(APPENDIX TO KEY DECISION REPORT - ‘THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR OF ’S DRAFT AMBIENT NOISE STRATEGY’)

[Final text to be transferred onto Councillor Moylan’s letterhead]

Ken Livingstone Esq Mayor of London (Ambient Noise Strategy Consultation) Greater London Authority FREEPOST 15799 LONDON SE1 2BR [First date after implementation period to be inserted]

Dear Mr Livingstone

The Royal Borough’s response to the draft London Ambient Noise Strategy

Background noise caused by road traffic, trains, or low flying aircraft is part of daily life in central London, but in some parts of the Royal Borough, where noise levels are unduly high, it is a source of considerable annoyance to residents. In fact there are few parts of the Borough that do not suffer a certain amount of disturbance from busy roads, although in an overall sense this reflects vibrant activity, the ‘buzz’ that you yourself refer to.

This Council welcomes a comprehensive approach to controlling background noise, whether from transport sources, or industrial and commercial operations. An action- orientated noise strategy for London, which prepares the way for the National Ambient Noise Strategy expected in 2007, should put London in a stronger position to influence the controls, such as noise limit values, eventually imposed by Government.

We are very much in favour of proactive measures to reduce ambient noise levels that can be achieved without disproportionate costs, and that target the worst affected areas. The Royal Borough together with the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and Wandsworth, successfully negotiated a substantial noise mitigation scheme to offset the railway noise impact on line-side residents of Channel Tunnel trains using the . With regard to traffic noise, and in particular to reducing road/wheel noise, we have already re-surfaced more than two miles (3 kilometres) of the Borough’s main roads with porous asphalt.

Together with you and others, the Council has contributed financially to the Human Rights case about sleep disturbance caused by night flights. We will continue to voice our objections, which include concerns over increased noise disturbance, to the option to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. To improve noise awareness, we are exploring different ways of introducing noise awareness to schoolchildren through initiatives like the successful junior citizens week held annually in the Borough.

Your three key issues and initial priorities in the main coincide with the Council’s view of what needs to be tackled, although in the absence of a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which may include a recommendation for a night- flight ban, which will then be in the hands of the Government, we would like to see

1 more focused restrictions rather than a total ban. We would also like to see railway noise and vibration featured more prominently by including them in the key issues section.

We do not agree with the way you embrace neighbourhood noise and noise nuisance issues within your strategy, these are outside your remit and should be dealt with by the boroughs, and your most effective contribution should be in providing more police resources to support borough enforcement activity as reflected in policy 82.

We have looked at the detail of the draft strategy in terms of its significance for the Borough’s noise policies and in relation to cross-borough initiatives, but we have not commented on every item. I set out below our responses to a number of your specific proposals collected together under noise source headings. Our comments are referenced to the numbered policies and proposals.

Roads and road traffic noise

(1) NIGHT TIME ROAD WORKS [paragraph 4A.21 and proposal 5] The Royal Borough supports stringent controls on the hours when road-works may be undertaken. A recent survey of Kensington and Chelsea’s residents shows that construction noise including road-works bothers 32% of the respondents, compared with only 2% of respondents to a national survey. We are very concerned about the possibility of more night-time working, and we are looking to you to resist the Government’s intention to increase night-time road-works with its associated disturbance. You have control over TfL’s work programme and therefore have a specific opportunity to prevent this in London. Evening and Saturday works would be preferable, to ensure that peak capacity on the affected roads is maintained. The Council would support proposals to increase the powers of highway authorities to control public utility works.

(2) QUIET SURFACES [proposal 7] Your aim to replace noisy carriageway surfaces with quieter surfacing is welcomed. The Royal Borough already specifies ‘UL-M’ noise-reducing surfacing on our major/principal roads, and we have very high standards of maintenance and renewal, which minimises potholes and other imperfections that can create noise disturbance when cars pass over them. Locations where many buses and cyclists are turning are considered less suitable for quiet surfacing, for road safety reasons. TfL should improve maintenance and specify UL-M, or similar, for its roads as soon as possible. We are disappointed that you have been unable to attach a specific timescale to Proposal 7.

