MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE. taken before HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE. On the HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Transcription

1 PUBLIC SESSION MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE taken before HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE On the HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON WEST MIDLANDS) BILL Monday, 12 October 2015 (Afternoon) In Committee Room 5 PRESENT: Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Sir Peter Bottomley Mr Henry Bellingham Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr Mark Hendrick IN ATTENDANCE Mr Tim Mould QC, Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Reuben Taylor QC, Counsel, HS2 Action Alliance Witnesses: Mr Doug Sharps, Acoustic Consultant Mr Rupert Thornely-Taylor, Managing Director, Rupert Taylor Ltd, acoustics and vibration expert IN PUBLIC SESSION

2 INDEX Subject Page HS2 Action Alliance Submissions by Mr Taylor 3 Presentation from Mr Sharps 4 Mr Sharps, cross-examined by Mr Mould 19 Mr Sharps, examined by Mr Taylor 30 Mr Thornely-Taylor, examined by Mr Mould 33 Mr Thornely-Taylor, cross-examined by Mr Taylor 37 Submissions by Mr Mould 43 Closing submissions by Mr Taylor 45 2

3 (At 14.15) 1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome back to the HS2 Select Committee. Today we start with the HS2 Action Alliance case on noise. We will return to noise in early November. After that, and tomorrow and on Wednesday, we ll hear from Bucks County Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council and Chiltern District Council on their issues including a summary of their case on the long tunnel. Gentlemen, you are going to kick off? HS2 Action Alliance 2. MR TAYLOR QC: Thank you, we re here this afternoon to present the petition on behalf of the HS2 Action Alliance in relation to noise impact, and in summary, the case that we re presenting is that the HS2 approach to mitigation of noise impacts needs to be changed, because it doesn t protect people s amenity sufficiently. We will explain via Mr Sharps who is to my right, that it is not valid to compare HS1 and HS2. HS2 is faster, more frequent, breaks at different times of the day and doesn t follow existing transport corridors that are already subject to considerable noise. 3. The current mitigation proposals, we say do not reflect best practice. The current proposals fail to have regard to all of the noise within the environment; they fail to take into account the character of the noise of high-speed trains; they fail to recognise that areas of the proposed route are quieter than others. They fail to protect the noise environment in the evening, at a time when children are trying to get to sleep and people want to relax; and the HS2 mitigation proposals fail to address noise during the night time period, appropriately; and fail to adopt the appropriate approach to the assessment of construction-related noise. HS2AA wishes to seek different noise thresholds adopted that would overcome these shortcomings. HS2AA has built a spreadsheet using the 60,000 locations within the noise data in the Environment Statement to test the impact of the HS2 proposals, and that takes data from the Environment Statement and enables easy investigation of the impact of adopting different threshold values very quickly. It s very easy to use and I ve been asked to say that it can be made available to the committee if you are interested in seeing it and using it. 4. The proposal in Information Paper E20 to do all that is reasonably practicable to 3

4 achieve the design levels set out in that document is acceptable to my clients, subject to some major provisos. The first is, as I ve already mentioned, that the target levels have to be changed to better protect amenity. The second is that there needs to be a process independent of the nominated undertaker, of approval to ensure that that which is reasonably practicable should be done to minimise noise has been done. HS2AA considers that the relevant local authorities noise working group or some other independent group must be given that power of approval. 5. The last part of the case that we ll present today is to contend that there should be undertakings given to ensure that the railway that is built and operated is one that is built and operated in accordance with the assumptions that have been adopted in the Environmental Impact Assessment process. For example, the rolling noise and the aerodynamic noise from HS2 trains must be 3dBs less than the trains that meet the European Standards. That was one of the in-built assumptions in the process. We will contend that a failure to provide those undertakings would mean that there would be scope to produce a railway with different and potentially significant impacts. We contend that it s unacceptable not to protect the health and welfare of residents properly; and indeed, to fail to implement existing government policy. 6. So with that brief opening, if I may call Mr Doug Sharps to present his presentation? 7. MR SHARPS: Good afternoon everyone. I m not going to read out my slides; everyone tells me that s not necessary. I d just like to pick out what I believe are the key elements of my recommendations and findings as I go through the slides. If I could have Slide 1 please? 8. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If you turn the whole thing, if you point to anything, the magic system won t work. If you want to change places? 9. MR SHARPS: I think that would be a good idea, because I can t quite see the slides. Thank you. The first slide shows the spreadsheet that Mr Taylor has been discussing; it s just one page of the spreadsheet. The spreadsheet was compiled by HS2AA, not by me. It has various columns, all of which can be what s called toggled. In other words, you can push the cursor over to the spreadsheet, toggle it, and you can then get, for example, in that first column of four individual columns, you could get the 4

