Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8580
- 8599)
8580. My Lord, your Lordship's question then
has added pertinence because one has got inverted commas at the
end there, so we will check the inverted commas. My Lord, if I
can be of any further assistance I am, of course, happy to respond
to any questions, but that is the statement which I wish to put
on the record.
8581. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I have
a general question, if I may. Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster
have more stringent standards than elsewhere. Why is that?
8582. MR STRAKER: I suspect, my Lord,
it is because they have had greater intensity of noise-generating
activities within those two central London boroughs than others
might have had, and may therefore have had more concern expressed
about noise. I cannot give a more definitive answer, I am afraid,
than that.
8583. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
Mr Straker. Mr Mould, do you want to add anything to this?
8584. MR MOULD: My Lord, I was proposing
to add a very few words indeed in relation to the first of the
two topics that Mr Straker has helpfully touched upon, that is
to say the Environmental Minimum Requirements, and then I am going
to hand over to Mr Taylor just to deal with one or two matters
arising in relation to the noise issue.
8585. Can I say straightaway I do not believe
it is the Promoter's intention that the affixation of plant tunnel
ventilation fans should be anything other than appropriately robust
to suit the plant in question. I think your Lordship was a bit
concerned about whether the suggestion was that the screws would
be left untightened in relation to plant. I do not think that
is what that phrase is intended to mean. I hope I can give you
that comfort.
8586. May I also say that your Lordship said
in greeting Mr Straker that his clients were the first of the
authorities dealing with generic environmental issues that had
appeared before the Committee. It is probably fair to say that
they are first equal, because you will recall that we did hear
from the London Borough of Camden in relation to groundborne noise.
So I think they share the laurels in relation to that issue.
8587. My Lord, just in relation to the Environmental
Minimum Requirements and what is said by Mr Straker in paragraphs
2 to 11 of his paper, the most important point to make is that
he is right to say that the Promoter and Havering, as lead local
authority, have reached substantial agreement in relation to the
matters that he mentions in those paragraphs. I might just add
this: that as your Lordships will have appreciated the Environmental
Minimum Requirements lie at the heart of the framework established
by the Promoter to control the environmental impact of the project.
That is something which is mentioned, as we have shown your Lordships
in past sittings, in information paper D2.
8588. The general principles paper which Mr
Straker has shown you briefly is central to the EMRs because those
principles, amongst other things, set the framework within which
the intention is that, subject to defined and limited exceptions,
the environmental impact of the project does not exceed that which
has been assessed can be achieved in practice. You will recall
we touched on this in our opening statement to the Committee back
in February.
8589. My Lord, the London Borough of Havering,
as the lead authority in relation to this issue, have played a
valuable role in setting that framework in relation to the general
principles, and I would wish to acknowledge that to your Lordships'
Committee and, indeed, acknowledge the valuable role played by
other local authorities, particularly through the deliberations
of the Planning Forum which your Lordships have heard mentioned
during the course of debate. Indeed, as Mr Poole's letter of 8
February (which you were shown on the overhead) indicates, we
would expect that that role will continue hereafter, through further
meetings of the planning forum.
8590. It is in the light of that that I am happy,
for my part, to relieve your Lordships from the need to resolve
any significant dispute on these issues between ourselves and
the local authorities, with Havering as their leader, but I would
wish to make it clear—and this is my final point—that
members of the public should not in any way doubt that the important
matters to which the general principles paper relates have been
given anything other than the most anxious consideration and scrutiny
through the deliberations between ourselves and the local authorities
to which I have just referred. I know that your Lordships have
been concerned that people should know that that is the case.
So I am pleased to confirm that to your Lordships in these brief
remarks. The care with which those matters have been dealt with
is reflected in the principles set out in the paper that has been
circulated today, and indeed are reflected in the policies and
design criteria which are set out in relevant information papers
and which, as your Lordships know, will be carried forward in
due course into the contractual arrangements which are to be agreed
between the Promoter and the nominated undertaker for the construction
and operation of the project.
8591. CHAIRMAN: There remains the question
of getting planning permission with suitable conditions in individual
cases.
8592. MR MOULD: In cases where that is
required, that is certainly so, yes. So, my Lord, subject to any
further questions on this topic that your Lordships may have,
I am content to leave it there.
8593. CHAIRMAN: I think we are very glad
not to have to resolve technical problems of this sort.
8594. MR MOULD: Indeed so.
8595. BARONESS FOOKES: My Lord Chairman,
the question may be an unfair one because you do not have responsibility,
but looking back to the Jubilee Line—and there must have
been criteria set for there—would you happen to know or
can anyone tell us whether they were substantially different,
better or worse than what have been put forward now? There do
not appear to be any problems with complaints about noise from
that line.
8596. MR MOULD: Mr Taylor is whispering
in my ear that he can answer that, so, perhaps, as a means of
handing over the baton to him, I could ask him to stand up and
respond immediately to what your Ladyship has asked. Thank you
very much.
8597. MR TAYLOR: My Lady, my understanding
is that in relation to the Jubilee Line Extension and the fixed
noise installations on that project, the approach that was adopted
was to take the BS 4142 approach which is used in Crossrail and
apply a criterion of background plus 5 dB. So there was a different
criterion in the sense that the original criterion that was put
forward by the Promoter, which has now been altered in the context
of IP D25, was the one that was adopted on the Jubilee Line Extension.
Indeed, you are right that we are unaware of any complaints regarding
noise from fixed installation associated with that project. If
you are interested, you can see from the Special Report from the
Select Committee in the other place, Volume 3, page EV685, paragraph
7066, Mr Thornely-Taylor explained that position.
8598. CHAIRMAN: We have heard a typical
example at Rotherhithe, and other people can go and do the same
if they want to. There is a ventilation shaft in the corner of
New Palace Yard, if they want to go and listen to that.
8599. MR TAYLOR: Although, of course,
each ventilation shaft is designed specifically for the location
it is in, the New Palace Yard shaft, as I understand it, is reasonably
remote from a residential property. Therefore, it may not be quite
the best comparator of ventilation shafts to go to, but with that
proviso I think certainly people can go there—
| 