(3) TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES [proposal 9] The Royal Borough is in favour of a review of traffic calming measures to ensure that the most effective and appropriately designed measures are installed. This would need to include a review of road humps, speed tables and speed cushions and any unnecessary interventions removed, and of any alternative measures that might be

2 used to achieve noise, air quality and road safety aims, consistent with our streetscape policies.

(4) REVIEW OF NOISE INSULATION REGULATIONS FOR ROADS [policy 11] The Council feels that changing the scope of the Noise Insulation Regulations for roads may result in a large number of applications for mitigation for relatively little gain; where there are numerous road improvements of a modest scale in a densely built-up urban area, this could simply result in an unwelcome increase in bureaucracy.

(5) POWERED VEHICLE NOISE GENERALLY [proposal 12, policy 13, paragraph 4A.48] You have mentioned some practical measures (technological fixes) to reduce noise impacts of vehicles, for example ‘smart’ reversing alarms, quieter cross-over material, footways and other servicing surfaces (particularly in regard to “trolleying” noise). We consider it crucial that Boroughs are consulted on new materials and designs in order that a high quality and visually cohesive streetscape is maintained, or enhanced. It is equally important that your Strategy should be coupled with action, for example TfL could make significant strides in reducing noise problems through tougher controls/policing with regard to quieter vehicle technology, across the whole of the Greater London area.

(6) PUBLIC SPACE - NOISE ENVIRONMENT IMPROVMENTS [proposal 27 and policy 12] We support the ‘100 Public Spaces’ initiative and the traffic noise-reduction benefits it could bring to residents through careful design, and look forward to seeing this concept being developed further, with full funding support, noting that Sloane Square and Exhibition Way feature in the list of the first of the spaces to be developed.

(7) LORRY BAN [proposal 13] The London Lorry Ban is currently under review and it is our understanding that you are looking for greater flexibility. As you already know from our recent meeting, the Council strongly objects to the disturbance that would result from increased HGV traffic through densely built-up areas if the current Ban is relaxed in any way. In the Strategy you state that the review will take account of the noise implications, along with the wider strategic transport and environmental concerns. We note that you are putting considerable emphasis on ‘many heavy goods vehicles (having) become quieter’, this may be the case over the long term, but we do not believe the noise reduction has been so significant in recent years. In the current situation both average noise levels and the number of lorry movements are sensitive issues and an increase in movements would lead to more noise events.

In addition, if road surfaces continue to be noisy owing to potholes or noisy surfacing, then these problems need to be remedied before contemplating relaxing aspects of the Lorry Ban. Residents’ amenity, i.e. protection from noise, should be safeguarded through a strategy that tackles issues in the right order.

3

(8) BUSES AND COACHES [proposal 14] The proposal to liaise with bus operators to secure practicable and cost-effective noise control, is welcome. We would suggest that the best way to ensure good practice at bus termini is to accommodate dedicated route controllers to supervise stand use and driver behaviour (including switching off engines) as this is often a problem in winter months. Driver training should then be backed up with regular monitoring. This should be specified in TfL’s tender documentation.

(9) THE ROLE OF THE LONDON COACH FORUM [proposal 15] We feel that the London Coach Forum should play a key role in bringing together interested parties including TfL in improving coach parking, facilities and terminals with due regard to noise issues. This is a useful albeit limited body, but it is in danger of being a “talking shop”. The body requires dedicated funding and active support, particularly from TfL and the GLA, to achieve the aims outlined in the proposal.

