The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area Improvements) Order · The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area...

EIA Scoping Report Status: Draft v2

REPORT for

Network Rail

The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area Improvements) Order

Environmental Statement – Volume 3, Report 6

Noise and Vibration Technical Report

Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, Regulation 5(2)(a)

Status: Final

124130-HEN-REP-TGL-00053-A05

November 2012

The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area Improvements) Order Environmental Statement – Volume 3, Report 17 Noise and Vibration Technical Report Status: Final

www.templegroup.co.uk

The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area Improvements) Order

Environmental Statement – Volume 3, Report 6

Noise and Vibration Technical Report

Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations, Regulation 5(2)(a)

Document Version Control

Version Date Author Reviewer Approver

A01 20.04.2012 Camilo Castro-Llach Dani Fiumicelli Peter George

A02 (post DRN) 30.04.2012 Camilo Castro-Llach Dani Fiumicelli Peter George

A03 (post legal) 20.05.2012 Camilo Castro-Llach Dani Fiumicelli Peter George

A04 15.10.2012 Camilo Castro-Llach Dani Fiumicelli Peter George

A05 21.11.2012 Camilo Castro-Llach Robert Slatcher Peter George

Report for: Main Contributors

Network Rail Michelle Wishart 1st Floor Mannin House Macon Way Crewe CW1 6RT

Robert Lockwood Sasha Villa

This report has been prepared by Temple Group Ltd with all reasonable care and diligence within the terms of the contract with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. We accept no responsibility to third parties to whom this report, or any part, thereof is made available. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.



CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 3

2. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 5

3. PLANNING AND GUIDANCE ................................................................................... 9

4. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 11

4.1. Assessment Criteria and Methodology ......................................................... 11

5. CONSULTATION .................................................................................................... 21

6. BASELINE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................... 23

6.1. Baseline Data Collection .............................................................................. 23

6.2. Noise Monitoring Methodology ..................................................................... 24

6.3. Description of the Baseline Noise Environment............................................ 26

6.4. Existing Vibration Levels .............................................................................. 27

7. PREDICTED NOISE AND VIBRATION EFFECTS ................................................. 29

7.2. Predicted Construction Noise Effects ........................................................... 29

7.3. Operational Rail Noise Effects...................................................................... 34

7.4. Operational Rail Vibration Effects ................................................................. 39

7.5. Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................... 40

8. MITIGATION ........................................................................................................... 43

8.2. Construction Noise and Vibration ................................................................. 43

8.3. Operation ..................................................................................................... 45

8.4. Residual Effects ........................................................................................... 46

9. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 49

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Bibliography .....................................................................................................

APPENDIX 2 Glossary ..........................................................................................................

APPENDIX 3 Abbreviation List ..............................................................................................

APPENDIX 4 Noise Modelling Assumptions ..........................................................................

[Page left intentionally blank]


www.templegroup.co.uk Page 1

Summary

A noise and vibration assessment has been carried out; comprising a baseline survey (Chapter 6), prediction of propagation of noise and vibration, and assessment of the effects of noise and vibration from the construction(Chapter 7.2) and operation of the Scheme (Chapter 7.3);

Construction activities, adopting standard best practice mitigation, would not result in significant noise and vibration effects during the daytime. Where night-time works are required there is potential for significant construction noise effects at approximately 10 properties. Mitigation at source, along the transmission pathway and potentially at some receptors will be required. Detailed consideration of mitigation measures would be part of any Section 61 prior consent application for the work and have therefore not been included in this assessment;

The increase in road traffic during the construction phases would not result in a significant increase in noise at sensitive receptors;

For most of the receptors the change in railway noise would be considered minor and at some receptors no change is expected;

The B5026 road realignment is not predicted to result in significant noise increases; and

No properties qualify for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations due to railway noise.


[This page left intentionally blank]



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1. This report evaluates noise and vibration effects of the Scheme on sensitive receptors, with regards to the construction and operational phases of the Scheme.

1.1.2. Exposure to high levels of environmental noise can have significant effects on both human beings and the natural environment. Noise and vibration levels can increase during the construction phase of rail infrastructure projects and also due to the operation of the new rail infrastructure. The effects of noise and vibration on sensitive receptors for this particular Scheme are therefore an important consideration.

1.1.3. The proposed Norton Bridge Grade Separation Scheme (the Scheme) is expected to result in:

Construction activity over a two year period 2014 – 2016;

Operation of a new section of track; and

Additional services (in both directions) starting in 2017 including:

Two extra fast trains per hour between London Euston and the North West;

One additional train service per hour between Manchester (Stone) and Birmingham; and

One additional freight train per hour.

1.1.4. Based on data provided by Network Rail it has been assumed that the Scheme will allow 19 trains per hour in each direction (i.e. a total of 38 trains per hour in both directions), between 06:00 and 00:00 hrs (26 passenger and 12 freight trains). This represents an increase of 27% in two way movements as a result of the Scheme.

1.1.5. This Technical Report has been structured as follows:

Sections 2 and 3 examine the legislative and planning context of relevance to noise and vibration;

Section 4 describes the approach and methodology used in the assessment;

Section 5 sets out the outcomes of consultations held with Stafford Borough Council;

Section 6 sets out the noise and vibration baseline;

Section 7 analyses the effects of the scheme without mitigation;

Section 8 assess the effect of mitigation; and,

Section 9 sets out the conclusions of this technical report.

[Page left intentionally blank]



2. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

2.1.1. This section describes the legislation and policy that is relevant to the assessment of noise and vibration for the Scheme.

Legislation

2.1.2. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 give local authorities powers for controlling noise and vibration from construction sites and other similar works.

Control of Pollution Act (CoPA) 1974

2.1.3. The Control of Pollution Act details the regulatory provisions which apply to the control of noise and vibration arising from construction sites. Section 60 of the Act enables the local authority to serve a notice imposing requirements as to the way works are to be carried out and the noise levels that may be emitted. Section 61 enables the contractor (or developer) to ascertain the noise and vibration control factors before commencement of works through prior consent. The Council can attach conditions to the consent, to impose noise limits or qualify the permit works and limit its duration.

2.1.4. A key feature underpinning the Section 61 consent process is the explicit requirement placed upon the contractor to employ best practicable means (BPM) to mitigate the effects of noise and vibration generated by the construction works programme. BPM, as defined within section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 strikes a balance between the operational imperatives of the contract works and the need to employ reasonable care to minimise environmental effects from noise and vibration in order protect the interests of those in the immediate vicinity.

Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA)

2.1.5. Under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a local authority has a duty to inspect its area from time to time to detect any statutory nuisances and to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate any complaint of a statutory nuisance made by a person living within its area. Where a local authority is satisfied of the existence or of the likely occurrence or recurrence of statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice. Statutory nuisances are set out under section 79(1) EPA and include noise emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance and noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street.

2.1.6. It is a defence against action under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to show that construction works are being carried out under the terms of a Section 60 notice or Section 61 prior consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.



2.1.7. Section 122 of the Railway Act 1993 provides a defence for licensed railway undertakers and operators against actions in common law or statutory law for nuisance.

The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations (1996) (as Amended)

2.1.8. The Noise Insulation Regulations require for grants to be provided covering the cost of sound insulation in dwellings subjected to noise from new or altered railways; and empower responsible authorities to provide noise insulation where noise from construction of a new or altered railway would seriously impact a sensitive property for a substantial period of time.

2.1.9. In regard to operational noise, two conditions have to be met to qualify under the Noise Insulation Regulations: the noise level should be at least 68 dB(A) daytime and 63 dB(A) night-time and the noise increase expected to be caused by the Scheme should be at least 1 dB(A). For a building to classify under these regulations it should be no more than 300m from the nearest point of the nearest running rail.

Policy

Noise Policy Statement for England

2.1.10. The Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) was published by Defra in March 2010.

2.1.11. This NPSE sets out the long term vision of Government noise policy:

“Promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development.”

2.1.12. The NPSE long term vision is supported by the following aims:

“Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development:

Avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life;

Mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; and

Where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.”

2.1.13. The NPSE has the legal status of a statement of government policy, not simply Defra's policy. Consequently every central government department will be expected to ‘noise-proof’ future policies against it; and other decision makers are expected to review their existing policies against the Statement and take it into account when making decisions on specific development proposals.



2.1.14. The NPSE provides useful advice on interpretation of its aims, including at paragraph 2.18 where it states:

“There is a need to integrate consideration of the economic and social benefit of the activity or policy under examination with proper consideration of the adverse environmental effects, including the impact of noise on health and quality of life. This should avoid noise being treated in isolation in any particular situation, i.e. not focussing solely on the noise impact without taking into account other related factors.”

2.1.15. The NPSE emphasises:

“Effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development”, and

2.1.16. “Not focussing solely on the noise impact without taking into account other related factors” and the need to consider “the economic and social benefit of the activity or policy under examination”.

2.1.17. The Government considers that the noise aspects of sustainable development projects should be looked at favourably, notwithstanding that there should not be any significantly adverse noise effects as a result i.e. that a reasonable rather than absolute level of protection is expected. For example, the NPSE at paragraphs 2.20 and 2.21 reinforces that it seeks to avoid “significant adverse impacts” and distinguishes these from more stringent “Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels”; as used to set the World Health Organisation’s ultimate night-time noise target. Consequently, noise policy in England does not promote or otherwise sanction the ultimate WHO night noise level target of Lnight,outside 40 dBA as an overall policy objective.



3. PLANNING AND GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Framework NPPF

3.1.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012. The NPPF is part of government reform to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth. It replaces existing national planning policies such as Planning Policy Statement PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and Planning Policy Guidance PPG24: Planning and Noise.

3.1.2. The NPPF states:

3.1.3. “Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;

Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;

Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and

Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.”

PPG24 Planning & Noise

3.1.4. PPG24 provided guidance to local authorities in England on the use of their planning powers to minimise the adverse effect of noise. It outlines the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise.

Regional Planning Policy

Staffordshire & Stoke on Trent Structure Plan (1996-2011)

3.1.5. The Plan proposes a broad strategic planning framework for Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent for the period 1996-2011, incorporating policies related to land use, transportation and the environment.

Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the West Midlands (2008)

3.1.6. The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is a spatial planning document covering housing, economic development, the built, historic and natural environment, renewable energy, minerals, waste and transport. Its aim is to set strategic policies to help guide the creation of Local



Development Frameworks. It forms part of the national planning system, with its main purpose is to provide a long term land use and transport planning framework for the Region.

3.1.7. Policy QE3 states that:

“Particular attention should be given to assessing and minimising the impacts of noise [ ] as a result of development”.