5 highest existing daytime level to the lowest; the highest night time level to the lowest; the highest HS2 max to the lowest; and the highest TSI max to the lowest. Right the way across that spreadsheet you can toggle, so you can get highest to lowest, lowest to highest; and as you go across the spreadsheet you can then see the do nothing levels; the do something levels; and the changing noise levels. So it s a very, very flexible assessment tool produced by HS2AA. 10. If I could have slide (2) please? Those are my qualifications and experience; I won t read them out. All I would like to add to those is to say that I ve visited and surveyed noise levels at 17 locations in towns and villages along the HS2 route. As an aside, I live 250 metres from the Norwich-Liverpool Street rail line and have done for 35 years. It s obviously not a high-speed line, but nevertheless I ve got knowledge of the impact of rail traffic in rural locations. I have long-term noise survey results at various locations along the proposed HS2 line, particularly within the Chilterns and at Weston. 11. Could I have slide (3) please? Now, as I ve already said I m not going to take every point in the petition. I do want to stress in this slide that in my opinion and in HS2AA s opinion, the proposed noise controls do not protect noise and quality of life; or the amenity of residents sufficiently during the construction or operation phase of the railway. They require amendment and as I will return to the subject time and again, I do not think E20 and E23 are fit for use as they stand at the moment, and they do require amending in my opinion. 12. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: How long have you thought that? 30 years, 10 years, five minutes? 13. MR SHARPS: Since I picked them up and read them. It took me probably five minutes to realise that E20, for example, has no assessment criteria for evenings; and has no assessment criteria in terms of change in noise level, all of which should be in E20 and it s essential that they are in there, in my opinion. But I will come onto that subject, if I may, a bit later. 14. The point I m trying to make is a fundamental requirement of the regulations, is to identify significant impacts and report the significance of those impacts. The Environment Impact Assessment does not do this and as I say, I think E20 does not do 5

6 this either. 15. Slide (4) please? As Mr Taylor has already mentioned, there are significant differences between HS2 and HS1 and in my opinion, it is not appropriate to use HS1 as a good comparator of what will be the impact of HS2. I ve surveyed along HS1; the background and ambient noise levels are in excess of 50dB for probably about 85% of the route, alongside the M20 and alongside the M2. The background noise level at the 17 villages and towns that I ve surveyed along HS2 are probably around 30dB 30-35dB. This is an enormous difference in the existing noise climate and that difference in the existing noise climate will mean there will be a lot less masking noise on HS2 and a much higher impact in my opinion. 16. The other differences are that the train frequency on HS2 is much greater; the times of day that trains operate on HS2 will be much earlier: five o clock in the morning, and much later, until midnight. The speed of HS2 is much faster. All of these things: masking level and these four or five points means that in terms of noise implications, HS2 will be much more invasive. 17. Could I have the next slide please? I know that you ve heard about low observed adverse effect levels and significant observed adverse effect levels, so I m really just going to gloss over these to a certain extent. The important points that I d like to make on this particular slide is that LOAEL and SOAEL must be expressed in terms of total noise levels. It is absolutely essential that this is done; if it s not done, then I m afraid the resultant LOAEL and SOAEL values are wrong. In this case, HS2 has used design targets in terms of the average noise energy; the LAeqT level and the peak level, LAmax levels, but only for HS2 noise. This is an incorrect approach, as I will explain later. My last point, if I could read that out: if the LOAEL or SOAEL values are too high, then unacceptable impacts will result and insufficient mitigation will be adopted to protect health, quality of life, and amenity. 18. Next slide please? Taking up the first point and giving you an example. The WHO guidelines and the WHO World Health Organisation Night Noise Guidelines, provide what are called guideline values, for total noise. If those guideline values are used just for HS2 noise, then you can have a situation where the total noise will exceed the WHO guidelines, but the HS2 noise will not. A very simple example, using Mr 6

7 Thornely-Taylor s slides is if you have an existing noise level of, say, 50dB and a noise level from HS2 of 50dB then you get 53dB. That s an example of where HS2 noise would meet the guideline value, but the total noise would not meet the WHO guideline value. 19. The last point on that slide is that in such a case, one needs appropriate criteria to take this situation into account. HS2 has adopted a changing noise level set of criteria levels, 0-3dB; 5-7dB, etc. It is appropriate to also consider the change in noise level and I discuss that subject a bit later in my presentation. 20. Next slide please? The noise controls proposed for rail noise do not take account of the character of the noise of higher speed rail. In particular, noise from high-speed rail will arrive very quickly: it s what s called, in technical terms, the rise time. This is due to the train speed, which is around 100m/s. This will result in an abrupt increase in sound, particularly when rail traffic exits tunnels. Moreover, the acoustic frequency of high-speed rail is relatively high. The low, observed adverse effect level values used by HS2 are not derived from dose-response studies of high-speed rail. They re derived from the WHO guidelines. The most important point on this slide is that in my opinion, a correction to the LOAEL and SOAEL values must be made to allow for the characteristics of HS2 noise, particularly in quiet areas. I suppose this is the first theme of my presentation. That the LOAEL and SOAEL values, chosen by HS2, do not allow for the characteristics of the noise source, particularly in quiet areas. 21. MR HENDRICK: When you say quiet areas, do you mean areas that haven t got the background noise of 50dB? 22. MR SHARPS: Yes. I ve set a level at which I believe is a suitable level to delineate quiet areas from not quiet areas. Later on in this presentation, I ve set two sets of matrices for LOAEL and SOAEL in quiet areas, and what I call, not quiet areas. So the simple point is, in quiet areas, you don t have the masking sound, you don t have other sources of noise that are characteristic, which are going to interfere with the characteristic of high-speed rail. Therefore, in my opinion, one needs to have a completely different set of LOAEL and SOAEL values in quiet areas, from non-quiet areas. That s one of the main points that I ve made in this presentation. 23. This need to consider the character of noise is discussed in a number of British 7

