Minutes of Oral Evidence

PUBLIC SESSION MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE taken before HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE On the HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL Tuesday, 17 November 2015 (Afternoon) In Committee Room 5 PRESENT: Mr Robert Syms (Chair) Mr Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley Geoffrey Clifton-Brown _____________ IN ATTENDANCE Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department of Transport WITNESSES Mr William Avery Mr Philip and Mrs Alison Doggett Mr Patrick Fell Mr Tony Fish Ms Sheila Rankin Mr Tony Mogford Mr James Stevens Ms Katrina Wood Mr Clive Jones Mr Alan Turner Ms Sharon Henson Mr Wolf-Rudiger Feiler Ms Lind Aspey Mr Marcus Rogers Mr Stephen Lambert Mr Rupert Thornely-Taylor, Managing Director, Rupert Taylor Ltd, acoustics and vibration expert _____________ IN PUBLIC SESSION INDEX Subject Page The Parochial Church Council of the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Mary the Virgin Wendover, and others (cont’d) Response from Mr Strachan 3 Mr Thornely-Taylor, examined by Mr Strachan 4 Mr Thornely-Taylor, cross-examined by Mr Avery 6 Closing submissions by Mr Avery 9 Philip and Alison Doggett Introduction from Mr Strachan 9 Submissions by Mr and Mrs Doggett 11 Patrick Fell and Tony Fish Introduction from Mr Strachan 19 Submissions by Mr Fell 20 Submissions by Mr Fish 24 Response from Mr Strachan 27 Closing submissions by Mr Fish 28 Dr Sheila Rankin Submissions by Dr Rankin 30 Response from Mr Strachan 32 Tony Mogford Introduction from Mr Strachan 34 Submissions by Mr Mogford 35 Response from Mr Strachan 40 Wycombe District Council, Bradenham Parish Council and others Submissions by Mr Stevens 44 Submissions by Ms Wood 49 Submissions by Mr Jones 52 Submissions by Mr Turner 55 Submissions by Ms Henson 60 Response from Mr Strachan 66 Closing submissions by Mr Stevens 70 Wolf-Rudiger Feiler, Linda Aspey et al. Submissions by Mr Feiler 70 Submissions by Ms Aspey 72 Response from Mr Strachan 81 Closing submissions by Mr Feiler 84 Aylesbury Town Council, Coldharbour Parish Council and others Submissions by Mr Rogers and Mr Lambert 86 Response from Mr Strachan 97 Closing submissions by Mr Rogers 99 2 (at 14.00) 1. CHAIR: Order, order. Welcome back to the HS2 Select Committee, Mr Strachan? The Parochial Church Council of the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Mary the Virgin Wendover, and others (cont’d) 2. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. Can I just show you P10332(1)? The Committee will know that, as a result of earlier petitions, the promoter has put forward a suggested extension to the Wendover green tunnel, some 100m and some additional noise mitigation, substantial noise mitigation in this location. That was the subject of a letter to the chair, and it’s the subject of a proposed Additional Provision 5, so it will be shown in more detail in that – this is the plan that was provided with the letter to the chair, so it’s showing the extension plus a six metre noise barrier running from the portal to the viaduct on the eastern side of the railway. 3. And the Committee heard yesterday about the benefits of that on this location for the purposes of the school, and the same point applies to St Mary’s church. And , if I could just show you the consequential predicted noise readings that we’re getting from the model at this stage, P10779(12), this, I think has come in, some information to the Committee very recently, but this will all be the subject of the AP5 additional information. 4. This is, if you look at St Mary’s church, at the bottom, 369223, we can see – you’ve just lost the top, if you just pull it down slightly – proposed scheme only, just go back down again, you’re – you have figures of 46 and 37 with an Lmax of 60/63, that’s for HS2 train or a TSI compliant train. And these are outside noise level readings. 5. If you combine that with the existing situation, you’ll have average levels of 56 during the day, and 50 at night, which represents a 1dB increase during the day, and a 0dB increase during the night. And the Committee will recall that at St Mary’s church, in the baseline noise monitoring, there were Lmax events I think as high as 81dB in the existing situation, which will be, no doubt, vehicles passing on the London Road, or the A413, possibly sirens, or something of that. 6. MR AVERY: Or like birds. 3 7. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So those are the levels we get with the proposed mitigation, and all I’d just like Mr Thornely-Taylor to just comment on what that means for the church environment inside, as well as, of course, the churchyard. 