(10) MOTOR CYCLES AND SCOOTERS [proposal 17]

We support your proposal to explore the ways that motor cycle and scooter users can be encouraged to maintain the noise specification of their machines, and to drive more slowly and carefully. In addition to liaising with the London Motorcycle Working Group, you should consider a public awareness-raising campaign for powered two- wheeled vehicles used by residents and commuters to/through London. The Council is not only concerned with the excessive noise (and thoughtless behaviour) of a minority of riders, but also the increased motorcycle use associated with the Congestion Charge Scheme.

Railways and development.

(11) RAILWAY NOISE MITIGATION [policy 20 and 21] The design of noise barriers and mitigation measures should accord with good urban design and be compatible with conservation area requirements. The Royal Borough is actively seeking to improve passenger services on the West London Line, and is considering the potential impact of a more intensive timetable with additional stations. A noise mitigation scheme based on secondary glazing for affected facades has been implemented in the past five years. This may have to be augmented with acoustic barriers of an innovative design, but compatible with the age and character of the locality.

(12) WEST LONDON LINE NOISE INCREASE [paragraph 3.34 box 14] The reference to railway noise modelling, in relation to OrbiRail, which for part of its circuit would use the West London line, and your prediction that the consequent noise increase may be of the order of 2dB is puzzling. It would be useful to have access to

4 the relevant section of the noise modelling study, since it is not clear whether it is likely to be more or less than 2dB, and whether the increase will be solely due to additional local passenger trains, or to these and extra freight traffic.

In any case there is nothing specific to reassure us that you will be taking active steps to counteract the effect of extra traffic, either by noise controls at source, or noise mitigation.

(13) MINIMISING RAILWAY OPERATING NOISE [policy 20] This policy’s aim to work with the SRA and the rail industry to minimise the noise of railway operations, especially at night, is welcome. However in doing so, the efficiency and frequency of daytime passenger services should not be compromised.

(14) DEVELOPMENT OVER RAILWAYS [policies 22 and 23] In other respects, as well as noise containment, the Council favours decked, or bridging development, over railway lines. The redevelopment of Gloucester Road Underground Station is a fairly recent example, and South Kensington Station is possibly to be redeveloped in a similar way. However very careful consideration has to be given to noise management during the initial stages of construction, because heavy engineering work has to be carried out at night and weekends, being the only times that track possessions can be obtained. In inner London, railways and stations are in close proximity to housing.

(15) NOISE INSULATION REGULATIONS FOR RAILWAYS [policy 24] We would support a review of the Regulations in the ways proposed. It would be helpful to have some clarification of what is meant by: ‘a flexible hierarchy of insulation measures linked with energy efficiency and fuel poverty work’. Would this simply mean installing double-glazing, where the noise increase might not qualify the householder for acoustic secondary glazing?

We also feel that ways should be found for the Regulations to cover situations where railway noise next to multiple tracked mainlines is excessive. Noise measurements taken in residential property adjacent to the Paddington Mainline (one of the last rail routes out of London to be relying almost entirely on diesel traction) suggest that residents are likely to be subjected to levels significantly in excess of the WHO Guideline values for community noise.

(16) NOISE AND VIBRATION FROM UNDERGROUND TRAINS [policies 25, 26, 27]

Over the past five years, certain areas of the Borough above or close to Underground lines have been subjected to heightened levels of noise and vibration from passing trains; specifically with regard to the Circle and , but also the Piccadilly Line. In one case where structural safety was also involved, substantial civil engineering works reduced vibration and re-radiated noise levels. However in the main, despite these problems having been reported to , they continue to cause annoyance and disturbance.

5

The response we have received from the individual companies responsible for these lines has been mixed. There is therefore a clear need for borough environmental health departments and the train operating and infrastructure companies, to develop a forum for discussing these problems, and to develop a system, outside the existing customer complaints system, for dealing with them.

The Council has developed communications with London Underground in connection with seeking to resolve noise and vibration problems affecting a significant number of residents. These lines of communication need to be developed in order to maintain contact, and perhaps a quarterly meeting at the Baker Street headquarters, for representatives from London Boroughs, should be inaugurated.