8 Standards, in particular British Standard 7445, which suggests that if you re comparing noise which has a particular character with tonality and intermittency and impulsiveness, then you should consider that noise differently from a broadband, steady noise. 24. Next slide please? This first slide illustrates what I call the rise time in my last slide. So a very short, or very quick rise time. As you can see, the left-hand access the y-axis shows the sound level of a high-speed train, and the horizontal axis shows the time in seconds. This particular high-speed train, travelling at 360km/h, shows that the noise level increases from around 77dB to 96dBA in around four seconds. The peak of noise is there from approximately four seconds in, on the horizontal access, to six seconds in. The two-second duration which shows it s probably about a 200 metre long train. In my opinion, the character of noise will be very, very pronounced from this source. 25. Next slide please? This slide shows the noise level at 25 metres, in dba, against the operational speed of a high-speed train. The thing I d like to point out in this slide is the pronounced kink at around 300km/h. 26. Next slide please? This shows the sources, individual sources of noise of high-speed rail; it s from the Environment Statement, SV00100, Annexe D2. The dotted line at the bottom that rises just to the left of 200km/h, is the pantograph. The horizontal line is noise from the power traction auxiliary sources. Then there s a red dashed/dotted line which terminates at 90dB at about 360km/h. That s called aerodynamic noise; it s called body aerodynamic noise, whether it is body aerodynamic noise I m not sure. But it is undoubtedly aerodynamic noise. 27. Then there s a rolling noise which is the dashed line just below the solid red line, which again terminates at 90dBA at 360km/h. The two together making a total noise level of 90 plus 90, 93dBA. 28. Next slide please? My second main point is that there should be more stringent assessment criteria for the evening than there should be for the day. There s a greater sensitivity to noise in the evening for social reasons, and because the noise level during the evening is lower than it is during the day. Both government policy and the World Health Organisation recognises this, and the WHO says that noise levels during the 8

9 evening or noise criteria during the evening I should say should be 5-10dB lower than during the daytime. HS2 itself has separate lower evening LOAEL values in its construction impact assessment, but none for rail noise. 29. Next slide please? HS2 proposed noise controls at night, and adopt an eight-hour averaging period. This is wrong. At very minimum, HS2 should adopt and assessment period over three hours, which is the operational period during the night, up until midnight and five o clock until seven o clock in the morning. But in my opinion, rather than use an average level overnight, it s far more appropriate to use a LAmax level. HS2 has used a LAmax level as their LOAEL of 60dB. The night noise guidelines intimate that this is too high; but I have used it in my assessment. 30. Next slide please? HS2 contend that the highest LAmax baseline level recorded overnight should be compared to the I beg your pardon, I ll start again. HS2 contend that the highest LAmax baseline noise level overnight should be compared to HS2 LAmax. I don t believe this is right. It s not the method adopted in SV004 tables, which display the LAmax HS2 and the average LAmax level baseline. If you make that comparison as HS2AA have done, you will see that there is a 10dB or more difference, twice as loud, between the HS2 LAmax and the LAmax baseline. That will occur at 7,223 properties if you use and assume HS2 trains on HS2 tracks. A 20dB change, four-times as loud, will occur at 1,120 properties. A 30dB change eight-times as loud at 82 properties. 31. The last bullet point on that slide shows the results of that analysis which is simply that, at night, the LAmax generated by HS2 will be well above, between a doubling and eight-times as loud. The prevailing in other words the average LAmax currently experienced at those properties. 32. MR HENDRICK: Are the three hours that you re saying they should consider, rather than the eight hours, just the three hours that the trains would be operating at night, and therefore not considering over the whole of the evening period? 33. MR SHARPS: No, I m looking at the night period, which is defined at 11 o clock in the evening until seven o clock the next morning. 34. MR HENDRICK: Yes. 9

10 35. MR SHARPS: HS2 will operate between 11 o clock and 12 o clock at night; and five o clock at night and seven o clock in the morning. 36. MR HENDRICK: So three out of the eight hours. 37. MR SHARPS: As I tried to illustrate earlier, the duration of an HS2 pass-by, as it s called, is eight seconds, nine seconds, something like that. It s only apparent for a very, very short period of time. It s wrong, in my opinion, to take that particular event 38. MR HENDRICK: Over eight hours 39. MR SHARPS: And average it over eight hours. 40. MR HENDRICK: Yes, it should be done over three hours, as you say. 41. MR SHARPS: That is one way of doing it, but really, a much better way than that is just to look at the LAmax level. The LAmax level which is another indicator used by HS2 is the thing that would dictate impact. It won t be the average level over three hours; it certainly won t be the average level over eight hours, in my opinion. People are not going to think at four o clock in the morning, Crikey, there was a train went by at They ll be awoken by that train, distributed by that train, at in the evening. There won t be any residual impact which means that it s appropriate to average over the full eight hour period. 42. MR HENDRICK: Do you not feel that there s any cumulative effect of the noise repeating itself over a period of time, rather than just one or two, because that s the idea of looking at the total amount of noise rather than just the peaks. 43. MR SHARPS: That s a very valid point, yes. But I think that rather than try and do the average level, even over three hours which is a much better than eight hours, I accept rather than take the average level over three hours, it s much better to say, the LAmax level is xdb. That will evoke a sleep disturbance or it won t evoke a sleep disturbance, depending on its level and there will be 10 events or 20 events or however number of events, in that period. It s a much, much better way of doing it. The WHO night noise guidelines basically says, choose the index which best reflects sleep disturbance. If you have a fan which is running along for eight hours over the night, then it would be right to assess the noise impact of that fan in terms of its overall level, 10

