Noise and Vibration

Main Proof of Evidence

Andrew Monk-Steel

CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 1 of 29

Reference Document: CEN/P7.1/NOI The Midland Metro (Birmingham City Centre Extension Land Acquisition and Variation) Order Andrew David Monk-Steel CEng MSc BEng(Hons) MIOA MImechE Mott MacDonald Noise and Vibration Main Proof of Evidence on behalf of the Applicant October 2014

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 2 of 29

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2

1. Introduction 3

2. Outline of evidence 5

3. Relevant Legislation, Standards and Guidelines 7

4. Construction 8

5. Operation 11

6. Statement of Matters 17

7. Response to Particular Issues Raised by Objectors 19

8. Summary and Conclusions 21

References 23

Abbreviations 24

Appendix A Legislation, Standards and Guidelines 25

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 3 of 29

1. Introduction

Qualifications and Experience

1.1 I am Andrew David Monk-Steel, a Principal Acoustic Engineer with Mott

MacDonald.

1.2 Mott MacDonald is a major multi-disciplinary infrastructure consultancy with a

strong international and domestic record in helping to deliver complex

transport schemes including Light Rapid Transit (LRT) schemes.

1.3 My academic qualifications include a BEng (Hons) in Mechanical Engineering

(Design) from the University of Huddersfield and an MSc in Automotive

Dynamics, Noise and Vibration from the University of Southampton; whilst my

professional qualifications are that I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member

of the Institute of Acoustics and a Member of the Institution of Mechanical

Engineers.

1.4 I have 15 years’ experience in the measurement, analysis and assessment of

noise and vibration in research and development for the automotive and

railway industries, and in the planning and design of civil engineering projects.

1.5 I have provided technical input at various stages of the Midland Metro

Birmingham City Centre Extension (BCCE) project beginning in 2008. This

has included:

• A review of the noise and vibration aspects associated with the BCCE

from Snow Hill to Stephenson Street;

• An assessment of the noise and vibration aspects of the Midland Metro

BCCE (Land Acquisition and Variation) Order (hereafter ‘the Order’)

included as Environmental Statement (ES) that supports the Order

(hereafter ‘the 2013 ES’) (CD13 [MMD/4.5C]);

• Planning and directing measurement surveys with regards to baseline

noise levels and external noise levels from the URBOS 3 tram vehicle;

and

• Review of the expected compliance of the BCCE within the extents of a

section of the route referred to as the Centenary Square Extension

(CSQ) with regards to Planning Conditions 10 and 11 concerning

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 4 of 29

airborne noise and ground-borne noise respectively that were attached to

the Midland Metro (BCCE, etc.) Order 2005 (CD23 [MMD/5.3]) (hereafter

‘the 2005 Order’).

1.6 In this Proof I deal specifically with noise and vibration.

Scope of Evidence

1.7 My evidence covers the noise and vibration aspects of the Order.

Declaration of truth

1.8 I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in this Proof of Evidence are within

my own knowledge, I have made clear which they are and I believe them to

be true. In my professional opinion, I believe that this Proof of Evidence

represents an unbiased and true assessment of the noise and vibration

aspects of the scheme.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 5 of 29

2. Outline of evidence

Overview

2.1 My evidence concerns the noise and vibration aspects of the Order and will

address the following:

• A summary of relevant legislation, standards and guidelines which

have informed the basis of the methodology of the assessment;

• A summary of the predicted temporary construction noise and vibration

impacts and effects;

• A summary of the permanent operational noise and vibration impacts

and effects associated with running trams. This includes airborne noise

and ground-borne noise and vibration from tram vehicle operation;

• Comments relating to noise and vibration as received in the Statement

of Case from objectors to the scheme (OP/SOC1/OBJ9,

OP/SOC2.1/OBJ11 and OP/SOC3/OBJ13); and

• Conclusions.

2.2 I will refer to stages in the design and planning of the BCCE described as

follows:

• The 2005 Order which was supported by the ES submitted for the 2005

Order (hereafter ‘the 2005 ES’) (CD14 [MMD/4.5D]); and

• The Order and the 2013 ES (CD13 [MMD/4.5C])

2.3 In my evidence I will refer to the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) for the

Order (CD13 [MMD/4.5D]) and the Midland Metro Extensions Noise and

Vibration Policy November 2003 (1) (hereafter ‘the Noise and Vibration

Policy’).

2.4 I have reviewed the sections of the 2005 ES concerning the assessment of

noise and vibration during the construction and operation of the BCCE under

the 2005 Order. I believe that the assessment within the 2005 ES was

adequate and sufficiently robust to provide an appropriate and robust basis for

present purposes ie in considering impacts expected under the 2005 Order.