Whilst we recognise that your policies are intended to focus the long-term efforts of TfL and London Underground on tackling noise and vibration problems we think there should be a specific proposal to create a forum to include technical input from the boroughs to discuss immediate priority work.

(17) RAILWAY INDUSTRY COOPERATION ON NOISE MAPPING [policies 29/32] It is most important that you bring your influence to bear on the relevant railway authorities at the earliest opportunity to provide traffic and timetable information and any noise data that they may hold. Previous experience in Birmingham suggests that the City Council’s noise mapping exercise was hampered by a lack of cooperation from the railway industry in supplying information. Council officers encountered similar difficulties when negotiating the West London Line Noise Mitigation Scheme.

(18) TRANSFER OF FREIGHT HAULAGE TO THE RAILWAYS [policy 35] Whilst the Council is generally in favour of the policy to transfer freight haulage to the railways, we are disappointed that there is no mention of reducing the impact of railway freight traffic through Central London. We would urge you to support the concept of a freight by-pass to the south west of London to relieve the existing traffic bottlenecks for long distance freight trains, and to reduce the noise impact of freight trains on residents living beside the cross-London lines including the West London lines.

Aircraft noise

(19) HEATHROW NIGHT FLIGHT BAN [policy 42] The European Court of Human Rights should be giving its final ruling on the question of night flight sleep interference within the next few weeks. It will have reconsidered the economic case against further restrictions, and may recommend a total ban of night flights. The Council takes the view that restrictions on night flights should not reach the point where the interests of many of those in central London, who rely on the range of travel options provided by Heathrow are entirely overridden by a smaller number, who in this Borough, are disturbed by arrivals in the early morning. On the other hand we are concerned that those who are disturbed should obtain some redress.

6 Two possible further restrictions would be to reduce the quota count and/or impose a curfew at particular times of the night.

Furthermore in previous responses to Government consultations we have argued for the night quota period to be extended into the ‘shoulder period’ from 6.00 to 7.00 am, and we therefore support your policy to extend the night quota period at Heathrow. Early morning flights are a cause of serious annoyance to many residents in the south of this borough. We would, however, also recommend that you carry out an economic assessment to assess the effect that this extension might have.

(20) RUNWAY PREFERENTIAL USE AT HEATHROW [policy 43] The Royal Borough has always asserted its strong preference for operating full easterly preference and therefore we would welcome an assessment looking at the effect of weekly night rotation of runway preferential use at Heathrow.

Demographic evidence shows that overall, far fewer people under the main approaches to Heathrow would suffer noise nuisance if easterly preference were to be adopted. The Council appreciates that this would mean that people living to the west of Heathrow would be exposed to increased levels of noise, but would urge that serious consideration be given to funding noise mitigation measures to protect the residents affected. The demographic evidence is also relevant when considering the risk of an aircraft accident over the very heavily populated area to the east of Heathrow.

(21) AVAILABILITY OF AIRCRAFT NOISE INFORMATION [policy 48] Information on aircraft noise is not readily available. Real-time noise monitoring data from aircraft movements should be accessible, and more information on flight paths would be welcome. Councils have had to pay private consultants previously to provide these details, at unnecessary cost, as direct access to this information should be provided for all. We would welcome any help you can give in extracting information from B.A.A and C.A.A.

(22) PRIVATE HELICOPTER LANDING FACILITIES [policy 53] At a local level we support your approach to private helicopter facilities. The Royal Borough will continue to resist the development of helicopter facilities that would result in an increase in noise over the Borough. However we are not convinced that this policy should apply to the entire London area. There may be parts of outer London, where circumstances might permit landing facilities.

