Leeds Trolleybus
Public Enquiry
Day 45
Tuesday 9th September 2014
(Updated blog 11 Sept 2014)
This was a rather shortened day since the witness who was
scheduled for the later sections of the day was unavailable.
The audio recordings of the two morning sessions are linked
here and commentary follows below.
In the first morning session of
Day 45 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Tues 9th Sept 2014 Mr
Max Forni Principal Acoustic Engineer, Mott Macdonald, is cross examined
firstly by Mr Walton for the Applicant, NGT and then by Gregory Jones QC for
First West Yorkshire on the noise impacts of the development or running of the
proposed NGT trolleybus system.
In the late morning session of
Day 45 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Tues 9th Sept 2014
Gregory Jones QC for First West Yorkshire completes his cross examination of Mr
Max Forni Principal Acoustic Engineer, Mott Macdonald, on the noise impacts of
the development and running of the proposed NGT trolleybus system. He is followed by Mr Ian Barraclough on behalf
of Headingley Castle and its residents, then Mr Bill McKinnon for Friends of
Woodhouse Moor, and finally Mr Walton who re-examines Mr Forni on behalf of
NGT.
The extremely brief afternoon
session is appended to the audio of the late morning session as it is so short
and merely covers ongoing programming update and no examination takes place.
There is a certain amount of
interesting discussion in today’s shortened sitting, but I think we should
acknowledge that however much evidence might have been covered, it isn’t going
to be a game changer on either side. Mr
Jones had a little fun examining the methodology which didn’t seem to take into
account the cumulative impacts of the works which would be required to take
place and this was followed by Mr Ian Barraclough for Headingley Castle.
Certainly the residents of the
Castle would be some of the people most directly affected both by the required
works and the ongoing running of the trolleybus which would pass in front of
the residence once every three minutes.
It may be the case that tree planting ‘mitigation’ would eventually
reduce that effect, but there would still be the side road which of course
would have to be left free, and it could be that the new short densely planted
trees would make it more difficult to see the oncoming trolleybus than the
existing tall trees through the gaps in the trunks of which it is possible to
see a greater distance.
I recall going on the motorway in
the summer break and noticing that mitigating tree planting had been put in
place to help shield views of the motorway as well as buffer emissions. But one thing I realised, since I rarely
travel on motorways, was that the views were monotonous and claustrophobic and
that there were almost no longer views through to the further landscape. More a matter for environmental impact than
noise impact, but the loss of the magnificent mature tall trees between the
Castle and the Telephone Exchange would be a most upsetting experience for the
residents.
The more I look at the
issue, the more I am concerned that views of standard trees with gaps through them, such
as here or on the Otley Road in, say Far Headingley and West Park, which allow
views through and beyond them would be changed in character if the close
replanting which is proposed took place, as the claustrophobic ‘corridor’
effect which I experienced on the motorway would be what eventually grows in.
I can’t help feeling that it is
just one more of the endless series of impacts which have not been properly
assessed. A silent trolleybus ~ ‘Silent
Death’ as Mr McKinnon later reminded us they used to be called ~ could emerge out of the thick wall of
undergrowth and be a danger to both pedestrians and vehicles crossing the
trolleybus track. The fact that both
visually impaired and hard of hearing people go to special centres behind
Headingley Castle was raised, and the dangers to them from very quiet buses
mentioned by Mr Barraclough. It is an accepted fact that trolleybuses have a higher pedestrian death rate than normal buses.
The subject of habituation to the
disruption which might be experienced by residents was covered and Mr Jones in
his cross examination pointed out that how people feel about the source of the
noise or ongoing disruption is a major determiner of how they might acclimatise
or not to it. For instance, if you hear
roadworks near where you live, but you understand that they are fixing a
pothole filled road surface that you know needs resurfacing, one is unlikely to
feel a great deal of annoyance, or not for very long; whereas if something such
as the trolleybus is unwelcome and the works for it are destroying your
accustomed mature environment, then the sense of intrusion is likely to
continue for a much longer time, and indeed even outlive the works themselves,
since the material results would be permanent.
Especially if you are a resident in the sheltered housing near Monument
Moor whose pleasant views of Woodhouse Moor would be left permanently marred
after having to put up with the highly disruptive and destructive building of a
trolleybus track along the south side of Woodhouse Lane: residents who, due to conservation planning
constraints are not able to have the protection of double glazing to reduce
noise, as is also the case at Headingley Castle.
The safety of the silent or extremely
quiet nature of trolleybuses was raised. It is of course true that they can be fitted with an acoustic warning signal, but there would be a noise nuisance if it were to be used in same place
repeatedly, and locations such as Woodhouse Moor
and Whitfields are examples of where this might occur. The residents of the Whitfields would have their lives perpetually disrupted by both the passage of the trolleybus every three minutes as well as the unavoidable klaxon or bell that would be needed for safety warning. I can't recall if other locations were mentioned, but so called 'shared spaces' such as Millenium Square in front of the Civic Museum and in front of the University Parkinson steps would also be subject to this mixture of danger to pedestrians accompanied by frequent intrusive noise.
The Promoter’s position on all
this is that the fine detail cannot be fully predicted at the present time and
that all due care would be taken, but as with so many questions around the
development of the scheme we surely cannot be expected to take it all on trust,
but really need to have it properly detailed in advance.
One has to trust that the
Inspector is noting all the shortcomings in the planning of NGT but when you
hear the way that he questions some of the witnesses one does have a certain
amount of reassurance. Mr Forni was not
made as uncomfortable as some witnesses, but he was rather prone to speaking
very quietly, which was unhelpful. Not mumbling like Mr Chadwick, but just so
that one had to pay rather close attention to properly hear what he said. However he was by no means the worst witness
for NGT. If you want to hear a
contender for that honour I would suggest that you skip ahead to tomorrow’s
recordings and listen to Mr Kevin Leather general environmental specialist
responsible for production of the Environmental. Statement (ES). The fact that his cross examination will
probably run to at least three times the length of that undergone by Mr Forni
is indicative of the much greater importance in the greater scheme of the
Environmental Statement. I will leave
you to judge the Inspector’s tone with Mr Leather, but one of my co-objectors
commented that he, the witness, would have probably gone home and had a stiff
gin after being roasted over the coals for the whole day in the manner that he
was.
No comments:
Post a Comment