2.5 I have reviewed the Statement of Case submitted by each of the three

objectors to the Order. One objector, HRB Hotel Company Limited (OBJ/9),

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 6 of 29

raises the issue of construction noise affecting guests and their enjoyment of

the hotel (Para 3.1). I address this in Section 7 below. There are no

references to noise and vibration within the Statements submitted by the other

two objectors (OBJ/11 and OBJ/13).

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 7 of 29

3. Relevant Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

3.1 Within Appendix 1 of my Proof, I set out various pieces of relevant legislation,

standards and guidelines, and explain in each case their relevance to the

consideration of the Order. The following are included:

• The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (2);

• The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (3);

• National Planning Policy Framework (CD34 [MMD/9.1]);

• The Noise Policy Statement for England (4);

• British Standard (BS) 5228 Code of practice for noise and

vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise

(5);

• BS 5228 'Code of construction practice for noise and vibration

control on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration' (6);

• World Health Organisation’s (WHO) ‘Guidelines for Community

Noise’ (7);

• Support to UKTram Activity 4 ‘Operational Noise and Vibration’

Phase 2 Reports (8)

• Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN) (9);

• BS 6472 ‘Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in

Buildings Part 1: Vibration Sources other than Blasting’ (10); and

• BS 6472 ‘Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings

(1 Hz to 80 Hz)’ (11).

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 8 of 29

4. Construction

Overview

4.1 Measures for the control of noise and vibration during construction works are

set out within the CoCP for the Order.

4.2 The normal working hours for are set out in the CoCP (Para 4.1.2) as

• Monday to Friday 07:00 to 19:00

• Saturdays 07:00 to 13:00

4.3 Work outside these hours is only to be undertaken with the written approval of

Birmingham City Council except in the case of equipment that operates

continuously (e.g. generators) providing adequate measures are in place to

minimise the noise impacts (CoCP Para 4.1.4).

4.4 The CoCP makes a commitment that any piling work, if required, proposed in

close proximity to residential properties or hotels would be undertaken with

prior consent under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (CoCP

Para 4.2.2). This also requires prior agreement with Birmingham City Council.

4.5 Furthermore, the CoCP presents limits on the levels of noise (CoCP Para

4.3.1 and 4.3.2) and vibration (CoCP Para 5.1.4) arising during construction.

Noise

4.6 Noise arising during the construction works for the Order was assessed

qualitatively within the 2013 ES. The assessment was made with reference to

the construction noise assessment for the 2005 Order presented in the 2005

ES, and by comparison of the details of the construction strategies for the

Order and 2005 Order.

4.7 The differences between the scenarios with regards to construction noise

were identified as follows:

• The tramway is planned to pass over Suffolk Street Queensway in both

the Order and the 2005 Order. Under the 2005 Order, the tramway is

planned to pass over Suffolk Street Queensway using a new bridge

and requires the movement of retaining walls adjacent to Alpha Tower.

Under the Order, the tramway would use the existing bridge which

would require strengthening. Consequently, the construction activities

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 9 of 29

required under the Order for using the existing bridge are expected to

be smaller in scale and shorter in duration when compared with those

expected to be required under the 2005 Order;

• Less extensive temporary traffic diversions are expected under the

Order due to the smaller scale and duration of works when compared

to those expected under the 2005 Order as described above; and

• Fewer heavy vehicle movements are expected to be required under the

Order for the removal of spoil and delivery of concrete when compared

to those expected under the 2005 Order.

4.8 In other parts of the CSQ scheme extents, there are no specific reasons for

the scale, duration and methodology of the construction works to differ

between the Order and 2005 Order. The construction noise impacts predicted

and assessed within the 2005 ES are considered to be adequately

representative of those to be undertaken for the 2005 Order and for the Order

other than under the Order where there will be differences in the method of

crossing Suffolk Street Queensway.

4.9 Therefore, it is concluded that, overall, the noise impacts arising from

construction activities under the Order are expected to be less extensive and

shorter in duration compared with those expected under the 2005 Order.

Vibration

4.10 The 2013 ES made reference to vibration arising from construction within the

qualitative assessment of the differences between construction impacts under

the Order and the 2005 Order (Para 9.5.6). As with noise from construction

activity, the main differences due to construction vibration are expected to be

with regard to how the tramway is carried over Suffolk Street Queensway.