11 overnight. If you have an irregular noise over the whole of the eight-hour night, road traffic or something like that, it would be appropriate to consider the level over the eight-hour night. But if you have a certain number of transient events, then you should really look at the LAmax and the number of those events. 44. MR MOULD QC (DfT): It might help if I just say that what is just being described is essentially what our policy requires, as you will see from paragraph 15 in appendix one, to information paper E20. So there s no issue between us on this. 45. MR SHARPS: I think, if I may respond to that, the only issue is the use of an LOAEL in terms of in terms of LAeq at night. There s an LOAEL of 40dB at night, that you ll see in E20, and a SOAEL of 55dB at night. Those levels, in my opinion, do not need to be in E20. The LAmax will dictate sleep impact at night. 46. MR HENDRICK: The fact that the LAmax is, by nature, very regular the trains running every few minutes that a person s semi-conscious will almost be expecting the next one along after a certain I m not saying it s a good thing. It would, more than likely, rather than random events like traffic, not affect the person in the same way, the fact that it s expected? 47. MR SHARPS: Well, sleep disturbance is an incredibly complex subject. You have, during the night, what are called shoulder periods the beginning of the night and end of the night when people are not in a deep sleep stage; they either have just got to sleep or are just getting to sleep or are about to come around in the morning to go off to a Select Committee or something. Those shoulder periods are very sensitive much more sensitive than the middle of the night. That s the first thing. 48. The second thing is that the degree of background noise level affects the impact from LAmax events. So, a given LAmax of 60, 70dB, whatever it is, would have a higher propensity to disturb in a quiet area than it would in a noisy area. Then, overlaid upon that, different people have different susceptibility to being awoken; that s another area. Then last of all, you ve got to be very careful, because there s different degrees of sleep disturbance. The highest degree is you re awoken the highest noise level, you re awoken: Bang, that was a train. The next layer down from that is there s a change in your sleep pattern. There s a change in what s called motility; you start to twitch. Subconsciously you can hear something in the background. There s a change in the 11

12 sleep stage. You move up the sleep stages; you go from a deeper stage to a less deep stage. Those last two effects have an overall effect that you could wake up in the morning and you are tireder than you would otherwise be. You may not have been awoken but you will be tireder because your sleep has been affected in a different stage. So it s a very complicated subject, I m afraid. But overall, I don t believe that Hilary Wharf s assessment and it is effectively her assessment from her spreadsheet which shows the comparison of LAmax levels in the baseline to the LAmax levels from HS2. I think that s a perfectly fair assessment. 49. Next slide please? Sorry for taking so long on that, sir. I m going to start to speed up; I apologise as I am going through these things, but these things are very, very important to HS2AA and there are some things, which I really do need to stress. This is one of them. I was, quite frankly, astonished at how quiet the 17 villages and towns that visited on HS2 were. We were typically measuring background sound levels between 30 and 35dB. These are very, very quiet areas. As I say in my sixth bullet point, the same level of noise from HS2 will have a markedly different impact in rural areas than urban areas, because of the lack of masking noise, and it is necessary in my opinion to have noise controls that recognise the difference between quiet areas and other areas. That is why I have set two sets, to matrices of LOAEL and SOAEL. 50. Next slide please? I will just leave that slide for the record, I don t need to say anything about it. Next slide please? In my opinion, the significant adverse effect levels should be 10dB above the low observed adverse effect levels, not the 15dB for LAeq or the 20-25dB for LAmax that HS2 propose. The 10dB is a doubling of loudness, a much higher level; and HS2 adopt this 10dB difference between low levels of impact and significant levels of impact in the construction noise criteria which are in E Next slide please? The second point on that slide, is that the low effect levels and significant effect levels must reflect the impact of HS2 noise character in quiet areas. At this point, sir, I d like, if I may, to refer to my report. 52. CHAIR: Okay. 53. MR SHARPS: Do you have a copy of that? 12

13 54. CHAIR: Yes. 55. MR SHARPS: It s 4.3 of that report, sir. Can I read this for the transcript? 56. CHAIR: Yes. 57. MR SHARPS: This is an extract from the Environment Statement, appendix SV Annexe A. It s the extract where HS2 consider impact on communities, rather than individual dwellings. 58. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Just say for the record, it s on page 20 of your slides, for those who are going to look at it afterwards. 59. MR SHARPS: Thank you. 60. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 4.3 is on page MR SHARPS: It says, Forecast operational sound levels from the proposed scheme of between 50-65dB daytime, or 40-55dB night time in other words between HS2 s LOAELs and SOAELs may be perceived as a change in quality of life for occupants of dwellings or a perceived change in the acoustic character of an area. When considered collectively for groups of dwellings, this is the communities point, and their shared community open areas, such effects may be significant. 62. If I can read 4.4, sir, this says, This appears to say that if, as a result of HS2, there is a change in the acoustic character of an area, significant effects may result in levels below the stated significant effect levels. 63. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Does it? Does it appear to say that? 64. MR SHARPS: I paraphrase. Do you want me to say it again? 65. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, I read it and I heard it. 66. MR SHARPS: Well, SOAEL are significant event levels 67. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Observed adverse effect levels. 68. MR SHARPS: Right, I ll read it again 13