(23) OPPOSITION TO A POSSIBLE THIRD RUNWAY AT HEATHROW [policy 54] The Royal Borough is also opposed to the creation of an additional runway at Heathrow. Previously, only residents in the south of the borough have been significantly disturbed by aircraft noise. The third runway will affect a greater area of the borough, and in addition, it seems likely that the impact in the south would worsen, as there would be a concentration of larger, noisier aircraft on the existing two runways.

7

Planning and noise

(24) URBAN NOISE MANAGEMENT [policies 88 and 89] The existing controls on Planning and Noise through PPG24 and Bs 8233:1999 are deemed to be adequate, although PPG 24 is under review. You should bear in mind that your strategy will need to be consistent with the guidance of these documents. Any controls on noise emission from new development would need to be shown to be reasonable and necessary as stipulated by DoE document 11/95.

(25) EXEMPLAR PILOT ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE PROJECT [policy 93] We are interested in your invitation to each borough to develop a noise project to demonstrate the feasibility of targeting local noise hotspots. Inevitably there are staffing and financial costs involved, which will need to be addressed. Many London boroughs have the in-house expertise to carry out this project. However with existing demands on time and with limited resources, there may be a need for additional staff, and possibly training.

(26) NOISE REDUCING URBAN DESIGN [policy 10, Proposal 8; policies 22 and 23 and policy 77, proposal 26] The Council supports your admirable intentions to encourage best practice in noise reducing urban design, and to develop and promote exemplary noise-reducing urban design and noise management. In particular the Council welcomes your recognition that the various needs of urban design must be balanced, and that the visual quality of urban design must not be compromised. The preservation and enhancement of the urban realm is of particular importance in a Borough such as ours, with the high number of conservation areas and listed buildings.

(27) URBAN RENAISSANCE [policies 69 and 70] The Council has supported the measures intended to reduce noise set out within your draft Spatial Development Strategy (SDS). In its response to the draft SDS, the Council raised concern that you did not discriminate between road and rail noise, or discuss the issue of helicopter noise. The Council is pleased to see that the draft ambient noise strategy answers these concerns.

The Council supports the provision of Noise Action Statements for proposals with noise levels higher than Noise Exposure Category A of PPG24. This follows established best practice.

(28) AREAS OF RELATIVE TRANQUILLITY [policy 78] The Council has no objection to your desire to explore the concept of ‘Areas of Relative Tranquillity’ in relation to open spaces and the ‘wider public realm’, as long as there is no obligation on the Boroughs to do the same. However, further clarification should be provided before the Council is expected to take a decision on whether to support the concept. The draft ambient noise strategy does not attempt to define an area of relative tranquillity, or to explain its purpose. What criteria should

8 be used to delineate an area of relative tranquillity? What function would an area of relative tranquillity have? What policy basis would the concept have? It is not a concept explored in PPG24 or in any guidance from Government. Similarly, the SDS, which is intended to be the spatial expression of the your combined strategies, makes no mention of it.

(29) ENTERTAINMENT ZONES [policy 76] The UDP recognises that the Borough has a well-developed evening economy, which should be encouraged, because it extends the life of the Principal Shopping Centres, and some of the Local Shopping Centres, into the evening.

However, we would be reluctant to declare these shopping centres as ‘Entertainment Zones’, and give a free rein to late-night activity. Many of our existing concentrations of entertainment premises are stretching our residents’ tolerance of noise (from mechanical plant and anti-social behaviour) to the limit. Such a declaration for one, or more, of these areas would attract new ventures and alter the local balance to the detriment of residents.

All the shopping centres and areas with entertainment venues are surrounded by residential premises, if not on the upper floors of the units within the centres, and therefore are very vulnerable to the noise associated with these uses, in particular late- night noise.

Whilst ‘good urban design’ includes the concepts of noise reduction and screening, the nature of the Royal Borough precludes the whole-scale redevelopment of large parts of the centres, which would be necessary to screen noise-sensitive uses from noise-creating uses, with any degree of success.

The Borough welcomes the recognition that “pepper potting” of late night bars, restaurants and so on with residential uses, will not be appropriate.