Works to construct a new bridge under the 2005 Order were likely to require

the formation of foundations for bridge abutments by piling. Consequently, the

vibration impacts expected to arise under that scenario were likely to be

greater than those expected to arise under the latest Order in the area of the

Suffolk Street Queensway Bridge, as a new bridge is not required.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 10 of 29

4.11 As stated above, in other parts of the CSQ scheme extents, there are no

specific reasons for the scale, duration and methodology of the construction

works to differ between the Order and 2005 Order. The construction vibration

impacts predicted within the 2005 ES are considered representative of both

scenarios.

4.12 The CoCP includes requirements to limit the exposure of buildings to vibration

for the protection of residents and users from disturbance, and for the

protection of the building from physical damage (Para 5.1.4).

4.13 For the protection of building occupants from disturbance, the works should

generate vibration, expressed in terms of Vibration Dose Value (VDV), that is

expected to result in a no more than a ‘low probability of adverse comment’

(CoCP Para 5.1.3) when assessed in accordance with BS 6472:2008 (10).

4.14 For the protection of buildings from physical damage, vibration from the works

should not exceed a Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 5 mm/s (CoCP Para

5.1.4). A more stringent limit of 3 mm/s is applied in the case particularly

sensitive buildings.

4.15 Vibration generated as a result of piling activities has the greatest potential to

induce perceptible vibration in buildings. If percussive or driven piling methods

are found to be required then these will be undertaken with prior agreement

between the works contractor and Birmingham City Council through the

Section 61 process (CoCP Para 4.2.2). This will include the agreement on the

appropriate limits on the permissible levels of vibration and a monitoring

scheme.

4.16 It is concluded that, in general, vibration impacts expected to arise during

construction will not differ between the Order and the 2005 Order except

where the tramway would have been carried over Suffolk Street Queensway.

Greater vibration impacts were to be expected under the 2005 Order due to

piling for the construction of the new bridge. The works will be undertaken in

accordance the requirements of the CoCP and a Section 61 agreement with

Birmingham City Council, both of which will place controls on vibration from

construction.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 11 of 29

5. Operation

Overview

5.1 The Noise and Vibration Policy sets out Centro’s commitments with regards to

the control of operational noise and vibration of extensions to the Midland

Metro system. It describes criteria for the airborne noise impacts on residential

properties due to the operation of trams in terms of the Noise Insulation

Regulations (12), and the consideration of mitigation for airborne noise

impacts on noise sensitive receptors defined as “all types of dwellings,

schools, libraries, hospitals, and places of worship” (Para 5). The Noise and

Vibration Policy states that track-forms adjacent to sensitive receptor buildings

will be designed to keep vibration within given criteria.

5.2 Planning Condition 10 attached to the 2005 Order applies to the BCCE and

CSQ and concerns airborne noise from trams and requires that the extensions

are designed and operated in accordance with the Noise and Vibration Policy.

It is expected that a similar planning condition would be attached to consent

granted for the Order.

5.3 Planning Condition 11 attached to the 2005 Order applies to the BCCE and

CSQ and concerns ground-borne noise from trams and gives requirements for

ground-borne noise due to the running of trams affecting noise sensitive

rooms in residential and office buildings. It is expected that a similar planning

condition would be attached to consent granted for the Order.

Noise

5.4 Airborne noise from a moving tram vehicle is mainly due to rolling noise which

arises as the wheels and track radiate noise in response to the forces at the

wheel/rail contact. Noise from the traction unit and auxiliary equipment (motor

cooling equipment and air conditioning units) also contribute to the level of

noise experienced as the tram passes by (pass-by noise). A tram may also

generate noise due to audible alarms on opening and closing doors, and

horns.

5.5 It is conventional to assess the environmental effects associated with the

airborne noise of a tramway using the CRN methodology. This was applied

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 12 of 29

within the 2013 ES to compare the airborne noise from the tramway under the

Order and 2005 Order during the peak hour and also during the night.

5.6 The CRN methodology was implemented using DataKustik GmBH CadnaA

acoustic modelling software (13) in order to calculate noise levels at

sensitive receptors adjacent to the extents of the Order alignment. This was

repeated with the 2005 Order in order to quantify the difference in peak hour

noise (LAeq,1h dB) levels at sensitive receptor positions. The results are

summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of calculated operational noise level – peak hour

Receptor Tram noise only

Peak hour LAeq,1 hour dB

Dif

fere

nce

Total ambient

LAeq dB

Dif

fere

nce

2005 Order Order dB Baseline 2005 Order

Order dB

Town Hall 58.4 57.8 -0.6 63 64.3 64.1 -0.2

Paradise Street 54.6 52.4 -2.2 65 65.4 65.2 -0.2

Paradise Circus/Queensway

54.8 58.5 +3.7 65 65.3 65.9 0.6

Paradise Circus/Forum

43.5 39.4 -4.1 63 63.0 63.0 0.0

Paradise Circus/Chamberlain House

43.8 45 +1.2 66 66.0 66.0 0.0

Hall of Memory 51.0 51.1 +0.1 58 58.8 58.8 0.0

Symphony Hall 26.8 30.7 +3.9 58 58.0 58.0 0.0

Canal and towpath

<15 <15 0 67 67.0 67.0 0.0

5.7 The results indicated that differences in receptor levels of between -4.1 dB

(noise level lower under the Order) and +3.9 dB (noise level higher under the

Order).