“Local authorities and others should also encourage patterns of development which maintain and improve air quality and minimise the impact of noise upon public space. [ ]”.


“Local authorities and other agencies, in their plans, policies and proposals should conserve, enhance and, where necessary, restore the quality, diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character throughout the Region’s urban and rural areas by considering other factors that contribute to landscape character including tranquillity and the minimisation of noise[ ]”.

Local Planning Policy

Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001

3.1.10. The Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001, the current adopted development plan for Stafford Borough contains policies directing development proposals and promoting appropriate land-use. Policy E & D5 respectively state that:

3.1.11. “New development likely to generate or be subject to an unacceptable level of noise will be required to provide adequate noise attenuation measures. Where attenuation measures cannot satisfactorily minimise the potential for noise nuisance, the proposed development will be refused”.

3.1.12. “The techniques and standards that will be employed in assessing noise implication of development proposals are laid down in BS 5228 19841 "Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites". Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 “Planning and Noise” gives guidance to local authorities on the use of planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise”.

1 Now been superseded by British Standard BS5228: 2009 Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on

construction and open sites: Noise



4. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

4.1. Assessment Criteria and Methodology

4.1.1. The construction and operational noise and vibration assessment methodology used in this study has been based on the EIA scoping report, and was further expanded based on all comments made by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), now Planning Inspectorate, in their scoping opinion. The details of the final noise and vibration assessment methodology used are discussed below.

Spatial Scope

Construction

4.1.2. The extent of any noise effects arising from construction noise will vary greatly depending upon the scale and nature of the works and the distance to any sensitive receptor and any intervening screening etc. Appendix 4 includes all the assumptions used in this study regarding plant selection, equipment on-time, screening etc., that have been used to predict noise levels from the proposed construction works. This data has been used to establish an approximate zone of influence where it is anticipated that construction noise effects might be likely, which is within 300m of the anticipated construction site boundaries.

4.1.3. Vibration from construction works has the potential to cause disturbance at sensitive receptors near to the works. Because vibration in the ground dissipates much more quickly than noise in the air the distance between source and receiver that has been taken into account to assess the vibration effects from activities such as demolition and piling can be substantially less than is required for airborne noise. As is common at this stage of the life cycle of this type of Scheme, the choice of demolition and piling methods has not been finalised. Consequently, a detailed construction vibration assessment cannot be carried out; although the matter would be addressed as part of any application for section 61 Control of Pollution Act 1974 prior approval for the works. However, an indicative vibration assessment has been carried out based on information in the database from BS 5228: 2009 and other sources2; which suggest that at the separation distances between plant and receptors likely for this Scheme that significant vibration effects are not likely.

2 Transport Research Laboratory Reports 429: Groundbourne vibration caused by mechanised construction works and

53: Ground vibration caused by civil engineering works and CIRIA Technical Note 142: Ground-bourne vibrations arising from piling



Operation

4.1.4. Detailed noise assessments have been undertaken up to a distance of 300m from the boundary of the new or altered railway in line with the advice in the Department of Transport’s Calculation of Railway Noise methodology and the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996. Further limitations on the spatial scope arise in regard to the lower threshold values in the evaluation criteria presented in Table 4.5.

4.1.5. The effect of operational noise on sensitive wildlife has been considered as part of a qualitative assessment of disturbance in the Ecology Technical Report (Volume 3, Report 9).

4.1.6. To assess the noise effects of rail intensification on the wider rail network beyond the immediate area of the Scheme; a comparison of predicted noise differences due to possible changes in the flow of trains on these existing lines has been carried out between two future scenarios with and without the Scheme.

Temporal Scope

4.1.7. Construction and operation effects have been assessed for day and night periods, in accordance with the evaluation criteria from BS 5228-1:2009 presented in Table 4.1. The construction phase covers the period from 2014 to 2016. The operational noise and vibration assessment has been carried out for the baseline year (2017), which has been used as a proxy for the future design year of 2031 in the absence of future timetabling beyond 2017. This represents the highest noise level expected based on currently available train scheduling information.

4.1.8. The inherent uncertainties of predicting use of rail networks at such a future time/date means the train scheduling for 2017 used in this study is indicative; but considered to be biased towards the likely potential worst case with regards to numbers and types of train movements. Baseline year and future year train schedules are presented in Appendix 4.

Construction Noise Assessment Methodology

4.1.9. British Standard BS5228-1:2009 ‘Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ (Part 1 – Noise, Part 2 Vibration) is designed to assist the measurement and assessment of noise and vibration from construction operations. It also provides example construction noise criteria for significant effects. The Standard provides best practice guidance to minimising the adverse effects of construction noise and vibration3.

3 BS 5228:2009 is the most current version of this standard and it supersedes the 1997 version and is therefore regarded

as current best practice for the purposes of the Infrastructure and Planning EIA Regs 2009 and similar procedures. Whilst the 1997 version of BS 5228 is still the statutorily approved version for the purposes of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.



4.1.10. Construction noise has been predicted and assessed in accordance with Part 1 of the Standard. At this stage of the project detailed information regarding the construction processes and activities have not been finalised; however, based on information provided by Network Rail and Temple Group’s past experience of similar projects4 an initial quantitative assessment of the likely construction noise effects has been carried out. The assumptions used to predict construction noise are detailed in Appendix 4 and discussed in more detail below.

4.1.11. The commercially available CadnaA noise modelling software produced by Datakustik GmbH has been used to predict noise levels at nearby receptors, in accordance with the methodology of BS5228.

4.1.12. The significance of construction noise effects is assessed against criteria provided in Annex E of Part 1 of the standard which contains two example methods of determining the significance of construction noise.

4.1.13. Method 1, ‘The ABC Method’, examines absolute levels based on various threshold categories and is detailed in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 – BS5228-1 Construction Noise Significance Criteria – ABC Method

Assessment category and threshold value period (LAeq)

Threshold value, in decibels (dB)

Category A A)

Category B B)

Category C

C)

Night-time (23:00 – 07:00) 45 50 55

Evening and Weekends D)

55 60 65

Daytime (07:00 -19:00) and Saturdays (07:00 – 13:00)

65 70 75

Note 1: A significant effect has been deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level, including construction, exceeds the threshold level for the Category appropriate to the ambient noise level.

Note 2: If the ambient noise level exceeds the threshold values given in the table (i.e. the ambient noise level is higher than the above values), then a significant effect is deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to construction activity.

Note 3: Applied to residential receptors only.

A) Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB)

are less than these values. B)

Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are the same as category A values. C)

Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are higher than category A values. D)

19:00 – 23:00 weekdays, 13:00 – 23:00 Saturdays and 07:00 – 23:00 Sundays.

4 For example CRTL/HS1, Thameslink and Crossrail.



4.1.14. Method 2 refers to a ‘5 dB(A) Change’ and states that construction noise is deemed to be significant if the total noise level (pre-construction ambient plus construction noise) exceeds the pre-construction ambient noise level by 5 dB or more, subject to lower cut off values of 65 dB, 55 dB and 45 dB LAeq,

Period, from construction noise alone, for the daytime, evening and night-time periods respectively.

4.1.15. BS 5228 also contains the example time periods, averaging times and noise levels associated with eligibility for noise insulation as a result of construction works. This information is reproduced in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 – BS5228-1 Construction Noise Significance Criteria –

Time Relevant Time Period Averaging Time , T Noise Insulation Trigger Level dB LAeq,T

A)

Monday to Friday

0700 – 0800 1 h 70

0800 - 1800 10 h 75

1800 – 1900 1 h 70

1900 – 2200 3 h 65

2200 - 0700 1 h 55

Saturday

0700 – 0800 1 h 70

0800 – 1300 5 h 75

1300 – 1400 1 h 70

1400 – 2200 3 h 65

2200 – 0700 1 h 55

Sunday and Public Bank Holidays

0700 – 2100 1 h 65

2100 - 0700 1 h 55

A) All noise levels are predicted or measured at a point 1m in front of the most exposed of any

windows and doors in any façade of any eligible dwelling.

Construction Vibration Assessment Methodology

4.1.16. BS5228-2:2009 (Part 2) provides recommendations for methods of vibration control for construction and open sites. Part 2 of the standard also describes the legislative background to vibration control and offers advice regarding the establishment of effective liaison between developers, site operators and local authorities. Part 2 also contains guidance on measuring and assessing the effects of vibration.

4.1.17. There is the potential for certain construction activities, such as piling and dynamic compaction, to generate significant vibration. At this stage of the project detailed information regarding the likely construction techniques is not finalised, therefore an indicative assessment of vibration effects from the proposed development has been undertaken in accordance with the guidance and information contained within Part 2 of the BS 5228.



4.1.18. BS 6472-1:2008 ‘Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources other than blasting’ provides guidance on the prediction of human response to vibration in buildings. The vibration dose value (VDV) is calculated to estimate the probability of adverse comment which might be expected from experiencing vibration in buildings.

4.1.19. The often rapid onset and transient nature of construction vibration can make use of the Vibration Dose Values from BS 6472 redundant as the relatively complex measurement and calculation of this metric can delay effective monitoring and management of any problem. Consequently Annex B of BS 5228-2:2009 provides guidance on the effects of vibration on humans in terms of levels of Peak Particle Velocity (PPV mmsec-1) which are relatively simpler to directly measure in real time. Additionally, the PPV metric is used to assess vibration effects on buildings and structures, so there is useful symmetry in using the same metric to monitor both human and structural response to vibration; notwithstanding that human sensitivity to vibration is much greater. Table 4.3 summarises the guidance contained within BS5228 -2:2009.

Table 4.3 – BS 5228-2 Vibration Human Effects Significance Criteria

Vibration Level (PPV mmsec

-1)

Effect

0.14 mms-1

Vibration might be just perceptible in the most sensitive situations for most vibration frequencies associated with construction. At lower frequencies, people are less sensitive to vibration.

0.3mms-1

Vibration might be just perceptible in residential environments.

1.0 mms-1

It is likely that vibration of this level in residential environments will cause complaint, but can be tolerated if prior warning and explanation has been given to residents.

10 mms-1

Vibration is likely to be intolerable for any more than a very brief exposure to this level.

4.1.20. Based on the information in Table 4.3 above it is suggested that for construction works during the daytime that significant effects on humans could be deemed to occur should a PPV of 1 mms-1 be exceeded at the foundation level outside vibration sensitive residential receptors. However, if community consultation and prior warning is provided, this level and even higher values, of vibration may be acceptable for limited periods of time.