Other noise matters

(30) NOISE EXPOSURE AND HEARING IMPAIRMENT [policies 79, 80 and 81] The thrust of section five highlights the difference between ambient noise, which is noise from anonymous sources, and nuisance noise, which is normally from a known source. Your strategy attempts to expand your remit from ambient noise to the “micro noise climate”, as it affects individual Londoners in their homes and at work and during leisure activities. Inevitably it moves towards health and safety issues.

We are concerned that your strategy is over-ambitious in its scope and consequently risks diluting what should be its primary thrust - dealing with the main contributor to ambient noise in London, which is road traffic noise.

Policies 79, 80, and 81, although in themselves useful aims, are not related to controlling the growth of ambient noise, or reducing existing levels.

9 (31) NEIGHBOUR NOISE [policy 82] In passing we disagree with your assertion in paragraph 5.7. It is highly unlikely that the achievable reductions in ambient noise would unmask neighbour noise sufficiently to constitute a problem.

(32) LOW FREQUENCY NOISE [paragraph 5.10] The highlighting of the problems of low frequency noise is also important. This is almost a separate branch of acoustics and the problems of locating and controlling low frequency noise are well known. Owing to its long wavelength it can affect large urban areas, and ‘room mode effects’ can amplify it internally within homes. Because of its relatively low amplitude in decibel terms, it is often dismissed as not constituting a nuisance, when in fact it can be a distressing experience. The paragraph mentions the need for adequate resources for borough noise services, but there should be a specific proposal to improve the resources available.

(33) NOISE MAPPING [policy 86] Policy 86 appears to be seeking to develop noise mapping into a practical tool that is useful in day-to-day work at the borough level. However noise mapping, in its current state of development, is a strategic tool for assessing and managing the “macro noise climate”. In due course, as the accuracy and resolution develop, it should become a tool in dealing with the micro noise climate at a more local level such as detailed Planning and noise issues, but this is purely an aspiration for the time being.

As the first of its kind, the draft strategy bravely attempts to encompass all aspects that have any bearing on ambient noise. However in view of your lack of powers and funds to assert more control over sources of ambient noise in general, we think you should concentrate on bringing about real improvements to those areas over which you have direct control, such as the London bus and taxi fleets, and TfL’s road re- surfacing programme.

Even though your Strategy may have been drafted with the intention of influencing the Government in its development of the National Strategy, the inclusion of so many proposals urging and encouraging Government towards taking action tends to draw attention to the lack of targeting and specific action in your own proposals as revealed in the proposals table. This is especially true in the case of the first of your key issues (extending noise reducing surfaces on TfL’s roads) where the associated proposal has no firm timescale.

I would also like to underline the continuing difficulties there are with information exchange, and the lack of effective partnerships in the London noise sphere (points 9, 16, 17 and 21) which can use the information, and capitalise on the wealth of the boroughs’ experience to bring forward joint initiatives. In paragraph 5.23 you stress the need for partnership working without proposing specific fora for this to happen. I would urge you to give some serious thought as to how results-orientated working groups can be set up.

10

In conclusion I am bound to turn to the issue of funding. Your lack of funding acknowledged in paragraphs 5.21, 5.22 and 5.23, suggests that resources should be directed to areas where the cost benefit is highest, and where the existing powers of the London boroughs can have the greatest impact. But in the meantime the boroughs have no new funds, and all of the Government’s current budget for the development of the National Noise Strategy is being devoted to noise mapping.

I have highlighted some specific instances (points 25, and 32) addressed in your Strategy for which the boroughs have no new resources. It would be helpful if you could identify ways for the boroughs to bid for resources. For example it would be an advantage if the boroughs could seek funding for ambient noise projects through the Transport Plan bidding process, but there is no specific heading to cover noise issues.

I hope you will give this response careful consideration in preparing the final version of the Strategy for publication.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Daniel Moylan Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment.

11