5.8 The airborne noise levels were also combined with the baseline noise levels

to calculate the ambient noise levels with the contribution of airborne noise

from the tramway. The difference between the calculated ambient noise levels

under the Order and 2005 Order alignments were then compared to

determine the airborne noise impact of the Order. The differences in ambient

levels are given in the far right column of Table 1.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 13 of 29

5.9 This was carried out with reference baseline noise levels for the daytime and

for the night-time although the hourly noise level for the maximum hourly

movements was used in both cases in order to consider a worst case. The

results are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of calculated operational noise level – night time

Receptor Tram noise only

Peak hour LAeq,1 hour dB

Dif

fere

nce

Total ambient

LAeq dB

Dif

fere

nce

2005 Order Order dB Baseline 2005 Order

Order dB

Town Hall 58.4 57.8 -0.6 60 62.3 62.0 -0.3

Paradise Street 54.6 52.4 -2.2 64 64.5 64.3 -0.2

Paradise Circus/Queensway

54.8 58.5 +3.7 65 65.4 65.9 +0.5

Paradise Circus/Forum

43.5 39.4 -4.1 58 58.2 58.1 -0.1

Paradise Circus/Chamberlain House

43.8 45 +1.2 65 65.0 65.0 0.0

Hall of Memory 51.0 51.1 +0.1 58 58.8 58.8 0.0

Symphony Hall 26.8 30.7 +3.9 58 58.0 58.0 0.0

Canal and towpath

<15 <15 0 59 59.0 59.0 0.0

5.10 The differences between ambient levels were found to be less than 1 dB in all

cases, both day and night. Based on the scales assigning magnitude of

impact given in the 2013 ES, this indicates that the difference in ambient noise

levels between that under the Order and 2005 Order alignments is not

expected to be significant.

Vibration

5.11 The ES presents an assessment of vibration from operational trams under the

Order. It was based on a characteristic that describes the level of vibration

due to the daytime operation (given in terms of both VDVday m/s1.75 and PPV)

as it decays as a function of distance from the nearest running rail of an

operating tramway. The characteristic was obtained from the 2005 ES, where

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 14 of 29

it is noted that it was derived from measurements made adjacent to the

Manchester Metrolink system. It is an empirical approach to providing an

indication of the potential vibration impacts for comparison with the criteria

given in the Noise and Vibration Policy. It was considered within the 2005 ES

to be “reasonably pessimistic” (Para 1.4.4) as the track-form of the measured

system was not considered to have particularly high performance in mitigating

ground-borne vibration.

5.12 The criteria for vibration from the operation of the tramway given in the Noise

and Vibration Policy are taken from BS 6472 ‘Evaluation of human

exposure to vibration (1 Hz to 80 Hz)’ (11) corresponding with a ‘low

probability of adverse comment as follows:

• Day (0700-2300 hours) 0.4 m/s1.75; and

• Night (2300-0700 hours) 0.13 m/s1.75.

5.13 The criteria and the tram vibration characteristic have both been derived

under the conventions of the 1992 version of the standard (revised in 2008).

Furthermore, the Noise and Vibration Policy was not revised to account for the

revision of BS 6472. Compliance with the Noise and Vibration Policy is

required under the current Planning Conditions. Therefore, the comparison of

predicted values of VDV with the criteria as given in the Noise and Vibration

Policy is made for consistency.

5.14 The assessment within the ES uses the tram vibration characteristic to

estimate VDVday at the closest point of sensitive receptors adjacent to the

section of the Order alignment where the horizontal position of the track differs

to that of the 2005 Order.

5.15 The three sensitive receptors considered are all within the Paradise Circus

Development as indicated at outline planning stage as a hotel, Plot F and

Plot G within Paradise Circus Birmingham Parameter Plans (14).