Off-site Construction Vehicle Effects Methodology

4.1.21. The Department of Transport (DoT) and Welsh Office document The Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) provides a methodology to calculate noise from road traffic. This method used data on traffic flow, speed and composition and factors affecting noise propagation to predict road traffic noise at a receptor. Whilst the procedures from the Department of Transport’s WEBTAG guidance and the Highways Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges document provide advice for the environmental appraisal of noise from road schemes.



4.1.22. Changes in noise level on nearby roads as a result of construction traffic have been calculated using the prediction methodology defined within CRTN and based on road traffic information provided by Network Rail.

4.1.23. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11, Section 3, Part 7 (DMRB) provides guidance on the assessment of effects that road Schemes might have on existing levels of noise and vibration.

4.1.24. The effect of changes in traffic noise level as a result of construction traffic on the surrounding road network has been assessed based on the more stringent ‘short term’ classification of impact criteria of the DMRB, which are reproduced in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 – DMRB Traffic Noise Impact Criteria

Noise Change, LA10,18hr (dB)

Magnitude of Impact

0 No Change

0.1 – 0.9 Negligible

1 – 2.9 Minor

3 – 4.9 Moderate

5+ Major

Operational Rail Noise Assessment Methodology

4.1.25. The operational noise and vibration assessment has been undertaken based on 2017 train schedules provided by Network Rail. Based on information available this is considered to represent the highest noise and vibration levels expected within the first 15 years of operation.

4.1.26. For the purpose of the evaluation, and based on advice from WEBTAG, it has been considered that an increase in noise level of Leq,t 3 dB or more due to passage of a train on the new or existing railway as a result of the operation of the Scheme is deemed to represent a significant adverse effect.

4.1.27. It is acknowledged that WEBTAG also states that changes may be perceptible where the change in rail noise level is less than 3 dB; however this tends to be where the change is due to introduction of a new noise source or major change in the nature and character of an existing noise source, which either does not apply or is unlikely in this case. Additionally there is significant precedent for the adoption of this criterion in other major rail schemes such as Crossrail, Thameslink, West Coast Main line and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.



4.1.28. Consequently, a change of more than 3dB has been used to identify a significant change in railway noise in most cases. However, for the new railway a change in railway noise of less than 3dB may be identified if the receptor is already exposed to high levels of railway noise. Railway noise levels of 68 dB LAeq,16hr and 63dB LAeq,8hr, which form part of the eligibility criteria for noise insulation set out in the Noise Insulation (Railway and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996, have been used as the thresholds for such determination.

4.1.29. Assessment of the effects of changes in noise level have been based on the criteria shown in Table 4.5. It should be noted that there are lower cut-off thresholds for the assessment of changes in noise level of 55 dBA Leq,16 hrs

daytime and 45 dBA Leq 8 hrs night time as external free-field limits. These lower limit cut-offs are based on the advice from the World Health Organisation’s Guidelines for Community Noise (2000) as representing the thresholds at which the majority of persons are protected against serious noise annoyance during the day and sleep disturbance, even with windows partially open, is avoided at night.

Table 4.5 Criteria for Determining Operational Noise effects

Operational Rail Noise change (07:00 – 23:00) day, and (23:00 - 07:00) night

Description of Change Scale Rating

Decrease of more than 3dB Slight Significant beneficial effect

-3 dB < noise change < 3 dB No significant change

Increase of 3-5 dB Slight

Significant adverse effect

Increase of 5-10 dB Moderate

Increase of more than 10dB Substantial

Note: A cut off threshold of 55dB LAeq (16hr day) and 45dB LAeq (8hr night) has been used for the purposes of the assessment. The noise assessment has been based on external noise levels at 1m from the façade.

4.1.30. The criteria in Table 4.6 reflect similar values used for other rail schemes such as Crossrail, Thameslink, West Coast Main line and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. They also take into account the advice from WEBTAG; and consideration of the type of noise source and the nature of the change. Additionally the factors in the following table that influence the magnitude of effect of any change in noise level have also been considered.

Table 4.6 Criteria for Determining Vibration effects

Factor Issue Application to this Scheme

Averaging Time Period

Is the averaging time so long that it might mask a greater impact, or does the impact occur for only a small proportion of the time and can therefore be considered a smaller effect?

The proposed use of the railway is unlikely to result in “bunching” of a majority train movements during a short period. The time averaging periods used in this



Factor Issue Application to this Scheme

study also reflect those used in research examining the effects of transportation noise, including railway noise.

Time of Day / Night / Week

Is the change occurring at a time of day which might cause a different effect?

The change is likely to be consistent throughout the day or night.

Nature of the Noise Source

Is there a change in the nature of the noise source which might alter the effect?

The nature of the noise source is unlikely to change so as to alter its impact.

Frequency of Occurrence

How does the frequency of the occurrence of the noise source alter the effect?

The frequency of occurrence of the noise source is only changing by a moderate degree and is a factor included in the calculation of the LAeq, t noise index used in this study.

Spectral Characteristics

Is there a change in the spectral characteristics which might alter the effect?

The spectral characteristics of the noise source are unlikely to change significantly.

Absolute Level How does the change relate to any applicable published guidance?

The use of lower cut-off and “high” noise level thresholds as prescribed above, links the change criteria to absolute noise levels.

4.1.31. In summary, this study considers that significant noise effects from the operational railway are only likely to arise where there is an exceedance of an absolute noise level (55 dB LAeq, 16hrs during the day and 45 dB LAeq, 8hrs at night with the Scheme) and a corresponding increase in daytime or night-time rail noise of 3dB or more. For the new railway a change in railway noise of less than 3dB may be acknowledged if the receptor is already exposed to high levels of railway noise i.e. above the thresholds in the Noise Insulation Regulations.

4.1.32. The Department of Transport’s Calculation of Railway Noise 1995 (CRN) provides a methodology to calculate noise from the operation of moving trains. These procedures can be used to predict noise levels to assess eligibility under the Noise Insulation Regulations and also provide for the assessment of the noise effect of railways.

4.1.33. Based on CRN predictions of railway noise, a detailed assessment of operational noise effects has been carried out up to a distance of 300m from the new railway. This spatial threshold is based on information contained within the CRN and ‘Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations’ 1996 (NIRR) documents.



4.1.34. In addition to the assessment of noise effects at sensitive receptors near to the Scheme, an assessment of properties that may be eligible for noise insulation against operational train noise under the NIRR has been carried out. The daytime period in for the purposes of these regulations is 06:00 – 24:00 hours whilst the night-time period is 24:00 – 06:00 hours.

4.1.35. It should be noted that the NIRR only apply to new or altered railways and do not apply to existing operating railway infrastructure.

4.1.36. The effect of operational noise on sensitive wildlife has been examined as part of the ecological assessment (Volume 3, Report 9).

4.1.37. To assess the noise effects on the wider network resulting from the Scheme due to possible intensification of railway traffic, two future scenarios with and without the Scheme have been considered. The purpose of this assessment is simply to estimate potential changes in noise levels at sections representing different parts of the network. Based on the rationale described above, an increase of 3 dB or more as a direct result of the operation of the Scheme has been deemed to represent a significant adverse effect. For intensification, the well-established acoustic formula defined within CRN have been used to calculate increases in noise on the wider network due to the likely increases in rail traffic generated by the Scheme.

Operational Rail Vibration Assessment Methodology

4.1.38. The identification of significant operational vibration effects has been based upon a distance screening assessment informed by professional judgment and previous experience of similar Schemes which suggest that significant railway vibration effects are unlikely more than 50 metres from the nearest track5. The evaluation of significant effects for residential properties has been determined by considering the number of properties affected and the severity of the effect.

4.1.39. The following table from BS 6472 summarises the proposed vibration significance criteria for residential dwellings affected by the proposed Scheme. Notwithstanding the above, it is normally possible to ‘scope out’ detailed vibration assessment at sensitive receptors assuming there is sufficient distance between the track and the receptor.

Table 4.7 Criteria for Determining Vibration effects

Period and Location

Low probability of adverse comment ms

-1.75

Adverse comment possible ms

-1.75

Adverse comment probable

ms-1.75

Residential buildings 16 h day

0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6

5 Volume 3, Section 2, Ref 95



Period and Location

Low probability of adverse comment ms

-1.75

Adverse comment possible ms

-1.75

Adverse comment probable

ms-1.75

Residential buildings 8 h night

0.1 to 0.2 0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8

Operational Road Traffic Noise Assessment Methodology

4.1.40. A screening exercise has been carried out to determine whether changes in the highway realignment are likely to give rise to a change in LA10,18 hr road traffic noise level of more than 1dB(A). Changes in road traffic noise levels have been assessed in line with the noise level assessment method set out in DMRB, where the change in road traffic noise may be more than 1dB LA10,18hr the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11 Section 3 Part 7 states:

4.1.41. “In recent years, evidence has also been accumulating from surveys before and after sudden changes in noise exposure. It indicates that people are more sensitive to abrupt changes in traffic noise associated with new road Schemes than would be predicted from steady state evidence. In the period following a change in traffic flow, people may find benefits or disbenefits when noise changes are as small as 1dB(A)- equivalent to an increase in traffic flow of 25% or a decrease in traffic flow of 20%.”

4.1.42. The effect of changes in noise levels at sensitive receptors as a result of the highway realignment on the surrounding road network have been assessed based on the ‘short term’ classification of effects criteria of the DMRB. The DMRB criteria are reproduced in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 – DMRB Traffic Noise Effect Criteria

Noise Change, LA10,18hr

dBA

Magnitude of Effect

0 No Change

0.1 – 0.9 Negligible

1 – 2.9 Minor

3 – 4.9 Moderate

5+ Major



5. CONSULTATION

5.1.1. Principal consultees included the relevant local planning authority and the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) (now the Planning Inspectorate) although other statutory agencies and wider stakeholders were also consulted during the four phases of consultation undertaken by Network Rail and described in Volume 2, Section 5.

5.1.2. Measurement locations for the noise baseline survey were agreed with the local Environmental Health Practitioner (EHP) from Stafford Borough Council (SBC).

5.1.3. The construction and operational noise and vibration assessment methodology was based on the EIA Scoping Report, and was further adapted based on comments made by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in their scoping opinion.

5.1.4. The final assessment methodology was agreed with the local EHP from SBC, and the findings from the noise assessment were discussed in a meeting with representatives from SBC (11/10/12).



6. BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

6.1. Baseline Data Collection

6.1.1. Given that the significance of any effect will be determined, in part, by the relative noise increase, it is necessary to understand the existing baseline noise environment. In general terms, the baseline environment in respect to noise is described in Table 6.4.