8. Whilst he’s just taking his seat, can I just explain; these noise readings, or predications are without the provision of the two metre noise barrier alongside the road. Because, of course, that is something that needs to be with the consent of the authority. We haven’t shown those effects, but they will obviously, if the noise barrier goes in, alongside the road, that will further improve the noise environment, principally for the churchyard, because what we’re really concerned about inside the church are the Lmax events, which are the 60/63 level. 9. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And that possible two meter high barrier on the road is to reduce road noise or reduce rail noise? 10. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Road noise, principally. 11. MR AVERY: So it would make it easier for us to hear the trains? 12. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s probably the most Pollyannish remark I’ve heard today. 13. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Can I just ask Mr Thornely-Taylor to deal with what it means. Mr Thornely-Taylor, for the benefit of Mr Avery, is obviously our noise expert. I think he also is an organist and a parochial church council member, but so he’s also played and been a chorister in churches, so I’m sure he’s able to apply… 14. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I thought all organists were deaf. 15. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): So he doesn’t come without knowledge of what it’s like to play music inside a church. But, can I just get you, Mr Thornely-Taylor, to comment on what these – effectively, these readings are showing for a mitigated scheme for St Mary’s church, because everyone’s concerned about it. Can you just comment on the 60/63 Lmax outside the church, and what that would mean inside the church? 16. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Yes, the petitioner’s rightly pointed out that that is an important member of the set of numbers that we have. It is the maximum noise level 4 due to the passage of a train; the higher value of 63 is for a TSI compliant train, which would have come via the HS1/HS2 link, when it existed. HS2 trains are responsible for the lower figure of 60. 17. The question arises, what is that like inside the church from the point of view of acoustical conditions in the church for musical performances and for church services, and speech intelligibility. One of the consultants on the HS2 team went out and did full ISO 140 part 5 measurement of the façade sound insulation of the church, and the reverberation time within the church. That produced a full suite of numbers which enable one to calculate, from the actual spectrum of the noise of the passage of an HS2 train what the internal level is. 18. In conversation between Mr Avery and one of those engineers, it was pointed out that the difference between outside and inside noise level was 20dB when the source is traffic, so when it is 60 due to a passing vehicle on the road, it’s about 40 inside the church. But the spectrum shape of the passage of an HS2 train is different from the spectrum shape of road traffic, and the reduction outside to inside for HS2 noise is better than 20. And, as a result of that, the internal maximum noise level during the passage of a train will be in the low 30s, which is not an intrusive level, even for a concert hall. This room is constantly, I would estimate, in the low 40s. There’s some noise in the background which is at a constant level, which, in most locations, would mean we’re listening to the low 40s. It’ll be materially less than that, inside the church during the passage of a train, and the worrying concerns that the petitioners have had about having to shout and speech interference occurring and interference with musical performances occurring, is not justified, there will not be material interference with use of the church for its current uses. 19. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think there’s also a concern about the use of the churchyard and 60dB max from the trains in the churchyard. Assuming, for present purposes, that we don’t take into account the noise barriers for the roads, which will have a beneficial impact for road noise, could you just comment on that, Mr Thornely- Taylor, whether those levels will prevent the use of – or effective use of the churchyard in a way that has occurred to date? 20. MR THORNELY-TAYLOR: Well, at present, there is a very wide range of 5 maximum noise levels outside the church, up to 80 and slightly more, down to more frequent events at 50 and 60.

Load more