5.16 The assessment indicates that the estimated vibration VDVday due to tram

operation is expected to be higher at the three sensitive receptors under the

Order alignment due to the closer proximity of the track. However, the

estimated VDVday values under the Order alignment are in the range 0.09 to

0.152 m/s1.75, which is well below the daytime criterion of 0.4 m/s1.75 given in

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 15 of 29

the Noise and Vibration Policy. On this basis, it is concluded that the daytime

vibration levels due to the Order alignment are expected to indicate no more

than a low probability of adverse comment.

5.17 The PPV characteristic indicates that level of vibration at the shortest

minimum distance between the nearest rail and the receptors (7 metres) is

given as 0.84 mm/s. Although primarily concerned with vibration from

construction, BS 5228 Part 2 Table B.1 shows that vibration with a PPV of

0.3 mm/s might be just perceptible in residential environments. Therefore, the

expected level of vibration from the tramway may be perceptible. This was

also concluded within the 2005 ES.

5.18 Ground-borne noise may arise where vibration generated by the movement of

tram vehicles is transmitted via the ground into buildings. Consequently, the

building elements such as the walls and floors can respond by radiating noise

at frequencies that are audible. Discontinuities in the rail running surfaces, as

found in conventional switch and crossing designs, also generate louder,

transient noise events due to the impacts when wheels come into contact with

the rail. This can be noticeable.

5.19 Ground-borne noise is often more easily perceived in the case of underground

railways where the contribution from sources of airborne noise does not reach

the receiver. For surface railways, the contribution of airborne noise is

normally the dominant type of noise impact affecting sensitive receptors

adjacent to the track. However, where the propagation of airborne noise has

been effectively reduced (e.g. by the sound reduction performance of the

façade) then the contribution of the ground-borne noise is more noticeable.

This can occur in urban environments where high levels of outdoor ambient

noise require the specification of acoustic glazing.

5.20 The 2005 ES indicated that receptors including the Town Hall and Symphony

Hall are expected to be particularly sensitive to ground-borne noise and

vibration associated with trams (Para 1.4.9) and that further studies may be

required to inform the design of the track-forms in these areas. This will be

carried out at detail design stage. Planning Condition 11 attached to the 2005

Order provides criteria for ground-borne noise affecting noise sensitive rooms

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 16 of 29

in residential buildings and offices (CD23 [MMD/5.3]). Similar criteria are

expected to be required by way of Planning Condition if consent for the Order

is given.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 17 of 29

6. Statement of Matters

6.1 The Secretary of State for Transport’s Statement of Matters (X2) for the Order

includes the following matters in relation to noise and vibration:

• “The likely environmental impacts of the constructing and operating

revised tramway alignment, including:…noise and vibration…” (Clause

5);

• “The measures proposed by the Executive to mitigate any adverse

impacts of the proposals in the TWA Order, including any measures to

avoid, reduce or remedy any major significant adverse impacts of the

proposals; and whether any adverse environmental impacts would

remain after the proposed mitigation.” (Clause 6); and

• “The adequacy of the Environmental Statement submitted with the

TWA Order, having regard to the requirements of the Transport and

Works (Applications and Objections Procedure)(England and Wales)

Rules 2006, and whether the statutory procedural requirements have

been complied with.” (Clause 7).

6.2 With reference to Clause 5, this is considered within Sections 4 and 5 of my

Proof.

6.3 With reference to Clause 6, the proposed measures are as follows:

• Construction noise and vibration – These are described in the CoCP

and include:

o a general duty to apply best practicable means of control (Para

4.2.1);

o specific normal hours of working (Para 4.1.2);

o shutdown periods (Para 4.1.3);

o commitment to consult the local authority and, if piling activities

are to be undertaken, formally agree specific measures under

Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act (Para 4.2.2); and

o Liaison with sensitive receptors (Para 4.3.2) and prior

notification to the occupiers of affected buildings (Para 4.2.5)

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 18 of 29

o A requirement to comply with given limits on noise (Para 4.3.1

and 4.3.2) and vibration (Para 5.1.4).

• Operational noise and vibration – These are outlined within the Noise

and Vibration Policy and include:

o commitment to offer insulation to residential properties that

qualify for consideration under the Noise Insulation Regulations

(Para 4);

o commitment to consider supplementary mitigation where tram

noise levels exceed thresholds of LAeq 0700-2300 55 dB and LAeq

2300-0700 45 dB, and where the thresholds are exceeded by at

least 3 dB ambient levels measures will be implemented where

ambient levels are expected increase such that they exceed

pre-existing ambient levels by more than 3 dB (Para 5);

o commitment to design track-forms so that vibration levels within

sensitive receptors do not exceed criteria taken from

BS 6472:1992 (Para 6); and

o commitment to monitor and maintain the system (Para 7).

