Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8560
- 8579)
8560. The general thrust of planning policy
in recent years has been to try to ensure that the overall noise
climate in an already noisy locality does not suffer from gradual
deterioration as a result of subsequent and sequential development.
This effect is commonly referred to as background `creep'. In
turn, that has led all the local authorities represented by Havering
(and it should be said by most if not all of the local planning
authorities along the Crossrail route) to determine planning policies
that require new developments to produce noise rating levels that
are actually below the existing background noise. The majority
of supporting local authorities, including LB Havering themselves,
Camden, City Corporation, Brentwood and Tower Hamlets, impose
conditions which require the rating noise level to be 5dB below
background. In Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster, the requirement
is even more stringent at 10dB below background. Where these policies
form part of the development plans of the planning authorities,
they have been approved after a formal process that is open to
objection and review. In all other cases the policies are provided
to developers in the form of guidance notes and/or standard planning
conditions. It is unusual for a local authority to be persuaded
against its own policies for development unless there are other
material considerations, and here the developer is normally responsible
for justifying the requirement for such a departure with full
supporting technical information.
8561. We can see that there has been a fundamental
difference of approach between the Promoter and the London boroughs
from the start. This was the position across the whole range of
fixed installation types when the Crossrail Bill was first introduced.
I shall now explain the refinements to the information paper D25
that have been made subsequently and that have led us to the position
now, where an agreement has been reached.
8562. Paragraph 19 deals with vent shafts, draught
relief and deep level stations. In paragraph 2.7 of the information
paper, special provision is made for tunnel ventilation, draught
relief and the operation of plant and equipment at so-called deep
level stations (those in central London with below ground platforms
but accessed from street level, in very much the same fashion
as Tube stations). It says (and I paraphrase) that for those types
of fixed installation, if the situation arises where despite using
reasonable endeavours to reduce noise levels below the design
criterion of 5dB over background the overall rating noise level
is still expected to be above what is described as the collective
local authorities' preferred standard of 5dB below the background
(reminding your Lordships that for the Royal Borough and Westminster
their criteria is actually minus 10) then Crossrail will be obliged
to provide local planning authorities with certain information.
The type of information in question is listed in the four bullets
in 2.7. Whilst this does not, of course, impose a requirement
on the nominated undertaker to meet the authorities' preferred
standards, it does recognise the local authorities' position and
places a requirement on the nominated undertaker positively to
justify why the authorities' preferred criteria cannot be practicably
met. In cases where the authority has control over the detailed
design of Crossrail development under Schedule 7, and in assessing
whether the commitments set out in the EMRs have been achieved,
the nominated undertaker will need to convince the local authorities
that no further mitigation is practicable or risk being refused.
I should point out to the Committee that technical information
on noise from ventilation shafts has been provided by the Promoter,
and enabled the local authorities to judge them as special cases,
particularly in light of their proposed limited and infrequent
use. Such information has not been forthcoming in the case of
deep level stations, primarily, as we understand it, because very
little acoustical design work has been undertaken at these sites.
The local authorities view Crossrail's insistence on allowing
rating noise levels at up to L90+5 for deep level stations as
speculative at this stage, rather than proven, and is the reason
why further information and justification is required in the future
to satisfy the local authorities on this point. The words in paragraph
2.7 are designed to provide this.
8563. That deals with vent shafts and deep level
stations. Now we move on to the surface railway and surface stations,
which are dealt with in paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 of the information
paper. Here, in paragraph 2.9, so far as the surface railway and
stations are concerned, the Promoter initially was prepared to
accept the blanket criterion of background minus 5dB, which accords
with the policies of all the supporting local authorities except
Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster. Your Lordships will
recall that this case was due to be heard on Tuesday 18 March
but we did not appear due to last minute changes to the document.
It was because the Promoter no longer felt able to offer the criterion
of background noise minus 5dB which led to both parties having
to abort the hearing on 18 March, and instead to continue negotiations.
8564. As a result of such negotiations, the
Promoter has agreed in 2.9 that the nominated undertaker will
use best practicable means to reduce noise in designing and constructing
the fixed installations associated with the surface railway and
surface stations so that, with additional allowances made for
calculation uncertainty, under all reasonably foreseeable circumstances,
the assessment of the worst affected residential building as identified
in the ES will not be more than L90-5.
8565. Where, despite the use of best practicable
means, noise levels are expected to breach that L90-5 noise level,
the nominated undertaker will be obliged to provide information
to the local planning authority on the calculated rating levels
at the most sensitive receivers under the range of operational
modes anticipated, details on the performance of the proposed
noise mitigation measures, and a description of the limitations
to any or further mitigation being practicable.
8566. The Promoter is not, therefore, so far
as surface railway and stations are concerned, adhering to the
criterion of background minus 5dB, which remains the preference
of the London boroughs, and they are disappointed that the Promoter
has been unable to adhere to its original acceptance of this design
aim. The London boroughs have therefore agreed as the next best
option the wording set out in paragraph 2.9 of the paper.