6.1.2. The proposed survey methodology was discussed and agreed in advance with the Environmental Health Practitioner of Stafford Borough Council.

6.1.3. Baseline noise levels have been determined from measurements carried out at representative locations. Some of the measurements were attended measurements, whereas others were unattended short term monitoring surveys set up over a number of representative days/weeks and supplemented with some attended monitoring.

6.1.4. The measurement locations are detailed and described in Table 6.1 and noise monitoring locations are presented in Figure 6.1, Volume 4.

Table 6.1 – Description of Noise Monitoring Locations

Location Measurement Type Description

1 Long term un-attended White House Farm

2 Long term un-attended Rose Tree Farm

3 Long term un-attended 14 St Luke’s Close

4 Long term un-attended Park Farm

5 Long term un-attended Rose Hill Farm

6 Short term attended De Havilland Drive (Yarnfield

7 Short term attended Cold Norton Farm

8 Short term attended Upper Heamies Cottages

9 Short term attended Upper Heamies

10 Short term attended Middle Heamies

11 Short term attended Baden Hall

12 Short term attended Waterstone Barn

13 Short term attended Oxleasows

14 Medium term un-attended Scamnel Farm

15 Short term attended Shallowford Cottages

16 Short term attended Halfhead Farm

17 Short term attended Hammerhouse Farm

18 Medium term un-attended Drumble Cottage

19 Short term attended Waltonbank

20 Short term attended Worston Hall



Location Measurement Type Description

21 Short term attended Eccleshall Road

22 Short term attended Cherry Lane

6.2. Noise Monitoring Methodology

6.2.1. The long term unattended noise monitoring was completed using four Norsonic 140 and one Rion NL-32 integrating sound level meters, both of these types are certified as Class 1 according to IEC 61672. All meters were fitted with appropriate all weather kits. The equipment was set to measure continuous 15 minute periods for the duration of the noise survey in terms of LAeq, LA10, LA90 and LAmax.

6.2.2. The attended noise measurements were carried out using a Rion NA-28 Class 1 integrating sound level meter.

6.2.3. All measurements were completed by appropriately trained and qualified members of the Temple Group acoustics team and all measurements were carried out in accordance with the principles of BS 7445 Part 1 – Description and measurement of Environmental Noise.

6.2.4. All equipment was field calibrated before and after use and no significant deviation in calibration level was noted. All equipment was within manufacturer’s calibration traceable to national and international standards, and calibration certificates for the equipment are available on request.

Noise Measurement Results

6.2.5. The results of the unattended and attended noise surveys are summarised in Tables 6.2 and 6.3.

Table 6.2 – Summary of Unattended Noise Monitoring

Location Date Time Period Average Measured LAeq(T)

1 01/12/2011 to 07/12/2011

0700 - 2300 55.6

2300 - 0700 48.3

2 01/12/2011 to 08/12/2011

0700 - 2300 51.8

2300 - 0700 47.8

3 01/12/2011 to 08/12/2011

0700 - 2300 51.4

2300 - 0700 45.3

4 01/12/2011 to 08/12/2011

0700 - 2300 45.7

2300 - 0700 39.0

5 02/12/2011 to 06/12/2011

0700 - 2300 69.0

2300 - 0700 62.8

14 08/02/2012 to 09/02/2012

0700 - 2300 60.4

2300 - 0700 40.7

18 08/02/2012 to 0700 - 2300 47.8



Location Date Time Period Average Measured LAeq(T)

09/02/2012 2300 - 0700 35.7

Table 6.3 – Summary of Attended Noise Monitoring

Location Date Start Time Average Measured LAeq(30min)

Measured LA90(30min)

6 09/02/2012

11:47 42.4 35.9

12:18 45.2 35.5

7 08/02/2012

15:06 58.1 55.3

8 08/02/2012

16:20 69.3 48.2

9 08/03/2012

11:26 42.9 35.4

11:58 42.5 36.6

10 08/02/2012

16:11 45.0 42.1

11 09/02/2012

13:21 39.2 34.6

12 08/02/2012

12:25 46.7 36.3

12:55 49.4 35.7

13 08/02/2012

12:30 45.2 40.9

13:04 44.9 40.4

15 08/02/2012

13:49 63.8 43.7

14:19 63.7 44.1

16 09/02/2012

13:49 61.8 43.8

14:19 61.9 43.8

17 08/03/2012

13:13 50.3 38.3

13:43 50.1 38.0

19 09/02/2012

15:10 54.9 45.3

20 10/01/2012

13:53 57.9 45.7

14:23 57.6 45.1

21 22/12/2012

14:50 69.3 51.0

22 10/01/2012

12:42 53.5 41.6

13:12 54.0 42.3



6.3. Description of the Baseline Noise Environment

6.3.1. The following table contains a description of the noise climate heard at each of the noise monitoring positions. The information presented was noted by the field engineer whilst on site setting up or undertaking attended measurements.

Table 6.4 – Description of Noise Climate

Location Description of Noise Climate

1 The dominant noise source at the time of attendance was road traffic noise. Other noise sources included bird song and distant road traffic.

2 The dominant noise source at the time of attendance was road traffic noise. Other noise sources included railway noise and bird song during lulls in traffic noise.

3 The dominant noise source at the time of attendance was distant road traffic noise. Other noise sources included noise from the nearby residential buildings.

4 The dominant noise source at the time of attendance was distant road traffic noise. Other noise sources included bird song and railway noise.

5 The dominant noise source at the time of attendance was railway noise. Other noise sources included bird song and distant road traffic.

6 The dominant noise sources during the measurement period were bird song, and the occasional train horn. Additional noise sources audible at this measurement location were distant road traffic noise; noise from the nearby residential area; and railway noise.

7 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was road traffic noise associated with the B5026. Other noise sources included bird song and distant road traffic.

8 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was road traffic noise associated with the B5026. Other noise sources included bird song and distant road traffic. Railway noise was masked by road noise most of the time.

9 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was railway noise. During periods where train noise was not audible bird song and distant road traffic were the dominant noise sources.

10 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was distant road traffic noise. Other noise sources included bird song. One vehicle passed along the road adjacent to the sound level meter throughout the entire measurement period.

11 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was railway noise. Other noise sources included bird song, and gun shots (perhaps from the nearby army training camp).

12 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was railway noise. Other noise sources included, bird song and distant road traffic noise. Aircraft noise was also intermittently audible.

13

The dominant noise source during the measurement period was distant road traffic noise. Other noise sources included, bird song; railway noise and intermittent machining noise that sounded like drilling and construction in the direction of the Oxleasows Farm.



Location Description of Noise Climate

14 The dominant noise source at the time of attendance was distant road traffic noise. Other noise sources included noise from the nearby housing and bird song.

15 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was road traffic noise. Other noise sources included railway noise, bird song; noise from hens particularly near the end of the measurement periods.

16

The dominant noise source during the measurement period was road traffic noise. Other noise sources included railway noise; noise of local fauna; bird song; noise from hens particularly near the end of the measurement periods.

17 The dominant noise sources during the measurement period were railway and road traffic noise. Other noise sources included bird song and the occasional aeroplane during lulls in road and railway traffic.

18 The dominant noise source at the time of attendance was distant road traffic noise. Other noise sources included bird song and noise of gardening at the nearby residential housing.

19 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was road traffic noise associated with Eccleshall Road. Bird song was also audible at this location. The railway could be seen but not heard from this survey location.

20 The dominant noise sources during the measurement period were railway and road traffic noise. Bird song and occasional aeroplane were also audible at this location.

21 The dominant noise source during the measurement period was road traffic noise associated with the use of the A5013. Railway noise, bird song and occasional aeroplane were also audible at this location.

22 The dominant noise sources during the measurement period were railway noise. Bird song, distant road traffic noise and occasional aeroplane were also audible at this location.

6.4. Existing Vibration Levels

6.4.1. Short term attended vibration monitoring was carried out at different locations along the proposed route on 24th March 20126. Vibration levels around the proposed Scheme were found to be significantly below the level of human perception as there were no existing sources of significant vibration close to the measurement locations.




7. PREDICTED NOISE AND VIBRATION EFFECTS

Overall Programme

7.1.1. The various works that comprise the Scheme will take approximately 2 years to complete following several months of enabling works, such as diversion of pipelines. Utilities diversion works are to be undertaken in advance of the Scheme construction.

Construction Works

7.1.2. The principal civil engineering works for the Scheme are:

Road Works;

Earthworks;

Underbridges;

Overbridges;

Footbridges; and

Track and embankment works.

7.2. Predicted Construction Noise Effects

7.2.1. As is common for most similar projects, at this stage the exact details of the techniques that will be used during the construction of the proposed Scheme are not finalised. However, Network Rail has provided information regarding the likely activities and programme that will be utilised during the construction of the proposed development. This information allows an indicative assessment to be carried out, with a more detailed review possible as part of any Section 61 Control of Pollution Act 1974 prior approval application once the methodologies, plant selection and programme have been finalised.

7.2.2. The information from Network Rail has been used to construct a prediction model using commercially available noise modelling software utilising the methodology from BS 5228.

7.2.3. Based on information regarding the likely construction activities, work locations, operational times, noise source data from BS 5228 and a number of assumptions; construction noise levels have been predicted at nearby noise sensitive receptors. All noise modelling has been carried out in accordance with the prediction methodology of BS 5228 and details of all assumptions and key input data can be viewed in Appendix 4.

7.2.4. Activities have been broken down into monthly phases for noise modelling purposes based on the BAM-Nuttall Constructability Assessment Report.

7.2.5. External façade noise levels have been considered.



7.2.6. Tables 7.1 show the highest monthly average predicted construction noise level at nearby receptors. When the predicted noise level for each phase of construction has been calculated to be greater than 65 dB(A), acoustic hoarding has been assumed, in accordance with BPM. Where acoustic hoarding has been assumed, an attenuation of 10 dB has been applied to the predicted noise levels.

7.2.7. It has been assumed that the construction work will be confined to daytime periods only, although some works in proximity of the existing railway are expected to be undertaken during weekend or night-time possessions. The construction sites are not expected to generate continuous high levels of noise for the whole duration of the works given the BPM approach and the mobile nature of the construction works i.e. the works will only be at closest approach to a particular receptor for a minority of the programme.

Significance of Construction Noise

7.2.8. Based on the information within BS 5228 and the measured and predicted ambient noise levels at noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed construction works, criteria for significant construction noise effects can be proposed.

7.2.9. Table 7.1 details the average measured or predicted ambient noise levels over relevant BS 5228 construction periods of the day and the appropriate example significance criteria calculated in accordance with the example methodologies contained within BS 5228, at the closest residential receptors to the site.