6.4 With reference to Clause 7, I have considered the adequacy of the Order ES

and 2005 ES against which the potential noise and vibration impacts are

compared. I consider that it is adequate and the statutory procedural

requirements have been complied with.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 19 of 29

7. Response to Particular Issues Raised by Objectors

Effect of Construction Noise on the Hotel (Obj. 09)

7.1 The Statement of Case submitted by Irwin Mitchell on behalf of HRB Hotel

Company Limited (3), states that “The construction works may also give rise

to additional noise having an impact raises on the guests of the hotel and their

enjoyment of the hotel” (Para 3.1).

7.2 Construction noise impacts affecting the hotel at Broad Street/Bridge Street

were originally assessed within the 2005 ES. The assessment predicted a

worst-case noise level during enabling works of 86 dB LAeq, exceeding the

daytime criterion of 75 dB LAeq by more than 10 dB (Table 7.6). The

significance of this unmitigated impact was classed as ‘Severe’ but with

mitigation the residual impacts were assessed as ‘Moderate’. Enabling works

were expected to include road-breaking and earthworks. Consequently, it was

recommended that use of quieter plant and equipment and the use of

temporary noise barriers. It was recommended that with regard to night works

“consideration be given to undertaking quieter operations only” (Para 7.4.7).

7.3 The 2013 ES compared the construction activities expected under the 2005

Order with those expected under the Order and made a qualitative

assessment of the corresponding differences in noise impacts. It was

concluded that there were no significant differences in predicted impacts

generally between those set out in the 2005 ES and those expected under the

Order, and no specific differences to the impacts predicted by the 2005 ES in

the area of the hotel.

7.4 Construction noise is inherently variable in nature such that the worst-case

condition is only expected to arise for short periods when all plant are

operating simultaneously and at the closest point from the scheme extents to

a given receptor. Noise levels would generally be lower for the majority of the

construction period.

7.5 It is expected that construction activities will be managed to minimise noise

impacts arising from the works affecting the hotel and other sensitive

receptors. The CoCP makes specific provision for work in the vicinity of

residential properties by including the requirement for a start-up period during

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 20 of 29

the first hour of normal working hours Monday to Saturday and a shutdown

period during the last hour of the normal working hours Monday to Friday

(CoCP Para 4.1.3).

7.6 During the start-up and shutdown periods, “there shall be no disturbing

construction-related noise audible beyond the site boundary” (CoCP Para

4.1.3).

7.7 It is concluded that the application of the CoCP makes adequate provisions to

ensure that noise impacts arising from the works will be controlled so that

adverse effects, including those associated with the hotel, are kept to a

minimum. The careful phasing of activities will be required so that noisier

activities are carried out at less sensitive times of day. Measures such as

temporary noise barriers should be used where possible. Prior notice of noisy

stages of work should be given to the hotel to allow arrangements to be made

such as the appropriate allocation of rooms to more sensitive guests.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 21 of 29

8. Summary and Conclusions

8.1 My Proof has covered technical aspect of noise and vibration impacts and

effects associated with the construction and operation of the Order.

8.2 My evidence has presented the following:

• Relevant legislation, standards and guidelines which have informed

the basis and methodology of the assessment;

• A summary of the potential construction noise and vibration impacts

with reference to how these are expected to differ from those expected

under the 2005 Order, and the measures to be put in place to minimise

the impacts and adverse effects at receptors adjacent to the scheme

extents;

• A summary of the potential operational noise and vibration impacts;

• A review of the Statement of Matters which have been addressed; and

• A response a point regarding construction noise described in the

Statement of Case submitted by one of the three objectors to the

Order.

8.3 My overall conclusion is that:

• In general, noise and vibration impacts during construction under the

Order will be the same as those expected under the 2005 Order

except where the alignment crosses Suffolk Street Queensway. In this

area, the noise and vibration impacts under the Order due to the works

and due to temporary traffic diversions are expected to be less

extensive and shorter in duration than under the 2005 Order. The

residual impacts are expected to be moderate in the worst case and

will be managed through the implementation of the CoCP and by prior

consent by way of a Section 61 agreement with Birmingham City

Council; and

• Noise and vibration impacts during operation under the Order are not

expected to exceed the same criteria applied in the assessment of the

2005 Order. Receptors adjacent to the section of the Order alignment

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 22 of 29

that is closer than that of the 2005 Order alignment are expected to be

exposed to higher levels of airborne noise and ground-borne vibration.

However, the levels of noise and vibration will not exceed the criteria

required by the Noise and Vibration Policy. Operational noise and

vibration will be monitored and managed as required by the Noise and

Vibration Policy.