14 69. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Don t read it again. I m asking, Is it? That is the only question I asked. 70. MR SHARPS: Yes, it is. The point that I d like to make here, if I may, is that what HS2 are saying is, if there is a change in the perceived acoustic character of an area, then a significant effect may occur at levels below the SOAEL value. I think the trouble with that approach is it s a judgement. In my opinion, it s much better to have a set of fixed LOAEL and SOAEL, to accommodate situations where you have a perceived change in the acoustic character of an area. In other words, you need a set of LOAEL and SOAEL in quiet areas, compared to noisy areas. It s a different approach to HS2 but it s an approach which results in far more certainty in terms of the overall assessment conclusion. 71. Next slide please? I have set out there the HS2 proposed noise levels. As I have said before, these LOAEL and SOAEL are for HS2 noise only. In my opinion, that s wrong. It should be for total noise. 72. MR HENDRICK: If as you say there, in what you regard as noisy areas, and the background noise is 50dB, and you re saying that HS2 is going to put on another 50dB, totalling 53dB in that area. Are you saying that has a lesser or a worse effect on people s sleep than if you re in a quiet area and you get the levels you ve just been talking about, because of the change in the noise rather than the actual amount of noise or the amplitude of the noise that people are hearing? 73. MR SHARPS: I think there s a two-stage approach if I may say? The first stage is you should set low observed adverse effect levels, and you should set significant adverse effect levels. They are what they say they are. Planning practice guidance sets out what those effects are quite clearly. Those will vary depending on the acoustic climate of the area. They will be different here in Westminster than they will in the middle of the countryside. 74. MR HENDRICK: Accepted, yes. 75. MR SHARPS: It s a bit of a common sense point, but it is something that all government policy, all government technical advice tells you: impacts will be greater. 14

15 76. MR HENDRICK: The point I m trying to make 77. MR SHARPS: Just picking up on your second point, if I may. You then need to look at of course you need to look at the change in noise level. Once you get to that LOAEL, whether it s for a quiet area or a noisy area, you then need to look at the change in noise level. It s those two things together which is, as I will show on a slide further down, gives you the overall assessment matrix, if you like. So it s overall level in terms of effect levels, and then change in noise level in terms of the overall impact. There is a slide towards the end which shows how these two work together. 78. So, just reiterating, those levels should be for total noise; there should be an evening value in there which is 5-10dB lower than the daytime value. LAmax is a better indicator of sleep disturbance at night than an average noise energy level over eight hours, taking up the point that we debated earlier. There s no point averaging over eight hours, no point at all. Again, my point earlier, there s no reflection here about the character of the noise in quiet areas. Last but not least, having a relative difference between the values of 15dB, 15dB and then 20-25dB is illogical. There is a fixed relationship between LAmax and LAeq. Why have a 15dB difference between the low observed adverse effect level and the significant observed adverse effect level, for one and not for another. It s not a logical matrix of assessment criteria. 79. Next slide please? For areas which are not designated as quiet, I suggest these LOAEL and SOAEL levels, which I commend to this Select Committee and indeed, to HS2. They re total noise levels, rather than just HS2 noise. There is a separate LOAEL and SOAEL for evening, and the night time is set in terms of LAmax. 80. Next slide please? For areas which are designated as quiet and I provide a full reasoning for this in my report at paragraph 4.23, noise levels should be as per table two, but 10dB lower 10dB more stringent. 81. MR HENDRICK: Is there any particular standard or guideline that says it should be 10dB and not 15dB? 82. MR SHARPS: No. 83. MR HENDRICK: So that s just a personal view of yours? 15

16 84. MR SHARPS: It s a judgement. 85. MR HENDRICK: Okay. 86. MR SHARPS: It s based on the slide I had earlier which is that the 10dB is a doubling of loudness, but it is a judgement. It could be 15dB as easy as 10dB. 87. MR HENDRICK: Where HS2 are saying 15dB, you re saying it should be 10dB? 88. MR SHARPS: HS2 are saying 10dB for the LAeq levels and 20-25dB for the LAmax levels. And I ve just been prompted to say, which I d forgotten, that the 10dB difference is what HS2 has used for their construction criteria. So there is a, using table two and table three, would give you a cohesive matrix of assessment criteria for operations and construction. 89. MR HENDRICK: The sound in operations are very different than fairly constant sounds I would ve thought during construction? 90. MR SHARPS: Yes, but I don t think that s a reason to change the difference between significant and low. If you re going to have a significant impact compared to a low, there is a ratio between the two, and in my view 10dB is appropriate. 91. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: More appropriate? 92. MR SHARPS: More appropriate, yes, I stand corrected. More appropriate. 93. Next slide please? We talked about change criteria. HS2 have adopted a matrix of change criteria within their Environment Statement but those criteria do not delineate significant impacts. It s very much minor, moderate and major. Government policy talks about significant; you need significant in there somewhere. Crossrail used this particular assessment matrix, and I commend this to HS2 and this Select Committee. It s very similar to what s in the Environment Statement, but it s better. 94. Next slide please? This slide shows how the absolute assessment criteria and the change in noise level criteria work. The left-hand column shows the LOAEL and SOAEL values, and then as you go across the second, third and fourth column, you bring in the change in noise level, the scale rating as it s called from Crossrail and what action you need to do. So if the noise level - the total noise level, not the HS2 noise 16