Table 7.1 – Highest Monthly Average Predicted Construction Noise Levels

Receptor Location Assessment Period (T)

Measured/Predicted Ambient Noise Level in dB LAeq(T)*

Significance Criteria – ABC Method

Significance Criteria – 5dB Method

20. Dwellings in Little Bridgeford

Daytime 60 65 65

4. Dwelling at Park Farm

Daytime 46 65 65

3. Dwellings on St Lukes Close

Daytime 51 65 65

14. Dwelling on Scamnell Lane (Barncroft)

Daytime 60 65 65

2. Dwelling at Rose Tree Farm

Daytime 52 65 65

Scamnel and Scamnel House

Daytime 60 65 65

1. Dwelling at White House Farm

Daytime 55 65 65




Measured/Predicted Ambient Noise Level in dB LAeq(T)*

Significance Criteria – ABC Method

Significance Criteria – 5dB Method

8.Dwelling at Upper Heamies Cottages

Daytime 48 65 65

12. Dwelling at Waterstone Barn

Daytime 50 65 65

17. Hammerhouse Farm

Daytime 50 65 65

No 10. Stone Road Daytime 52 65 65

Daytime: 0700 - 1900 hrs weekdays and 0700 – 1300 hrs Saturdays

* Minimum values between measured and predicted have been assumed

7.2.10. Based on the results of the prediction exercise and the significance criteria in Table 7.1 an assessment of the likely significance of construction works at the closest residential receptors to the site has been completed. This assessment is summarised in Table 7.2:

Table 7.2 – Significance of Monthly Average Construction Noise


BS 5228 Significance Criteria in dB LAeq(T)

Highest Predicted Construction Noise Level LAeq, T

Significant?

20. Dwellings in Little Bridgeford

Daytime 65 61 No

4. Dwelling at Park Farm

Daytime 65 65 No

3. Dwellings on St Lukes Close

Daytime 65 54 No

14. Dwelling on Scamnell Lane (Barncroft)

Daytime 65 58 No

2. Dwelling at Rose Tree Farm

Daytime 65 65 No

Scamnel and Scamnel House

Daytime 65 61 No

1. Dwelling at White House Farm

Daytime 65 56 No

8.Dwelling at Upper Heamies Cottages

Daytime 65 56 No

12. Dwelling at Waterstone Barn

Daytime 65 64 No

No. 10 Stone Road Daytime 65 65 No

A) Daytime: 0700 - 1900 hrs weekdays and 0700 – 1300 hrs Saturdays

B) Evening and Weekends: 1300 – 2300 Saturdays and 0700 – 2300 Sundays

C) Night-time: 2300 – 0700 hrs



7.2.11. It is noted that noise levels may be moderately higher than the monthly averages presented above for certain period/days, however it is important to consider that the majority of the works are mobile and they will be only at their closest point to, and therefore noise at its highest at, any specific receptor for a short period of time and then the works will move away and noise levels fall.

7.2.12. It can be seen from Table 7.2 that for all sensitive receptors predicted construction noise levels are below the BS 5228 daytime significant effects criteria.

7.2.13. It has been demonstrated that during the daytime period (0700 to 1900 hrs weekdays and 0700 to 1300 hrs Saturdays) construction noise (including the large piling works) would be unlikely to exceed the example significance criteria from BS 5228 at the majority of nearby receptors.

7.2.14. Based on the results of the prediction works it is therefore considered that through the application of best practicable means and suitable planning and control of noise emissions from works, significant effects as a result of construction noise on the proposed Scheme are unlikely to occur during daytime working hours.

7.2.15. During evening periods it is likely that if noisier construction activities were to occur (such as piling) significant effects would be likely at Rose Tree Farm, Park Farm, Worston Hall, Waterstone Barn, Hammerhouse Farm, Scamnel House and Scamnel.

7.2.16. Night-time works have the potential to cause significant noise effects; it is likely that noise levels as a result of the noisier construction activities are expected to result in significant effects when assessed in accordance with the example methodology of BS 5228.

7.2.17. Notwithstanding the above, it may be possible to carry out other less noisy construction works during the weekend, evening and night-time periods without significant effects occurring.

Off-site Construction Traffic Noise Effects

7.2.18. Although there are several site compound areas, these would be linked by internal access roads. All construction traffic will travel to one of the two main compounds via (Volume 4, Figure 13.1):

Southern compound: Route A (A5013); and,

Northern compound: Route B (B5026 via the A34).

7.2.19. Construction traffic day estimates have been generated by dividing the monthly estimates provided by 20. This represents the average flows on a typical construction day during that month.

7.2.20. As the construction methodology has not been finalised and is subject to change, the final prepared traffic estimates have been increased by 20% to



provide a precautionary worst case to be examined, and allow flexibility in construction methodology.

7.2.21. So as to assess a worst case, traffic information supplied by the project transport consultant regarding the highest expected traffic volumes on the surrounding road network expected as a result of the construction works has been assessed.

7.2.22. The highest expected traffic volumes are expected to happen in June 2015 on Route A and on April 2015 in route B.

Table 7.3 - Off-site Traffic Volumes due to Construction Activities

Background traffic volumes and highest expected additional traffic volumes due to construction activities

Route A - Jun-15 Route B- April-15

Vehicles HGV Vehicles HGV

Background traffic 5791 324 4965 243

Additional traffic 1539 137 1461 204

7.2.23. Traffic flows from the construction of the Scheme would be restricted to major roads, which as shown in the table above already experience substantial traffic flows, and are therefore not expected to produce significant noise increases even taking into account a worst case scenario; as for example a doubling of traffic flow would be required to produce a 3 dBA increase in LA10,t or LAeq,t noise level.

7.2.24. Based on the CRTN calculation methodology, assuming all other factors remain equal, it is possible to predict changes in noise levels based on changes in overall traffic flow and the percentage of HGVs.

7.2.25. These calculations assume that a ‘Rail Head’ would be built to assist in the construction of the Scheme.

7.2.26. The month of April 2015 represents the worst case scenario on route B and has been used for this calculation.

7.2.27. The predicted change in LA10,18 hr noise level due to the additional traffic volumes detailed in Table 7.3 is shown in table 7.4 below.

Table 7.4 - Predicted Noise Level Change

Predicted Change in LA10,18 hr noise level due to additional traffic from construction activities

Route A – Jun -15 Route B – April -15

1.3 dB 1.6 dB

7.2.28. It is stated within the DMRB that in the short term a change in noise level of 1 dB is ‘the smallest that is considered perceptible’. When assessed against the short term magnitude of impact criteria of the DMRB an increase in noise



level of LA10,18 hr 1.3 dB and 1.6 dB would be considered ‘minor’. Change in overall traffic flow would be less on the A34, which is a dual carriageway with significantly greater traffic numbers than Route A and B, used to access the B5026 from the motorway. As such it can be concluded that effects would be less than those predicted for Route A and B.

7.2.29. Based on the preceding paragraphs it is considered that temporary increases in traffic on the surrounding road network will not result in significant impacts on noise sensitive receptors.

Rail Head Operation

7.2.30. A southern rail head would be established along the new track alignment from Little Bridgeford Junction. Deliveries may occur during the day and night with trucks transporting delivered material to the adjacent compound. The closest sensitive receptors are located approximately 500m away from the delivery area, and as a result, significant noise and vibration effects are unlikely at any sensitive receptors.

Predicted Construction Vibration Effects

7.2.31. There is the potential for certain construction activities, such as piling, to generate significant vibration levels at nearby receptors.

7.2.32. The BAM-Nuttall Constructability Assessment Report recommends the use of continuous flight auger injected piles for the piling operation. This type of piling is the least likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of vibration as the process is a type of drilling that does not involve rapid acceleration or high energy impacts.

7.2.33. Consequently it is unlikely that the construction activities will generate significant levels of vibration at sensitive receptors due to piling. Persistent low levels of vibration could be expected at close proximity to the works but the energy will dissipate rapidly as distance from the source increases.

Disruptive Possessions

7.2.34. Works in proximity of the existing railway are expected to be undertaken during weekend or night-time possessions and are likely to affect sensitive receptors along the tracks. Properties likely to experience significant noise effects due to night-time works include dwellings in, Worston Lane, Smithy Lane and Rose Tree Farm. The approximate number of potential properties affected in these areas by night-time works would be 10.

7.2.35. Noisy works at night will be avoided when possible. When this is not feasible the most appropriate methods of minimising effects as far as practicable would be selected through the Section 61 consent procedure, as covered by the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (Volume 2, Appendix 6).

7.3. Operational Rail Noise Effects



7.3.1. The operational railway noise predictions have been carried out the CadnaA noise modelling software configured to calculate in accordance with the Department of Transport’s publication “Calculation of Railway Noise” (CRN), supplemented with data for rolling stock published by Defra. Daytime and night-time operational noise contours have been generated, showing the predicted level of rail noise from the Scheme.

7.3.2. Operational noise change contours (with and without the Scheme) and operational daytime and night-time noise contours with the Scheme including mitigation have also been generated. All modelling assumptions are presented in Appendix 47. In summary the assessment has taken into account the following variables:

Number of train movements;

Reference noise levels for each train type;

Track and ballast type;

Number of carriages;

Height of the track;

Speed of trains;

Presence of screening objects;

Distance between the track and the receiver; and

Atmospheric /ground absorption.

7.3.3. Noise predictions have been validated by comparison to noise monitoring data in order to evaluate the accuracy of the CRN acoustic model as implemented using the CadnaA software.

7.3.4. The result of the validations shows that the CRN method accurately predicts daytime train noise levels at a number of locations. A difference of approximately 5 dB between predicted and measured noise levels was found in regard to night-time levels, this is likely to be due to the variability of night-time freight services.

7.3.5. Although no increase in night-time freight services is expected to occur due to the Scheme, an increase of two freight trains per hour has been assumed to present a worst case scenario.

7.3.6. Tables 7.5 and 7.6 summarise the results of the predicted railway noise assessment for the future design year with and without the Scheme, and with the project for the future design year in comparison to the baseline year.

7.3.7. Residential properties have been grouped according to the magnitude of the noise change (slight, moderate or severe) in the context of ambient noise bands, as defined by the current levels of railway noise.




7.3.8. Three ambient noise bands are defined for the day (07:00-23:00 hrs) i.e.

55-60dB (A);

60-70dB (A);

>70dB (A);

7.3.9. And four for the night (23:00-07:00 hrs) i.e.

45-50dB(A);

50-60dB(A);

60-70dB(A); and

>70dB(A).