8.4 In my Proof I have addressed the Secretary of State for Transport’s Statement

of Matters.

8.5 I have reviewed the Statement of Case received from each of the three

objectors. One of objectors makes reference to noise regarding noise impacts

during construction and how it is expected to affect guest of the Hyatt

Regency Hotel and their enjoyment of the hotel. I have addressed this and

concluded that the careful management noise-emitting activities will be

required to minimise adverse effects. The CoCP makes adequate provision to

ensure measures are applied to keep noise impacts to a minimum.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 23 of 29

References

1. Environmental Resources Management, 2003. Proof of Evidence Stephen

Mitchell C9P, Appendix 1 – The Midland Metro Extensions Noise and Vibration

Policy.

2. HMSO, 1974. Control of Pollution Act – Part III Noise.

3. HMSO, 1990. Environmental Protection Act.

4. 5. BSi, 2014. BS 5228 Code of construction practice for noise and

vibration control on construction and open sites –- Part 1: Noise (2009 Amendment

A1 2014).

6. BSi, 2009. BS 5228 Code of construction practice for noise and vibration

control on construction and open sites –- Part 2: Vibration.

7. World Health Organization, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise.

8. UK Tram Ltd 2007 Support to UK Tram Activity 4 Operational Noise and

Vibration Phase 2 Reports.

9. Department of Transport, 1995. Calculation of Railway Noise.

10. BSi, 2008. BS 6472 Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in

Buildings Part 1: Vibration Sources other than Blasting.

11. BSi, 1992. BS 6472 Evaluation of human exposure to vibration (1 Hz to 80

Hz).

12. HMSO, 1975. Noise Insulation Regulations.

13. DataKustik GmbH CadnaA.

14. Argent, 2012. Paradise Circus Birmingham, Outline Planning Application.

Parameter Plans Document – July 2012.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 24 of 29

Abbreviations

BCCE Birmingham City Centre Extension

BS British Standard

CoCP Code of Construction Practice

CRN Calculation of Railway Noise

CSQ Centenary Square Extension

dB Decibel

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

ES Environmental Statement

LAeq A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level in decibels

LAmax A-weighted maximum sound pressure level in decibels

LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level

LRT Light Rapid Transit

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

NPSE Noise Policy Statement for England

PPV Peak Particle Velocity

SOAEL Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level

VDV Vibration Dose Value

WHO World Health Organization

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 25 of 29

Appendix A Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

I set out below a summary of the relevant legislation, standards and guidelines, and

explain in each case their relevance to the consideration of the Order

National Legislation and Policy

A.1 Local authorities have other statutory controls on noise and vibration: Sections

60 and 61 of The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (8) concern impacts relating

to construction sites; and The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (9) which

places a duty on local authorities to serve abatement notices where noise

from premises, vehicles and machinery are judged to constitute a statutory

nuisance. Activities undertaken in implementing the Order will be expected to

comply with these controls, although the requirements fall outside the

planning system.

A.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (CD34 [MMD/9.1]) came

into force in March 2012. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF (Page 25) states that:

“the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local

environment by: … preventing both new and existing development from

contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely

affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land

instability".

A.3 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF (Page 29) states that: “planning policy 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

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 26 of 29

not have unreasonable restrictions placed 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”.

A.4 Within the NPPF, a footnote to the first two bullet points above refers the

reader to the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) (4). The NPSE

was issued by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(DEFRA) in 2010. Its purpose is to promote “good health and a good quality

of life through the effective management of noise within the context of

Government policy on sustainable development”. The three main aims are

to:

• avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from

environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of

Government policy on sustainable development (Para.2.23)

• mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from

environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of

Government policy on sustainable development (Para. 2.24); and

• where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of

life through the effective management and control of environmental,

neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government

policy on sustainable development (Para. 2.25).”

A.5 NPSE identifies that “Unlike many other pollutants, noise pollution depends

not just on the physical aspects of the sound itself, but also the human

reaction to it” (Para. 2.9).

A.6 The NPSE introduces the concept of Significant Observed Adverse Effect

Level (SOAEL) as being “the level above which significant adverse effects

on health and quality of life occur” and states (Para. 2.22): “It is not possible

to have a single objective noise-based measure that defines SOAEL that is

applicable to all sources of noise in all situations. Consequently, the SOAEL

is likely to be different for different noise sources, for different receptors and

at different times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 27 of 29

increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant adverse

impact on health and quality of life from noise. However, not having specific

SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the necessary policy flexibility until

further evidence and suitable guidance is available.”