17 level, the total noise level if it s below the low observed adverse effect level, then there s no action required. If it s between the low observed adverse effect level and the significant observed effect level, and the increase is less than 3dB, then take reasonable measures. If it s above 3dB, then that indicates a significant impact, and that should be avoided, as should levels above the significant observed adverse effect level. This assessment is the way that HS2 impacts should be assessed. 95. I m terribly sorry that took too long, but I got all my points over and I thank you for your patience. 96. CHAIR: Thank you. 97. MR SHARPS: We still have to go through construction noise, but the good news it s only two slides, and I will be able to do that in two minutes. I think Mr Reuben Taylor would like to talk to the next slide, which is slide (23) please? 98. MR TAYLOR QC: If that s acceptable, the next slide deals with the question of reasonable practicability arising in information paper E20. The issue there is that the basic principle of applying the concept of reasonable practicability where noise levels are above the LOAEL level, is accepted by HS2AA and it s clearly in accordance with government policy. But the question is, how it is to be judged. Currently, IP E20 leaves it for the nominated undertaker alone to make that judgement. Of course, the judgement includes consideration of balancing cost against environmental benefit. That means, in effect, a private company would be asked to balance cost against environmental benefit with no currently no input from an independent tribunal or body representing the public interest. Indeed, in relation to Crossrail, Crossrail gave an undertaking which did involve the local authorities in the design process, including provision of how the obligation to meet a design standard using steps which were reasonably practicable was met. 99. In the present case, HS2AA considers that as a minimum, the design steps should be ratified by the local authority working group or some other democratically accountable group along those lines. It s important here to remember that in relation to construction impact, there is a process which does have that sort of accountability, because in relation to construction impacts, HS2 will be applying for section 61 certificates under the Control of Pollution Act. That is a process whereby the local 17

18 authority gets to consider whether reasonably practicable steps have been undertaken and if a dispute arises, there is a process of appeal that can be gone through; the matter is reviewed by an independent third party. So all that HS2AA are seeking here is the same procedure, in effect, the same basic structure of procedure in respect of operation noise as is adopted already by HS2 in respect of construction noise. I think that s where we come to next? 100. MR SHARPS: I would just like to summarise very quickly operational noise, if I may, sir? It s set out in my report at section 6, and I won t read this report but I will just point to the key matters which have arisen through this presentation. It s page 27 of my report. 6.1: it s the third bullet point and I will just read this first one, SOAEL and LOAEL values must therefore be set which reflect the character of the noise source being assessed, the level and character of noise within the areas into which the noise is to be introduced and at different times (including the evening). I don t need to read out the other bullet points, sir, but the other bullet points and then down to paragraph 6.7, if I could have the next page of the report please? Down to 6.7, are a summary of this presentation. Thank you If we could go back to the slides, and slide (24)? Which is the last of the slides that I want to present. The method of assessing construction noise, proposed by HS2 is not appropriate. It s not that it s less appropriate. In this case, it s not appropriate in my opinion. There is an appropriate assessment method to determine the significance of construction noise, and that is British Standard 5228, method 2, which is called the 5dB change method. This one should be used. It should be imported into E23, and used in its totality Third bullet point, Crossrail adopted a similar approach to this. Fourth bullet point, the only time when this method may not be appropriate is when you have long-term earthworks. I can t define long-term I m afraid, and there isn t a definition of long-term, but if there are long-term earthworks, then what British Standard 5228 says is that you should use the provisions of the Mineral Planning standard rather than the construction standard HS2 s approach is inappropriate in a number of ways, not least its method identified as noise insulation thresholds, not significant impacts. LOAEL is also 18

19 wrongly identified as a result. It would permit very significant changes in noise levels in quieter areas For the last slide, please, (25)? 105. MR TAYLOR QC: So the last slide sets out examples of the undertakings that are sought in order to tie the nominated undertaker to provide a project which reflects the assumptions on which the noise impact assessment has been undertaken in the Environmental Statement. I won t take time to read out the various technical matters in the bullet point on that page, but you can see on that page reference to all of the assumptions which go into the noise impact assessment process, upon which the significance of impacts have been set out in the Environmental Statement In addition to those, HS2AA seeks undertakings that rails are ground regularly to the specification assumed in the Environmental Statement impact assessment and that wheels are maintained to the roughness specification assumed in the Environmental Statement impact assessment too; and those latter two undertakings were required for both Crossrail and indeed, of the northern line extension. They are necessary to ensure that significant impacts do not occur as a result of the operation of HS2, that were not identified in the Environmental Statement That completes our presentation CHAIR: Okay, Mr Mould, do you want to ask any questions of Mr Sharps? 109. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Just a couple if I may, yes? I wonder if we can put up R13128 please? This is the explanatory memorandum to the Noise Policy Statement for England. Mr Sharps, I don t think either HS2 or the Action Alliance are suggesting that we should do other than to seek to comply with the Noise Policy for England? 110. MR SHARPS: Yes, that s right MR MOULD QC (DfT): Now, you focus your presentation on operational airborne noise on what we have come to know and love as the LOAEL and the SOAEL levels, and on this page, we can see what the explanatory memorandum to the Noise Policy Statement for England actually advises, in relation to those two levels. Under the heading, What do the aims of the Noise Policy Statement for England mean, 19