7.3.10. Properties are not included in the analysis where daytime railway noise levels are below 55dB (A) and existing night-time levels are below 45dB (A).

Predicted Noise Effects

Table 7.5 - Daytime Operational Train Noise Effects at Dwellings

Residential properties day time

55-60 dB(A) 60-70 dB(A) > 70 dB(A)

Total 2016-Future year

2016-Future year

2016-Future year

Slight (3-5dB) 1 0 0 1

Moderate (5-10dB) 0 0 0 0

Severe (More than 10dB increase)

0 0 0 0

Table 7.6 - Night-time Operational Train Noise Effects at Dwellings

Residential properties day time

45-50 dB(A) 50-60 dB(A) 60-70 dB(A)

Total 2016-Future year

2016-Future year

2016-Future year

Slight (3-5dB) 1 0 0 1

Moderate (5-10dB) 0 0 0 0

Severe (More than 10dB increase)

0 0 0 0

Location of Effects

7.3.11. The Tables 7.5 and 7.6 show that one residential property (Park Farm- located adjacent west of the proposed track alignment on the north side of Searchlight Lane)is exposed to significant increases in daytime and night-time railway noise levels respectively as summarised in Table 7.7.



Table 7.7 - Operational Train Noise Effects by Location

Location Significant day time effect

Significant night-time effect

Total no. dwellings significantly affected

Principal existing noise sources

Park Farm

1 1 1

Road traffic and distant rail noise is a dominant feature of the ambient noise environment.

TOTAL 1 1 1

Note: The table above includes all dwellings identified by a modelling exercise as being significantly affected.

Noise Insulation Regulations

7.3.12. An assessment for noise insulation under the Noise Insulation Regulations (NIRR) has been carried out, which indicates that no dwellings will qualify for noise insulation.

Remote Effects

7.3.13. To assess the remote noise effects due to intensification of railway noise resulting from the Scheme on the wider network, two future scenarios with and without the Scheme have been considered.

7.3.14. Based on the prediction methodology of CRN8 noise intensification has been calculated for the existing line.

7.3.15. For the purpose of this assessment a change in LAeq,t noise level of 3 dB or more has been considered to be the threshold for effect significance as explained in 4.1.28.

7.3.16. Assuming that other relevant factors like track alignment, track conditions, train speed etc. remain constant outside the zone of influence of the Scheme; it is possible to calculate the likely noise change attributed to the increase in rail movements.

7.3.17. The following tables present two way movements of passenger and freight trains with and without the Scheme in place. In order to determine the noise effects directly attributed to the Scheme it is required to compare the ‘with’ and ‘without’ Scheme future scenarios

8 Department of Transport (1995), Calculation of Railway Noise



Table 7.8 - With and Without Scheme Future Scenarios

Category Current Situation Trains per hour

Future Without Scheme

Trains per hour

Future With Scheme

Trains per hour

Up Down Up Down Up Down

Pass Frt Pass Frt Pass Frt Pass Frt Pass Frt Pass Frt

WCML 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 10 6 10 6

Stone/ Manchester

2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0

7.3.18. Taking into account the change in train numbers with and without the Scheme there is a potential increase in LAeq,t noise levels of approximately 1 dB with the Scheme in place compared to the situation without the Scheme. Hence, it is unlikely that there is a significant change on noise levels along the wider network as a consequence of the Scheme.

7.3.19. It should be noted that the projected percentage increase in train movements would only occur directly north and south of the proposed scheme as trains would be dispersed over the rail network. The predicted noise increase would decrease as the distance from the scheme increases.

7.3.20. Although the data in Table 7.8 is not a site specific assessment it can be used as a proxy for the wider network, and as there are no significant effects predicted at the locations considered, it is therefore inferred that this will also be the case across the rest of the network.

Maintenance Activities

7.3.21. Due to operational and safety requirements railway maintenance activities are likely to be constrained to night-time periods. Owing to the renewal of existing infrastructure and removal of the flat junction, there will be a reduced requirement for emergency and routine maintenance on the existing WCML.

7.3.22. New maintenance compounds will be sited away from sensitive receptors and when possible they will be located in a cutting, minimising the noise transmission to sensitive receptors. Noise and vibration effects would be considered prior to commencement of maintenance works.

Operational Road Traffic Noise

7.3.23. As a result of the highway realignment, the B5026 has been moved marginally closer to Scamnel, located on the B5026 west of Scamnell Lane.

7.3.24. Although the Scheme will alter the level and line of the highway, it is likely the traffic flow and speed will remain unaltered. Based on the prediction method of CRTN, at the sensitive receptor noise levels on the B5026 have been predicted based on 18hr ‘with’ and ‘without’ Scheme traffic data supplied by the project transport consultant.



7.3.25. Table 7.8 details of the likely change in noise levels are provided in the table below.

Table 7.8 – Noise Levels at Scamnel, B5026 west of Scamnell Lane

Scamnel ,

B5026 west of Scamnell Lane

2031 2031 + Realignment

Predicted Change in LA10, 18 hr Noise Level dB

Total % HGV Total % HGV

B5026 4529 3.4 4529 3.4 < 1 dB

7.3.26. It can be seen from Table 7.8 that LA10, 18 hr road traffic noise levels are predicted to increase by less than 1 dB.

7.3.27. It is stated within the DMRB that a change in LA10, 18 hr noise level of 1 dB is ‘the smallest that is considered perceptible’.

7.3.28. Based on the preceding paragraphs, the predicted change in noise as a result of the highway realignment shown in Table 7.8 would be imperceptible and therefore significant effects on noise sensitive receptors are considered unlikely.

7.4. Operational Rail Vibration Effects

7.4.1. All vibration sensitive receptors apart from Rose Tree Farm are more than 40m away from the proposed Scheme; vibration effects are unlikely at any of these receptors.

7.4.2. Rose Tree Farm is located 20m away from the proposed Scheme Manchester-Stone route. Estimates of the expected vibration levels that are likely to be experienced have been calculated based on measured vibration levels of similar trains travelling on the existing tracks. The measurements are provided in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9 - Measured Vibration Levels from Similar Trains

Vibration Level (Z-axis VDV) mm/s1.75 at 14m from the track

Train Type 14m from track

Passenger 0.04

Freight 0.05

7.4.3. Daytime vibration levels predicted at a distance of 14m fall below the ‘Low probability of adverse comment’ range according to BS 6472.

7.4.4. Night-time vibration levels fall below the ‘Low probability of adverse comment’ range according to BS 6472. The results are presented in Table 7.10



Table 7.10 Expected Day/Night VDV’s

Expected Day/Night VDVs 14m from the track

Day, 16h Night, 8h

VDV 0.11 0.068

7.4.5. Rose Tree Farm is located 20m away from the proposed Scheme. Vibration effects are unlikely due to the low number of freight trains expected to use the Manchester-Stone route (one freight train per week) and the distance between the receptor and the tracks.

7.5. Cumulative Effects

Non-DCO railway work

7.5.1. As part of the wider Stafford Area Improvements work not covered under this DCO there are additional elements of work on the existing WCML through this area. These works are as follows:

Line speed improvements – increasing slow lines to 100mph;

Re-signalling of Stafford station area (renewal); and

Installation of a freight regulation loop at Stafford Station.

7.5.2. The majority of works would be undertaken in advance of the construction phase of the project and as such there would be no cumulative effect. Works scheduled to coincide with the construction phase would also not generate a cumulative effect due to the distance between the construction areas for the Scheme and the non-DCO works on the WCML.

Wind Farm Park Farm

7.5.3. Planning permission has been granted for an 11kW single wind turbine at Park Farm. The wind turbine is 300m away from any receptors considered in this noise assessment. At this distance based on data for a typical 11 kW turbine9 of a sound power of 88 dBA at 8 m/sec wind speed, the estimated turbine noise level is approximately 31 dBA Leq,t. Based on the data in the baseline survey this means the noise levels from the turbine are therefore unlikely to be above ambient noise levels, making cumulative effects very unlikely.

Izaac Walton Golf Club Remodelling Works

7.5.4. Planning permission is being sought for the proposed remodelling of Izaac Walton Golf Club. The main access route to be used by delivery vehicles is likely to be the B5026 to Stone Road and A34. The increase in traffic due to the construction of the Scheme and additional HGV traffic generated by this development is not expected to produce significant noise increases due to

9 E.g. the Gaia-Wind 133-11kW small wind turbine.



the existing traffic numbers on this highway. This assessment is based on the assumption that traffic numbers would be as stated in the planning submission.

7.5.5. The review of potential developments that meet the criteria for cumulative effect assessment indicate that there are no expected cumulative effects during construction and operation.



8. MITIGATION

8.1.1. Mitigation measures identified as part of this assessment will be incorporated in a Construction Environmental Management Plan for the Scheme (Volume 2, Appendix 6) and form a Nuisance Management Plan. This document forms the link between the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and construction and creates a management structure to ensure the implementation of this mitigation.

8.2. Construction Noise and Vibration

8.2.1. As part of the implementation of BPM a range of measures will be incorporated during construction to minimise the potential effects to nearby sensitive receptors. It’s recommended that the developer works closely with Stafford Borough Council to ensure noise and vibration effects are minimised through the use of appropriate work practices, environmental monitoring and the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 Section 61 processes provide an appropriate mechanism for ensuring construction noise and vibration effects are managed appropriately and mitigation appropriately incorporated before works commence.

General Requirements

8.2.2. The contractors will be required to control noise and vibration levels during construction so that sensitive noise receptors (residents, community users and susceptible commercial activities) are protected from excessive levels as far as reasonably practical. The control of noise and vibration will generally be achieved through the use of BPM. The noise and vibration assessment assumes the use of best practice with respect to management of construction activity.

8.2.3. It is likely that contractors will be required to apply for prior consent(s) under Section 61 of the COPA. The application for prior consent will set out all the steps that will be taken to control construction noise and vibration. As part of this process, details, including arrangements for baseline and compliance monitoring, will be discussed in advance with SBC environmental health department and dialogue will be maintained throughout the construction programme as necessary.

8.2.4. In establishing criteria, controls and working methods the contractors will be required to address the guidance in the Approved Code of Practice BS 5228.

Working Hours

8.2.5. Limiting the hours of working can be an important mechanism for controlling construction noise where the works are carried out in the vicinity of sensitive receptors. Given that much of the construction work will take place on undeveloped land and some significant distance from noise sensitive receptors, it is considered there is no need to adopt blanket restrictions on



working hours. However, where works are located close to noise sensitive receptors it is suggested that the following working hours shall be adopted:

07:00-19:00 hrs Monday to Friday;

07:00-13:00 Saturday; and

No work Saturday after 13:00, Sundays or public holidays (except by prior agreement with SBC).