A.7 NPSE also states (Para. 2.24): “The second aim of the NPSE refers to the

situation where the impact lies somewhere between LOAEL [Lowest

Observed Adverse Effect level] and SOAEL. It requires that all reasonable

steps should be taken to mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health

and quality of life while also taking into account the guiding principles of

sustainable development (paragraph 1.8). This does not mean that such

adverse effects cannot occur.”

A.8 Paragraph 1.8 states: “The vision and aims of NPSE should be interpreted

by having regard to the set of shared UK principles that underpin the

Government’s sustainable development strategy.”

A.9 The Guiding principles of sustainable development are given as:

• “Ensuring a Strong Healthy and Just Society – Meeting the diverse

needs of all people in existing and future communities, promoting

personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating equal

opportunity for all.

• Using Sound Science Responsibly – Ensuring policy is developed and

implemented on the basis of strong scientific evidence, whilst taking into

account scientific uncertainty (through the precautionary principle) as

well as public attitudes and values.

• Living Within Environmental Limits – Respecting the limits of the

planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity – to improve our

environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are

unimpaired and remain so for future generations.

• Achieving a Sustainable Economy – Building a strong, stable and

sustainable economy which provides prosperity and opportunities for all,

and in which environmental and social costs fall on those who impose

them (polluter pays), and efficient resource use is incentivised.

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 28 of 29

• Promoting Good Governance – Actively promoting effective,

participative systems of governance in all levels of society – engaging

people’s creativity, energy and diversity.”

A.10 The assessment of noise and vibration impacts has used widely adopted

criteria and methodologies appropriate for application to projects of this

nature. A precautionary approach has been taken in the prediction of impacts,

e.g. airborne noise impacts based on peak hour tram movements at all times

of the day and the characteristic used in the prediction of ground-borne

vibration.

Standards and Guidelines

A.11 British Standard (BS) 5228 Code of practice for noise and vibration

control on construction and open sites – Part 1: Noise (5) provides a

methodology for predicting noise levels generated by fixed and mobile plant

used for a range of typical construction operations. The standard includes a

database of equivalent continuous noise levels (LAeq dB) at a reference

distance of 10m from the source and a simple noise propagation model that

can be used to make allowances for effects such as source-receiver

distances, ground properties and utilisation time.

A.12 BS 5228 'Code of construction practice for noise and vibration control

on construction and open sites – Part 2: Vibration' (6) provides guidance

on the effect of vibration and the likelihood it will cause complaint and

cosmetic damage to buildings.

A.13 The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) ‘Guidelines for Community

Noise’ (7) are intended to guide the long-term management of community

noise to help meet the WHO’s core objective of “the attainment by all peoples

of the highest possible levels of health”. They set out various recommended

noise guide values for specific activities. These values represent the onset of

specific effects such as annoyance or sleep disturbance and in this Proof are

used to put tram pass-by noise into context. For night time noise, WHO gives

an annual average level and also recommends that for single events, “For a

good sleep, it is believed that indoor sound pressure levels should not exceed

Noise and Vibration

Ref: CEN/P7.1/NOI

Page 29 of 29

approximately 45 dB LAmax more than 10-15 times per night.” Allowing for a

15 dB reduction through an open window gives an external level of 60 dB

LAmax 10-15 times per night. However, WHO also states: “It is estimated that

80 – 90% of the reported cases of sleep disturbance in noisy environments

are for reasons other than noise originating outdoors. For example, sanitary

needs; indoor noises from other occupants; worries; illness; and climate.”

A.14 UK Tram Limited issued technical guidance notes for a range of tramway

topics including operational noise and vibration given in the Support to

UKTram Activity 4 ‘Operational Noise and Vibration’ Phase 2 Reports (8).

This draws on current best practice and appropriate national and international

standards and guidelines relevant to tramways.

A.15 The methodology used for the prediction of noise from railways, including

tramways, is given in the Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN) (9). This has

been used to calculate airborne noise from the operation of the tramway.

A.16 BS 6472 ‘Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in

Buildings Part 1: Vibration Sources other than Blasting’ (10) presents a

methodology for predicting the response of human in buildings to vibration. It

is referenced within the CoCP (Para 5.1.3) giving criteria to be met by the

Contractor in carrying out works to avoid no more than a ‘low probability of

adverse comment’ from residents and users of buildings.

A.17 BS 6472 ‘Evaluation of human exposure to vibration (1 Hz to 80 Hz)’ (11)

is the previous, withdrawn version of (10). It forms the basis of the criteria for

the assessment of operational ground-borne vibration from running trams

given in the Noise and Vibration Policy. It was current at the time the Noise

and Vibration Policy was drawn up.