an approach it is the same one
that has been applied to the Jubilee Line Extension and to the
Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which also has ventilation shafts, and
there is absolutely no indication of any problem, whether through
complaints or general rumours or information or indications of
any kind, that there is a noise problem from these shafts. I think
your Lordships and your Ladyship will not be surprised, having
had the experience of visiting the Culling Road shaft, this is
not an intrusive kind of noise; it is not the kind of source that
you would expect to give rise to complaints or to other effects
which do not necessarily come through as complaints.
4355. MR TAYLOR: In that vein, Mr Thornely-Taylor,
to counter criticisms of the adoption of BS4142, current planning
guidance policy on noise is found in PPG24, I believe.
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
Yes, it is.
4356. What does that planning guidance suggest
should be used as a methodology for assessing the impact of noise
from industrial sources?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor) It recommends the
use of BS4142, and I do not think there is any better alternative.
In fact, we as a country are ahead of most of the rest of the
world in taking the approach that you get in BS4142 where you
compare the noise with the background. Most countries, such as
France, other European countries, just set a limit whether or
not the background is high or low and I think we are actually
ahead of the game in this country.
4357. BARONESS FOOKES: I think residents
are entitled to very high standards, and I think in Spitalfields
and elsewhere they are also. Can you say that if you set this
down in Millionaire's Row or somewhere that they would have no
cause for complaint, because what would be acceptable for them
should be also the entitlement of the residents of Spitalfields?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
Yes, my Lady. In fact Millionaire's Row is likely to suffer worse
than people of lower means because they can afford air conditioning
and they are the people who have outside their bedroom windows
next door's air cool condenser running, running their air conditioning,
and that is quite as problem. But it is perfectly true to say
that all residents are entitled to expect modern, high standards
of design, and that is indeed what Crossrail will achieve.
4358. MR TAYLOR: I have no further questions
of Mr Thornely-Taylor.
4359. CHAIRMAN: May I ask you one thing,
Mr Thornely-Taylor? I am trying to pick up the points in these
petitions because there is nobody here and I must try and do my
best to cover the ground. In this Bill there is a disapplication
of certain controls by local authorities and one disapplication
is noise. I have little doubt that this is common practice with
projects of this sort where there is private legislation or hybrid
legislation. Have you any experience of other cases—it must
have been so with the Jubilee Line Extension and the Channel Tunnel,
I would have thought—where there has been a disapplication
of the statutory controls under the Control of Pollution Act and
the local authorities' enforcement powers. What has actually happened?
(Mr Thornely-Taylor)
My Lord, I can think of two disapplications. One is the right
to go direct to a magistrate for statutory nuisance. Is that the
one you had in mind? That appears in almost all modern Bills and
Transport and Works Orders, simply because the uncertainty involved
is very difficult to manage. The process which occurs for construction
noise involves applying to a local authority for consent under
Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act for carrying out construction
works, and you have to prove that you would use the best practicable
means to control noise. A local authority can either refuse the
application or approve it with conditions. One of the other disapplications
is to do with the method of appeal—appeals go to the Secretary
of State instead of to a magistrates' court. Both these disapplications
were in the Jubilee Line Act and in the Thameslink Transport and
Works Orders and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act. I imagine,
though I cannot say for sure, the East London Line is in a similar
position. What has happened as a result has not been in any way
impaired by the disapplication. As I think your Lordships will
be aware, there were some hearings in court about construction
noise issues on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. As far as I am aware,
the law operated totally satisfactorily; from the point of the
residents I do not think anybody was disadvantaged as a result
of any disapplication. It means that having settled with the local
authority what are the best practicable means, possibly even settled
through an appeal process, the contractor then has certainty as
to what he has to do, what he shall do and what he shall not do.
The opportunity for a single person to go direct to a magistrates'
court—that provision is not necessary and the uncertainty
that it could produce makes it very difficult to have an orderly
management of the noise and vibration of a project such as this.
| 