8.2.6. However, there might be a requirement that some work affecting the existing railway will need to be undertaken during possessions. These are periods when the line is closed to normal rail traffic to allow work to be undertaken. Possessions may involve works during the night, as well as during weekends and bank holidays. Where materials are delivered by rail the timing of these will have to fit within available freight paths which may include night-time or weekend working.

8.2.7. Network Rail may require that 24 hour working where this is vital to the safe operation of the railway.

8.2.8. Working hours at other locations will be considered on a case by case basis. All other working hours will be agreed in advance with SBC environmental health department as part of the Section 61 process. Start up and shut down periods will normally be implemented at either end of the working period for ancillary operations such as deliveries and maintenance.

8.2.9. The contractor will be required to keep within the agreed working hours. However, it must be recognised that it will be necessary to carry out works outside the normal working hours in order to carry out works on operational railways to ensure safe working and operating conditions. The contractor may also seek a relaxation to the working hours in order to carry out quieter works, which are not expected to cause noise disturbance.

Quiet Working Practices

8.2.10. As part of the implementation of BPM the following measures will be adopted where appropriate:

Selection of low noise plant and working methods;

Proper maintenance of plant and equipment;

Avoidance of percussive piling as far as possible in areas sensitive to noise;

Use of quieter demolition techniques;

Turning off plant and vehicle engines when not in use;

Use of screening and enclosure of plant wherever practicable; and

Strategic use of hoardings, screens and barrier options around the worksite compound.



8.2.11. Detailed mitigation measures for night-time works will be discussed with the SBC authority as the detailed design and the construction arrangements are refined. On this basis, the significant construction noise effects that have been identified will be mitigated as far as it is reasonable practicable. For the purposes of the ES, however, all predicted construction effects are deemed residual at this stage.

Construction Vibration

8.2.12. Some of the existing buildings located close to the proposed construction sites may contain vibration sensitive equipment. Before construction works commence all such equipment will be identified and tolerance limits determined. The CEMP will require contractors to define adequate safeguards and implement necessary protection measures, including specification of tolerance limits, to ensure that adverse effects from construction vibration will be avoided.

8.2.13. As a result of widespread consultation to date no such facilities have been identified.

8.2.14. There is a low probability that occupants of buildings in proximity to the piling works may be exposed to levels of vibration that could give rise to adverse comment. It may be possible to mitigate construction vibration further through the use of continuous flight auger piling (CFA) and alternative casing techniques, as specified in the constructability report. All vibration control methods will be agreed with SBC, in advance of the works, as part of the process to obtain prior consent under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

8.3. Operation

Incorporated Mitigation

Principles

8.3.1. Noise mitigation is proposed where it is necessary to ameliorate the adverse noise effects of new or altered works to the railway, including where there is a step change in the intensity of use of existing lines which would not have occurred otherwise than as a result of the Scheme, and where:

There is a high concentration of properties potentially affected by a significant increase in railway noise;

There is a relatively high absolute level of railway noise;

There is a relatively high contribution of railway noise to the ambient noise environment; and

The presence of planned rail works for which mitigation is considered a rational addition to the planned works.



Noise Mitigation

8.3.2. Daytime and night-time significant noise effects have been predicted at one dwelling in Park Farm.

8.3.3. Network Rail is seeking to acquire the land at Park Farm and the residential dwelling would not be retained.

Environmental Mitigation Bunds

8.3.4. The proposed landscaping scheme includes earthwork bunds that create a ‘false cutting around sections of track and new road that are either on embankment or level. The location of these bunds can be seen in Volume 4, Figures 19.1 to 19.5.

8.3.5. Earthwork bunds have the following advantages over other types of noise barriers:

Multipurpose, provides noise & ecology benefits;

Natural appearance;

Maintains an open space environment;

Low maintenance;

Unlimited life span; and

In time, assimilate into the landscape.

8.3.6. The proposed landscaping scheme will enhance the performance of earthworks by screening shallow cuttings, rail embankments and proposed highway embankments, reducing the noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors.

8.3.7. At the same time it will provide a benefit in terms of noise by reducing levels in open countryside areas where a specific reduction of noise is not required.

8.3.8. The bunding has not been considered in the operational noise assessment, therefore noise impacts may be further reduced that those predicted in section 7.

8.4. Residual Effects

8.4.1. No residual noise effects are predicted at any properties. Therefore it is considered that the Scheme would not give rise to any significant residual noise effects.

8.4.2. No residual vibration effects are predicted at any properties. Therefore it is considered that the Scheme would not give rise to any significant residual vibration effects.

8.4.3. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified as part of this assessment, residual construction noise effects are negligible for daytime activities.



8.4.4. Significant residual effects may occur as a result of night-time works. Mitigation measures outlined in this report will be implemented to minimise effects as far as practicable.



9. CONCLUSIONS

9.1.1. Construction activities related to the Scheme are not expected to result in significant noise and vibration effects during the daytime.

9.1.2. Significant residual effects may occur as a result of night-time works other than those detailed in section 7.2.28 and 7.2.29 being required. Mitigation techniques to minimise effects as far as practicable would be selected and agreed with SBC through the Section 61 consent procedure.

9.1.3. Significant off-site noise effects as a result of changes in traffic noise levels due to construction activities are not likely to occur.

9.1.4. The control of construction noise and vibration will generally be achieved through the use of BPM. The noise and vibration assessment assumes the use of best practice with respect to management of construction activity.

9.1.5. Increases in noise levels due to the operational Scheme have resulted in one dwelling being significantly affected with an increase in noise between 3 and 5 dBA Leq,t . However Network Rail is expected to acquire the land and the residential dwelling would not be retained. For all other sensitive receptors, the Scheme would result in no significant change in noise or vibration.

9.1.6. The highway realignment would bring the B5026 closer to one sensitive receptor. The predicted increase in noise levels is less than 1 dB LA10,t and no significant effects are likely.



APPENDIX 1 Bibliography



British Standard 5228-1:2009, Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites.

British Standard 5228-2:2009, Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites.

British Standard 6472-1:2008, Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources other than blasting

British Standard 7445-1:1991, Description and measurement of environmental noise. Guide to quantities and procedures

Defra (2010), Noise Policy Statement for England

Department of Transport (1995), Calculation of Railway Noise

Department of Transport and the Welsh Office (1998), Calculation of Road Traffic Noise

Department of Transport (2011), Transport Analysis Guidance WEBTAG

The Highways Agency (2011), Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

DLC (2012), National Planning Policy Framework

HMSO (1974) Control of Pollution Act

HMSO (1990), Environmental Protection Act 1990

The Noise insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations (1996) (as Amended)

ODPM (2005), Planning Policy Statement PPS1

ODPM (2004), PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control

ODPM (1994) Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise



APPENDIX 2 Glossary



A

Airborne noise For the purposes of this report, airborne noise is defined as that mainly generated by the train and the interaction of the wheel and the railhead. The route of sound propagation is through the air

Ambient noise Totally encompassing sound in a given situation over a given time period, measured as an Equivalent Continuous Sound Level

B

Ballast Stone material which forms the trackbed of a railway line.

Baseline

Information which represents the environmental conditions immediately prior to the implementation of any Scheme. Environmental effects or benefits are assessed by measuring how much the baseline conditions would change.

C

Cantilevered A projecting structure, for example a walkway that is supported at only one end.

Chord A line which joins two points.

CRN Calculation of Railway Noise (1995). Published by DfT. ISBN: 0 11 551754 5

D

dB(A) Human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. The A-weighting therefore attenuates low frequencies, which are less readily detectable by humans and, to a lesser extent, high frequencies (i.e. > 4kHz) which also require progressively higher sound levels for detection by the human hearing system as the frequency is raised

L

LAeq Equivalent Continuous Sound Level. The LAeq, T is the notional steady sound which, at a given position and over a defined period of time, T, has the same A-weighted acoustic energy as the actual fluctuating sound

LAmax The A-weighted rms maximum noise level for a single event

Lw Sound Power of a specific source referenced to a specific level

R

Radiated noise Mainly generated by the excitation of and subsequent radiation via structural elements (viaducts and other supporting structures). The route of sound propagation is through the air

Residual noise The measured ambient noise level excluding all train passbys

S

SEL Sound Exposure Level. The level at a reception point which, if maintained constant for a period of 1 second, would cause the same A-weighted sound energy to be received as is actually received from a given noise event

Structure For the purposes of this report, structure radiated noise is defined as that

T

Train One or more rail vehicles which are coupled together to form a single operating unit



APPENDIX 3 Abbreviation List



A

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AOD Above Ordnance Datum

C

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

COPA Control of Pollution Act

CRN Calculation of Railway Noise

CRTN Calculation or Road Traffic Noise

D

DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

E

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EHO Environmental Health Officer

EHP Environmental Health Practitioner

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPA Environmental Protection Act

N

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

NIRR Noise Insulation Regulations

NPSE National Planning Statement for England

P

PPV Peak Particle Velocity

S

SBC Stafford Borough Council

V

VDV Vibration Dose Value



APPENDIX 4 Noise Modelling Assumptions



NOISE MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS

Operational Rolling Assumptions

The baseline and future operational noise assessment for the surface section of the railway has been based on the following assumptions:



Table D.1 - Baseline Timetable

2012 - 2016 Timetable, Trains per hour (Tph)

Up Fast Line Down Fast Line Up Slow (Crewe to Birmingham

Down Slow Line (Birmingham to Crewe)

Up Slow (Stone to Birmingham

Down Slow (Birmingham to Stone)

5 passenger 5 passenger 3 passenger 3 passenger 2 passenger 2 passenger

0 freight 0 freight 3 intermodal, 2 bulk 3 intermodal, 2 bulk 1 bulk train p/d 1 bulk train p/d

Total trains= 30 per hour (20 passenger and 10 freight)

Table D.2 - Future Year Timetable

Future year Timetable, (Tph)

Up Fast Line Down Fast Line Up Slow (Crewe to Birmingham

Down Slow Line (Birmingham to Crewe)

Up Slow (Stone to Birmingham

Down Slow (Birmingham to Stone)

7 passenger 7 passenger 3 passenger 3 passenger 3 passenger 3 passenger

0 freight 0 freight 4 intermodal 2 bulk 4 intermodal 2 bulk 1 bulk train p/d 1 bulk train p/d

Total trains= 38 per hour (26 passenger and 12 freight)



Operating hours of passenger trains between 06:00 – 24:00 hrs, with no peak times.