20 paragraph 2.20, There are two established concepts from toxicology that are currently being applied to noise impacts, for example by the World Health Organisation. They are no observed effect levels, or NOAEL, and lowest observed adverse effect level, or LOAEL. NOAEL being the level below which no effect can be detected in simple terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to the noise; LOAEL, this is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected. We note from the full description of those two acronyms and from that brief text that is given, that we here are dealing with the results of observation that s right isn t it? 112. MR SHARPS: Yes MR MOULD QC (DfT): These are evidence-based terms aren t they? 114. MR SHARPS: Yes MR MOULD QC (DfT): And the evidence in question is evidence that is derived from the world of toxicology and you and I can agree that there is a plentiful amount of research done and has been done over several years in relation to this, and the fundamental component of it is that the researchers have sought to understand from observation enquiry, social surveys and so forth, levels at which by virtue of observation, one can see that people begin to become troubled by particular types of noise, levels of noise and so forth? 116. MR SHARPS: Yes, that s right MR MOULD QC (DfT): Yes. If one turns to the next page, one can see that there s a contrast drawn between NOAEL and LOAEL where there is an evidence base, reference is made in particular to the World Health Organisation research material; and SOAEL which is not a concept which one finds in the World Health Organisation evidence base is it? 118. MR SHARPS: No MR MOULD QC (DfT): It is a policy concept that has been created and it is an acronym for significant observed adverse effect level, and one can see in paragraph 2.22 that the government has faced up to that fact, that there is a contrast in terms of the 20

21 evidence based between NOAEL and LOAEL on the one hand, and SOAEL on the other hand. It is not possible to have a single objective noise based measure that defines SOAEL that is applicable to all sources of noise in all situations, consequently the SOAEL is likely to be different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant adverse impact on health and the quality of life from noise. However, not having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable guidance is available. There is a contrast being drawn between the evidence base on which one can seek to determine levels for NOAEL and LOAEL that is, the fruits of observation, in particular from the World Health Organisation material, and the relative dearth of observed information or evidence that is available for the purposes of setting SOAEL. Can we agree on that? 120. MR SHARPS: No, I don t think that s how I interpret this. As I ve said in my report, paragraph 2.12, LOAEL values can be determined fairly precisely, as HS2 has done and as have done, by considering the WHO guidelines and the WHO night noise guidelines. Both of us have developed LOAEL values using the WHO guidelines and the night-noise guidelines. Table 1 of my presentation shows that: HS2 s proposed noise levels during the day are from the WHO guidelines and during the night are from the night-noise guidelines. The LAmax level at night is from the WHO guidelines. You can determine LOAEL values fairly precisely MR MOULD QC (DfT): Because there is a quantity of research material promulgated by the World Health Organisation which does enable you to confidently set levels based on observed data. That s what you just said, isn t it? 122. MR SHARPS: Yes, that s absolutely right MR MOULD QC (DfT): And that is the evidence that HS2 has deployed for the purpose of setting its LOAELs in Information Paper E20, isn t it? 124. MR SHARPS: Well, it is but they haven t read all of the WHO guidelines or night-noise guidelines and, therefore, they haven t set an evening level. WHO is quite clear the level during the evening should be 5-10 db lower than during the day. They haven t read the night-noise guidelines, which is quite clear that one should choose an 21

22 assessment index which best reflects the likely impact. During the night, that is LAmax rather than the average over the entire eight-hour period MR MOULD QC (DfT): My question to you was about 126. MR HENDRICK: Your question was about SOAEL MR MOULD QC (DfT): My question was about the relative paucity of evidence on which to place an observation-led level for SOAEL as compared to a relative quantity of evidence promulgated through the WHO in relation to NOAEL and SOAEL. I think you actually agree with that MR SHARPS: I do. I agree with you entirely. Therefore, you have to make a judgement on what SOAEL level you choose. That judgement is informed by what the National Physical Laboratory is the relationship between a significant impact and a low impact and what the National Physical Laboratory say is that significant impacts may not occur until much higher degrees of exposure than low impacts. Could I just finish? 129. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, you are moving beyond my question. I want to get on MR SHARPS: Yes, but I think it s fundamental that you choose your LOAEL and SOAEL levels correctly MR MOULD QC (DfT): I don t think anyone s in doubt about that. You can take that as read MR HENDRICK: You re discrediting the fact that Mr Sharps is using SOAEL, but you re not giving him the opportunity to explain why he s using it MR MOULD QC (DfT): There s no issue between us that we need to identify a LOAEL and a SOAEL MR SHARPS: There s no issue, but there is in the Committee s understanding of why SOAEL s being used MR MOULD QC (DfT): I m going to go to that in my next series of question, but if you want to take time listening to something which isn t an answer to my 22

