Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8540
- 8559)
8540. MR STRAKER: My Lord, I am much
obliged and that message will be passed on to all the others concerned.
Turning to the environmental minimum requirements and the general
principles paper, which your Lordships should have before you
and which can, if needs be, be displayed, your Lordships will
recall that the EMRs comprise the general principles paper and
a number of annexes to it, including the Construction Code, the
Environmental Memorandum and the Planning and Heritage Memorandum.
I do not propose to go into the annexes which are either agreed
or in the process of being agreed separately, but I propose to
deal solely with the EMR general principles paper, which has been
the subject of the negotiations.
8541. This paper sets the general principles
which will govern the EMRs which, together with the powers in
the Act and the Register of Undertakings and Assurances, will
ensure that impacts that have been assessed in the Environmental
Statement will not be exceeded. They are a rigorous set of standards
to which the nominated undertaker will have to adhere.
8542. There are three key paragraphs. The first
is paragraph 1.3 of the Environmental Minimum Requirements paper
and that paragraph sets out that the impacts which have been assessed
in the Environmental Statement must not be exceeded, unless one
of the limited provisos set out in the bullet points applies.
My Lords, it may be appropriate if I simply mention here that
the relevant EIA Directive which is there referred to in that
paragraph 1.3 is Directive 85/337 as amended.
8543. CHAIRMAN: We have heard about this.
8544. MR STRAKER: Paragraph 6 records
that the other two key paragraphs provide the London boroughs
with comfort in relation to adverse environmental impacts. The
first is paragraph 1.5 which requires the nominated undertaker
in any event, and apart from those controls set out in paragraph
1.3, to use reasonable endeavours to adopt mitigation measures
that will further reduce any adverse environmental impacts caused
by Crossrail insofar as these mitigation measures do not add unreasonable
costs to the project or unreasonable delays to the construction
programme.
8545. Paragraph 3.8 is also important. Where
there has been a change in circumstances which was not likely
at the time of the Environmental Statement and if the significant
adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Statement are
likely to be exceeded, the nominated undertaker will take all
reasonable steps to minimise, or eliminate, those additional impacts.
These assurances are of great importance to the London boroughs
and they are warmly welcomed.
8546. There are two further points to note.
When I refer to the Environmental Statement, I am of course referring
to that deposited with the Bill in February 2005, the four Environmental
Statements accompanying the four additional provisions, the four
supplementary Environmental Statements submitted during the passage
of the Bill and their non-technical summaries and errata.
8547. I should also point out that, in his letter
to the Crossrail Planning Forum of 6 February, and, my Lords,
I pause there to observe that I think your Lordships have this
letter before you, Colin Poole, Planning and Environment Manager
at Crossrail, advised that the Promoters did not intend to bring
forward any amendments to the EMR texts, which include the general
principles paper, save in response to representations made by
third parties to your Lordships. In addition, he advised that
there may well be amendments brought by the Promoters to correct
errors, update references or clarify the text. Mr Poole advised
that the Planning Forum or Statutory Agencies Forum, as appropriate,
would be advised, insofar as is reasonably practicable, of such
changes. I would endorse such consultation and express the hope
that, should any changes be made by the Promoters to the EMRs,
such consultation is carried out as early and as comprehensively
as possible by the Promoters. In the event that the texts are
altered either by your Lordships or by the Promoters, the London
boroughs would, therefore, have to look again at the texts and
I, therefore, reserve their position to that extent, but, as currently
drafted, they are content with, and have agreed, the general principles
paper which is before your Lordships.
8548. Your Lordships are familiar with the large
set of information papers that Crossrail have produced. The one
that concerns us this morning in relation to noise from fixed
sources is IP D25. The latest draft which has been agreed between
the parties has, I hope, been circulated.
8549. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it has.
8550. MR STRAKER: My Lords, there are
one or two alterations to that which the parties have agreed in
the corridor and those have yet to be typed into it, but I can
mention them briefly.
8551. CHAIRMAN: Well, we can amend them
ourselves, can we not?
8552. MR STRAKER: My Lord, yes, so, if
I draw attention to paragraph 1.1 of D25, the penultimate line
of 1.1, it is agreed that the word "other" should be
inserted before the word "parties". That makes it plain
that the nominated undertaker is not within the embrace of the
word "parties". Then, my Lords, at page 4, four lines
up from the first bullet point, a comma is inserted after the
word "means" and the word "noise" is deleted
and substituted by the word "rating", it being rating
levels which are being referred to, which of course are referable
to noise, but that is the expression to be employed. In the same
paragraph and on the second line, your Lordships will see "audible
warning systems) with" and it should read, "with the
aim of reducing noise so that, with additional allowances",
so those words which I have read out take the place of those which
follow the word "with", so "with the aim of reducing
noise so that, with additional allowances made ... "
8553. My Lord, I return to the text from which
I was talking and I am at paragraph 12 where I indicate that I
shall deal first with the scope of D25. A detailed definition
of the term "fixed installations" is to be found at
paragraph 1.2 of the information paper.
8554. In essence, the information paper D25
deals with noise generated by new Crossrail-related machinery
and equipment other than the trains themselves when they are moving.
Included within the scope of the IP are electrical trackside equipment,
power supply equipment, ventilation shafts, mechanical ventilation
and air conditioning plant, public address systems and audible
warning systems and also noise sources at depots and sidings,
including noise from stationary trains.
8555. Then the statement deals with Crossrail's
position. As the information paper explains in paragraph 2.5,
Crossrail's starting point is that the nominated undertaker will
be required to design and construct fixed installations, including
the forced ventilation shafts, but excluding public address systems
and audible warning systems, so that, with additional allowances
for calculation uncertainty, under all reasonably foreseeable
circumstances, the assessment of the worst-affected residential
building, as identified in the Environmental Statement, obtained
by subtracting the existing background noise level (LA90,T) from
the rating level LAr,Tr of the fixed installations in normal operation
is not more than plus-five decibels, determined in accordance
with British Standard 4141:1997.
8556. If I could try and put that in more user-friendly
language, the first thing that it looks at is the background noise
level. As Mr Thornely-Taylor explained on Day One, that is measured
by the LA90,T scale, which, in simple terms, means the noise level
that is exceeded for 90 per cent of the time and it represents
the underlying noise level that exists in between noisy events,
such as, for example, cars passing by. Against that background
noise level, one then compares the noise rating level of the fixed
installation in question. Mr Thornely-Taylor explained that, for
certain types of noise, including the noise from a ventilation
shaft fan, one adds a penalty of 5dB to take account of the character
that is likely to be experienced by the listener arising from
variations in the tone or other irregular features of the noise.
Therefore, in the case of vent shaft noise, one determines the
noise either by prediction or by measurement, adds five decibels
and then makes a comparison with the background noise level. Crossrail's
starting point is that, if the rating noise level of the installation,
including the 5dB penalty is 5dB above the background noise level,
then that is acceptable. This is a very different approach from
that adopted by the local planning authorities.
8557. CHAIRMAN: Do you mean to say not
more than five?
8558. MR STRAKER: That is so, my Lord,
yes.
8559. Now we move on to noise—local authorities'
general position. It is now worth explaining a little about the
way in which the local authorities as local planning authorities
normally deal with the issue of noise in relation to new developments.
As your Lordships will know, local planning authorities are entitled
to place conditions on planning permissions for new developments,
and in doing so they are required to take into account national,
regional and local planning policies. Noise, of course, is a very
important consideration in those policies.
|