Service formations represent a worst case, i.e. the maximum service that could operate during the operating hours (06:00 – 24:00 hrs).

Freight trains operate 24 hrs. Although no increase in night-time freight services will occur due to the Scheme, an increase of 2 freight trains per hour has been assumed to present a reasonable worst case scenario.

The number of night-time freight trains has been based on the ‘planned busiest day’ presenting a worst case scenario.

Train speeds as shown in the speed profiles have been used to predict the amount of noise generated.

Concrete bridges have been assumed for the whole Scheme.

For the new and replacement track, the following has been assumed:

Continuously Welded Rail (CWR) ballasted track

For existing track, the plain line track form is assumed to be CWR throughout with some sections of jointed track.

Prediction Methods – Operational Railway Noise

Railway operational noise has been calculated using the CadnaA model which implements Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN). A digital elevation of the modelling area has been constructed from:

Ordnance Survey base maps;

Digital terrain model supplied by NwR;

Digital track alignment drawings;

Track and bridge information; and

Field Observations.

Corrections for Different Track and Track Support Structures

CRN states that certain corrections should be applied for different track and track supporting structures.

A 1dB correction was applied to all parts of the railway on concrete viaduct, in accordance with CRN.

For existing track, corrections were applied to the sections of track and structures as applicable.

Noise Contours

Noise modelling has been carried out to predict the effect of the Scheme. Volume 4 includes noise contours for the following scenarios:



Existing railway noise (without Scheme),

Predicted railway noise with the Scheme without mitigation,

Noise change with/without the Scheme during the day; and,

Noise change with/without the Scheme during the night.

The Area of Interest

The area of interest in the predicted noise contours identifies the footprint which meets the relevant effect criteria, i.e. areas of land where absolute noise levels are over 55 dB LAeq

(16hr day) or 45 dB LAeq (8hr night).

The area of interest in the noise change contours identifies the footprint which meets the relevant effect criteria i.e. a 3dB noise increase due to the Scheme.

Buildings with a significant noise effect have been highlighted in yellow.

Limitations

CRN addresses conventional rolling noise and traction noise from trains on ground level track, viaducts, bridges and stations. Structure radiated noise from viaducts and bridges is calculated using simple approximations. The method does not deal with wheel squeal, PA and fixed noise sources.

Wheel squeal is generated by trains when traversing tight curves. The proposed alignment of the track for the scheme does not include tight curves and the likelihood of wheel squeal is very low. As part of the Scheme no new PA systems and fixed noise sources are to be installed.



Construction noise modelling

Assessment Noise Criteria

Construction site noise levels have been assessed using the principles set out in BS5228. The presumption has been made that: the contractor will adopt best practicable means and comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 with particular reference to Part III, the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Table D.3 - Criteria for Assessing the Occurrence of Noise Effects during Construction

Assessment category and

threshold value Assessment period (LAeq)

Threshold value, in decibels (dBA)

Category A A)

Category B B)

Category C)

Night-time (23:00 – 07:00) 45 50 55

Evening and Weekends D) 55 60 65

Daytime (07:00 -19:00) and Saturdays (07:00 – 13:00) 65 70 75

Note 1: A significant effect has been deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level, including construction, exceeds the threshold level for the Category appropriate to the ambient noise level.

Note 2: If the ambient noise level exceeds the threshold values given in the table (i.e. the ambient noise level is higher than the above values), then a significant effect is deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to construction activity.

Note 3: Applied to residential receptors only.

A) Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are less than these values

B) Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are the same as category A values

C) Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are higher than category A values

D)19:00 – 23:00 weekdays, 13:00 – 23:00 Saturdays and 07:00 – 23:00 Sundays.

The noise levels presented in Table D.3 are not intended to be used as a limit for noise emission from construction activities but rather as a guide to determine the significance or otherwise of the noise effects during the different constructions phases.

Assumed Plant Items at Each Worksite

The Programme

At this stage there is no detailed design information about how the Scheme will be built, only a high level generic construction methodology exists which has been utilised as the primary source of information, upon which the assessment detailed in this report has been carried out.

It has been assumed that all work that may affect sensitive receptors will be carried out during the daytime; as such, noise effects have been assessed against daytime significance criteria.



Plant Inventories

As stated above, the construction methodology is currently high level in nature therefore certain assumptions have been made in terms of plant to be used to carry out the work. These plant assumptions have been formed from our extensive experience on other previous similar projects.

Contractors may vary in their approach; however, they will need to adhere to the CEMP and BPM.

Plant sound power levels (LWA) have been referenced from BS5228.

See Tables D.4 – D.18 below for a complete list of plant items and sound power levels.



Table D.4 Plant Typical of Haul Road Activities

Plant Typical of Haul Road Construction Activities

Activity Plant Number required % on time No. Of Days 5228 reference Lw SPL Lmax

Excavation 14t tracked excavator_1 1 50 50 C4.17 71

14t tracked excavator_2 1 75 50 C4.17 71

Pneumatic breaker 1 25 50 C5.6 95

Muck Away Lorries 1 40 Muck kept on site

Articulated dump truck 2 50 50 C4.1 81

C&ST (small tools) 1 20 50 Previous project 110

Finishing & landscaping

Delivery vehicles 1 40 30 C8.19 105

Blacktop plant rollers 1 40 30 F.1 108


Dozer 1 40 30 C2.1 75



Table D.5 - Plant Typical of Underbridge Construction Activities

Plant Typical of Underbridge Construction Activities/Per Underbridge


Piling Rig 1 80 20 C3.22 80

Tracked excavator 1 80 30 C4.17 99 71

Lorry 1 5 117 C2.34 108 80

Table D.6 - Plant Typical of Rail Overbridge Construction Activities

Plant Typical of Rail Overbridge Construction Activities/Per Overbridge


Structure Piling rig 1 80 20 C3.22 80

Muck away lorry 1 40 10 C234 108 80

Large lorry concrete mixer 1 20 22 C4.21 77

Tracked excavator 1 30 5 C4.17 113

Breaker 1 40 5 C5.6 95

Concrete Pump 1 80 2 C3.25 78

Mobile Crane 1 30 5 C4.38 77

Poker Vibrator 1 30 22 C4.34 69



Table D.7 - Plant Typical of Footbridge Construction Activities

Plant Typical of Footbridge Construction Activities/Per Footbridge


Piling Rig 1 80 15 C3.22 80

Welding equipment 1 25 - C3.31 73

Mobile Crane 1 50 2 C3.28 67

Excavators 1 50 10 C4.17 113 71

Generators 1 100 70 C3.32 73

Table D.8 Plant Typical of Earthworks (Excavation) Activities

Plant Typical of Earthworks (Excavation) Activities


Tracked excavator loading dump truck

3 80 258 C1.10 77


Dozer 3 50 50 C2.10 80



Table D.9 - Plant Typical of Earthwork (Fill) Activities

Plant Typical of Earthwork (Fill) Activities


Hydraulic vibratory compactor

3 80 258 C2.42 78

Articulated dump truck 3 45 Inc. above for excavation

C1.10 85

Dozer 2 50 258 C2.10 75

Tracked excavator 2 45 100 C4.17 99 71

Table D.10 - Plant Typical of Setting up Drainage

Plant Typical of setting up Drainage




Trench Rollers 2 50 193 Previous project 90.2

Tractor and Trailers 1 30 193 C4.75 79

Table D.11 - Plant Typical of Stripping Topsoil

Plant Typical of Stripping Topsoil


15T Excavators 4 50 75 C2.5 76

25T Articulated Dumptrucks

4 50 75 C1.10 85



Table D.12 - Plant Typical of Preparing Formation

Plant Typical of preparing Formation


Dozer (from bulk) 1 50 50 C2.1 75

15T Excavator (from topsoil/drainage)

1 50 50 C2.5 76

Grader 1 60 500 C6.31 86

Vibratory roller 1 60 50 C2.40 74

Table D.13 - Plant Typical of Topsoil and Seed Activities

Plant Typical of Topsoil and Seed Activities


Dozer 3 80 72 C2.1 75

Table D.14 Plant Typical of Setting up Permanent Way (P/Way)

Plant Typical of setting up P/Way


Lorry 1 5 471 C2.34 108 80

Excavators 1 45 471 C4.17 99 71

hand tools 1 45 471 C3.35 65

Wagon 1 75 29 C8.18

Wagon 1 75 5 C8.18



mobile crane 1 50 50 C4.46 67

Table D.15 Plant Typical of Setting up OLE

Plant Typical of setting up OLE


Mini piling rig 1 50 40 C3.17

Concrete bases - excavator

1 50 80 C2.5 76

Concrete mixer 1 50 60 C4.20 108

Erect structures - mobile crane

1 50 161 C4.46 67

Table D.16 Plant Typical of Setting up Temporary Drainage

Plant Typical of setting up Temporary Drainage




1 75 60 C1.10 85

Trench Rollers 2 60 60 Previous project 90.2

Hi-Ab Tractor and Trailers 1 30 60 C4.75 79

Table D.17 Plant Typical of Setting up Signalling

Plant Typical of setting up Signalling




Laying and fixing Cables C&ST 1 25 71 Previous project 110

Install LOC Bases/walkways/signal poles

Tracked excavator 1 1 25 50 C4.17 71

Mobile crane 1 25 50 C4.39 77

signal bases Tracked excavator 2 1 25 14 C4.17 71

Concrete mixer 1 25 14 C4.20 108

Table D.18 Plant Typical of Highway Works

Plant Typical of Highway Works


strip topsoil 15T Excavators 4 50 75 C2.5 76


4 50 75 C1.10 85

Excavation 14t tracked excavator_1 1 50 50 C4.17 71


Pneumatic breaker 1 25 50 C5.6 95

Muck Away Lorries 1 40 Muck kept on site


C&ST (small tools) 1 20 50 Previous project 110

prepare formation Dozer (from bulk) 1 50 50 C2.1 75

15T Excavator (from topsoil/drainage)

1 50 50 C2.5 76



Grader 1 60 500 C6.31 86

Vibratory roller 1 60 50 C2.40 74

Finishing & landscaping Delivery vehicles 1 40 30 C8.19 105

Blacktop plant rollers 1 40 30 F.1 108


Dozer 1 40 30 C2.1 75

London Office: Tempus Wharf 33A Bermondsey Wall West London SE16 4TQ T: 0207 394 3700 F: 0207 394 7871

E: [email protected] W: www.templegroup.co.uk

mailto:[email protected]

The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area Improvements) Order · The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area...

Documents

Transcript of The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area Improvements) Order · The Network Rail (Norton Bridge Area...