23 question, I m very happy for that to happen MR SHARPS: If I may say so, I think it is an answer to your question, because you were questioning my choice of SOAELs. I did present why I chose those SOAEL levels. They re 10 db above the LOAEL levels. NPL says you should choose it at much higher degrees of exposure. In the HS2 construction criteria, the difference between SOAELs and LOAELs is 10 db. That provides a cohesive and proper assessment method MR MOULD QC (DfT): For construction noise, yes MR SHARPS: For both construction and operational noise MR MOULD QC (DfT): We re dealing with operational noise, aren t we? 140. MR SHARPS: There is no reason, as I explained earlier in answer to Mr Hendrick, why there should be 15 db for one and 10 db for the other MR HENDRICK: Is there? Because I did ask you that earlier. You said that, with construction noise, it s more likely to be fairly continuous, probably quite random and constant by nature. The noise from a train, as you characterise yourself, is typically pulses every few minutes and they last for a few seconds at peak. It s a very different typically of noise from construction. Mr Mould is right, I think, to question your use of SOAEL, if you re justifying it on the basis that it s similar or should be considered the same as construction noise MR SHARPS: Well, I understand your point. I don t agree, but I understand your point completely. I don t see the fact that it is a different character and a different type of noise 143. MR HENDRICK: The other point is there s no evidence base to say that it should be used in that context either. That was Mr Mould s point CHAIR: Thank you. Mr Mould? 145. MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you. Having established the guidance given in the explanatory memorandum to the National Noise Policy Statement, we come to what HS2 have actually done with a view to giving effect to that guidance in their own 23

24 design objectives. This is appendix 1 to Information Paper E20 on airborne noise. If we look, the subheading to paragraph 12 is LOAELs for operational airborne noise from operational roads and the operational railway You can see, just glancing through it, that in paragraph 12 the levels considered appropriate for day and night, respectively, are set out. Then the evidence base on which those levels are put forward is set out, the World Health Organisation night-noise guidelines for Europe. And, over the page, for the daytime level, the World Health Organisation guidelines for community noise. Then you can see that, in paragraph 15, reference is made to the WHO guidelines for community noise in relation to specifying a LOAEL based on LAmax in other words, based on the index you recommended to us at some length a few moments ago Thus far, we have done exactly what the policy expects of us, which is to base our LOAELs on the evidence which is based, itself, on observation and enables us to set levels that are therefore reliable and consistent with policy. That s fair, isn t it? 148. MR SHARPS: I think it is MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you MR SHARPS: And I ve acknowledged in my report that HS2 has ostensibly used WHO guidelines and night-noise guidelines in its setting of LOAEL values MR MOULD QC (DfT): There is no data in the WHO guidelines or elsewhere which supports, on the basis of observation, the setting of a different and more challenging LOAEL for evening operation of the railway, is there? 152. MR SHARPS: No, there s not MR MOULD QC (DfT): Thank you MR SHARPS: But from the extract from NPSE that you have just put up, it is clear that NPSE require one to consider the character of the noise, the character of the area in which the noise is going to be introduced and the time of day/evening etc that that noise will occur MR MOULD QC (DfT): And there is no data that the World Health Organisation 24

25 produced, based on observation or social survey, that supports the specification of a different evening as opposed to daytime and night-time LOAEL for HS2, is there? 156. MR SHARPS: Not specifically for HS2, but what the WHO guidelines say is that you should adopt a lower guideline value for the evening than the one chosen for the day MR MOULD QC (DfT): That is not based on observation. It is not based on, for example, evidence that throughout Europe people are more readily affected by railway trains operating during the evening hours than they are by railway trains operating during the daytime MR SHARPS: You re misinterpreting the WHO guidelines. The WHO guidelines for community noise set guidelines values for community noise, which includes rail noise. Those guideline values are total noise levels. You keep talking about HS2 noise, but it s total noise levels. The guideline values are set at what is called the critical health effect. In other words, noise levels below those critical health effect levels produce negligible impacts, negligible effects. The WHO guideline values are reasonable to use for your LOAELs But what the WHO guidelines say is that precautions should be undertaken when, for example, you ve got no background noise levels. Precaution should be undertaken when you ve got noise of a certain character. In my opinion, in my judgement, the noise in this case with its high rise time and its frequency is such that you need to be careful, particularly in areas of low background noise levels MR MOULD QC (DfT): Well, you know the project is very much alive to that. Its approach, in terms of the design objective, is to deploy the WebTAG approach, which is to evaluate the costs and benefits derived from improving the noise performance of the railway, particularly through areas where the existing environment is quiet so the degree of change is going to be more marked. The Committee is familiar with that work, because, for example, we have presented the Committee with evidence in relation to that kind of situation at Radstone. We have presented the Committee with evidence in relation to that kind of situation at Lower Thorpe, where the Committee has asked us to provide some enhanced mitigation in order to protect that. 25