8567. Then we come to the scope of D25. Another
point of controversy between the Promoter and the London boroughs
has been the definition in paragraph 1.1 of what fixed installations
are and to what IP D25 applies. The London boroughs have wanted
the standards in IP D25 to apply to all fixed installations designed
and installed by the nominated undertaker as part of the Crossrail
scheme. This would cover, for instance, the situation where a
piece of equipment, which is not intended to be used under the
Crossrail scheme, is to be moved as part of the Crossrail works
to a location which is nearer a noise sensitive source in order
to make way for other Crossrail equipment. If the noise impact
arising from that piece of equipment in its new location is not
to be covered by IP D25, the London boroughs have been concerned
that such equipment would not be covered by any noise control
regime, which would undermine their own rigorous noise policies,
and result in somewhat gaping holes in the noise control regime
which IP D25 was originally understood to be designed to control.
8568. CHAIRMAN: Mr Straker, could you
give us an example of that sort of situation?
8569. MR STRAKER: My Lord, yes. An example
might be this. Let us say something in Crossrail, as a consequence
of the Crossrail scheme, came to be moved, so one imagines something
presently in place which creates a noise but is sufficiently distant
from any other receiver as not to be a problem. It would be where
this piece of equipment, which might be being used by Network
Rail, for example, comes to be moved somewhere else and as a consequence
of being moved it is now closer to a sensitive receptor and therefore
there is the potential for a problem. No doubt there is a multitude
of examples which could be given.
8570. CHAIRMAN: That is very helpful.
8571. MR STRAKER: The Promoter has indicated
that, while this paper does not cover rail served or other installations
provided by the nominated undertaker for other parties affected
by the scheme and not intended for use by the Crossrail operator
as part of the operational Crossrail system, there are other remedies
which should cover the problem. They have written separately to
the London Borough of Havering, and I will read the relevant section
of their letter onto the record if I may.
8572. This is a letter from Winckworth Sherwood
of 18 April 2008, which records, and here I refer particularly
to the third and fourth paragraphs, " ... it is not intended
that information paper D25 should cover every aspect of noise
relating to works under the Crossrail Bill which does not derive
from moving trains. It is intended to be targeted, as mentioned
above, at fixed installations provided by the nominated undertaker
which are to be part of the Crossrail system. There are other
mechanisms that will govern works for third parties. In particular,
if the works concerned are not scheduled works (and most accommodation
works will not be, although as it happens the siding at Paddington
New Yard is a scheduled work), and they cause significant environmental
effects which have not been assessed in the Crossrail Environmental
Statement and supplementary information, an explicit planning
permission would normally be required from the local planning
authority by virtue of clauses 10(2) and (3) of the Bill read
with item 10(D) of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning
Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales) Regulations
1999. In other cases, the over-arching obligation in paragraph
1.5 of the EMR general principles would apply. Furthermore, the
local authorities' normal power under Part III of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 would remain unaffected." Whilst this
is not the preferred solution for the London boroughs, they accept
this assurance given by the Promoter.
8573. Now we move on to public address systems
and audible warning systems. I do not intend to dwell on paragraph
3 of the information paper because that deals more with the detailed
process rather than criteria. Paragraph 4 deals with public address
systems and audible warning systems. In that case, your Lordships
will see that given the very site- specific issues which can arise
from these systems, the criteria is left to be agreed at a later
date between the relevant local authority in question and the
nominated undertaker, and that where agreement cannot be reached,
the issue will be settled by arbitration.
8574. If I can summarise the position generally
as far as the local authorities are concerned, it is that whilst
they are disappointed that the Promoter has not been persuaded
to agree to a minus 5 rating for everything, they are prepared
to accept movement on their own collective policy where any "special
cases" associated with Crossrail are appropriately justified
with additional supporting technical information which describes
why lower noise levels cannot be practicably achieved. (We believe
that the wording provided in the current IP achieves this by placing
such an obligation on the nominated undertaker to do just that.)
I choose those words carefully for the record for the reason that
the local authorities do not wish this acceptance to stand as
a precedent for any railway schemes that may come along in the
future, whether under the hybrid Bill or Transport and Works Order
procedure.
8575. All railway projects are different and
have to be treated on their own merits. Indeed, during his noise
presentation on Day 1, when referring to noise from fixed installations
at paragraph 212, Mr Thornely-Taylor himself recognised the special
nature of Crossrail by saying: "the most important application
[of the noise from fixed installation criterion] for Crossrail
is for what is called `loosely fixed plant tunnel ventilation
fans'. Being the biggest example of fixed plant, the fans on all
underground systems are very large."
8576. CHAIRMAN: Have you got the inverted
commas in the right place there?
8577. MR STRAKER: I believe so, my Lord.
8578. CHAIRMAN: "Loosely fixed"?
8579. MR STRAKER: We have checked that.
We are fairly confident we have got them right, my Lord, but we
will check again, and if we have got it wrong we can let the Committee
know. "Those on Crossrail will be substantially larger than
they are for underground lines because we are dealing not with
an underground line, we are dealing with a main line in a tunnel
with major consequences from that."
|
