Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8600
- 8619)
8600. CHAIRMAN: It is beside an extremely
busy traffic junction.
8601. MR TAYLOR: Indeed. I am going to
then turn to make a statement to clarify the Promoter's position
relating to Information Paper D25, which of course relates to
fixed noise installations for Crossrail. We are very pleased to
have reached agreement today with the London Borough of Havering.
It has been through a lot of hard work by a lot of people on both
sides and we are very grateful to the London Borough of Havering
for the resources and commitment that they have shown in helping
us all get to this point.
8602. In this statement, where I refer to background
noise levels, I am referring to the LA90 measure, which of course
is the noise level that is exceeded for 90 per cent of the time.
I just clarify that before I get into the detail of what I am
about to say. The general issue between the Promoter and the London
Borough of Havering has been whether the Council's preferred approach
of adopting the background noise levels minus 5 as a design criterion
is appropriate. I say, firstly, that the Promoter does not accept
that there is any scientific basis for accepting background minus
5 as an appropriate threshold for the protection of amenity in
the context of the Crossrail scheme. The Promoter maintains the
position set out in paragraph 2.2 of the Information Paper D25
that noise from fixed installations is not significant if it remains
below background noise levels plus 5 dB in accordance with BS
4142. Of course, that British Standard is the standard identified
as an appropriate methodology in national planning policy, which
can be found in Planning Policy Guidance Note 24. I have already
explained that that was an approach that was adopted in respect
of the Jubilee Line Extension with no resulting problems that
the Promoter is aware of.
8603. The second aspect that I need to refer
to is that in its statement this morning the London Borough of
Havering has sought to compare the criterion adopted in the various
development plans by local authorities, of background minus 5
or indeed minus 10, with the design criterion adopted by the Promoter.
We say that that is inappropriate and represents an over-simplification
of the Promoter's approach. In fact, the local authority's policies
provide background minus 5 dB to each individual noise source,
whereas the Promoter's approach of background plus 5 applies with
the exception of public address systems and audible warning systems
to all fixed installation noise sources installed and operated
in any location within the Crossrail development. You can see
that from paragraph 3.1 in the Information Paper, which my learned
friend skipped past but is actually crucially important.
8604. In other words, the Promoter's approach
is that the cumulative impact of fixed installations in any location
must not exceed plus 5 dB. The local authority's approach, however,
is not cumulative and that is significant because it is perfectly
possible for a number of individual noise sources designed to
meet background minus 5 to cumulatively result in noise greater
than background plus 5.
8605. For those interested, Mr Thornely-Taylor
explained this point to the Select Committee in the other place,
and you can see that in the Special Report, Volume 3, EV690, paragraph
7125. It is, therefore, inappropriate to compare the background
minus 5 approach adopted by the London Borough of Havering and
the other local authorities to the Promoter's approach because
they operate on different bases. To do that comparison in noise
terms is to compare apples with oranges—or, actually, Mr
Thornely-Taylor told me outside, it is to compare apples to Tuesdays.
So, with that in mind, we are pleased that we have come to agreement,
albeit that we have come to agreement by different routes, but
the point we have arrived at with the London Borough of Havering
is acceptable to both. Happily, I suspect, from a fuller view,
you do not have to get into the details of technical arguments
about the application of British Standard 4142. Personally I think
it is a great shame because it would have been lots of fun, but
there we are!
8606. CHAIRMAN: So nothing that you have
said will cause this agreement to unravel?
8607. MR TAYLOR: I certainly hope not.
8608. MR MOULD: My Lord, whilst Mr Taylor
has been making his observations, I took some instructions about
the more general position as regards the Jubilee Line Extension
in relation to my Lady's question and I am told, particularly
by Mr Thornely-Taylor, who I suspect within this room has as much
direct experience of the arrangements for the construction of
that project as anybody (you will remember he told you that he
had been closely involved in that project) that the arrangements
for the control of environmental impact as proposed in relation
to the Crossrail scheme are significantly more rigorous than those
which were in place in relation to the JLE. That no doubt reflects
developments in environmental assessment and arrangements and
so forth over the course of the almost two decades, I think, since
that scheme was in gestation. I hope that gives your Ladyship
a little more information about it.
8609. BARONESS FOOKES: Thank you.
8610. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, while we are
at this stage we have now got a paper from Havering setting out
the agreement that has been reached in relation to fixed equipment.
I think the Committee is very anxious to make reference to the
other generic points that have been agreed between the lead local
authority and the Promoters. I am not asking you to deal with
it today, but I think before we come to write our Report we would
like to know how this ought to be dealt with because I think there
are very important negotiations continuing which have been successful
and I believe that Parliament and the public would like to know
about them. I have raised this before behind the scenes but we
have not had a resolution of it yet.
8611. MR MOULD: I think we did write
to your Clerk in relation to those matters which had been the
subject of agreement on the 11th of this month. May I suggest
that we have a further word outside of the current sitting and
see whether we need to take matters a little further forward from
that?
8612. CHAIRMAN: I dare say we do not
but I think it is so important that these things have been dealt
with and agreed and the role of the generic authority has been
so much appreciated.
8613. MR MOULD: My Lord, yes.
8614. CHAIRMAN: They need to get credit
for it and people need to know what the result is.
8615. MR MOULD: Quite so. We will certainly
have a further word and take matters forward in that way. Unless
there is anything else?
8616. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Mould.
Well, Mr Straker, you go away with the plaudits of everybody.
8617. MR STRAKER: It is very kind of
your Lordship to say that.
8618. CHAIRMAN: It really is a huge help
to have got this achieved. Thank you very much to you and I think
quite a number of colleagues who have been working quite hard
on this.
8619. MR STRAKER: That is absolutely
correct, my Lord.
| 
