DIRFT III Environmental Statement - Planning Inspectorate · PDF fileor being adversely affected by unacceptable ... Two key policies are: 1. The Government recognises that the

DIRFT III Environmental Statement Chapter J Noise & Vibration February 2013 AECOM Enterprise House, 160 Croydon Road, Beckenham, BR3 4DE Tel: 0870 905 0906 www.aecom.com

3203145v2 Chapter J - Noise & Vibration P2

DIRFT III : Environmental Statement (2013)

3203145v2 Chapter J - Noise & Vibration

Contents

J1.0 Introduction 1

J2.0 Policy Context 2 National Policy 2 Regional Policy 3 Local Policy 4

J3.0 Assessment Methodology & Significance Criteria 6 Perception of Noise 6 Assessment Methodology 7 Significance Criteria - Operation 10 Significance Criteria - Construction 15 Construction Vibration 17 Consultation 18

J4.0 Baseline Conditions 19 Noise 19 Vibration 21 Discussion of Baseline Conditions 22

J5.0 Potential Impacts 24 Introduction 24 Impacts during Construction 25 Impacts after Completion 29

J6.0 Mitigation Measures 37 Introduction 37 Impacts during Construction 37 Impacts after Completion 40

J7.0 Residual Effects 43 Impacts during Construction 43 Impacts after Completion 43

J8.0 Summary & Conclusions 44

J9.0 Abbreviations 45

J10.0 References 47



J1.0 Introduction

J1.1 This chapter addresses the noise and vibration issues associated with the proposed DIRFT III development. The assessment is comprised of the following elements:

1. existing noise and vibration baseline conditions;

2. the likely significant impacts of the development on existing noise and vibration sensitive premises in the vicinity of the development site due to: - construction activities - changes in rail traffic flows - changes in road traffic flows - on-site operational activities and fixed plant; and,

3. where appropriate, mitigation measures are recommended.

J1.2 At present, and for the foreseeable future, the background noise sources near the proposed DIRFT III development originate from road traffic on the nearby ‘A’ roads, the M1 motorway and rail traffic on nearby railway lines.

J1.3 The only significant sources of vibration in the vicinity of the development are trains on the nearby railway lines.



J2.0 Policy Context

National Policy

J2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework1 was published on 27 March 2012 and replaced the previous Planning Policy Statements (PPS) including Planning Policy Guidance 24 Planning and Noise2 (PPG 24). The National Planning Policy Framework advises that:

“Paragraph 109: 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;”

“Paragraph 123: 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.”

J2.2 Previous National Policy guidance in England on Planning and Noise is presented in PPG 24 and was the main guidance on noise and vibration for the production of development plans. Whilst withdrawn, it is still considered by both Daventry District and Rugby Borough Councils to contain technical advice relevant to this assessment.

J2.3 PPG 24 outlined the considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise sensitive developments and for land uses which will generate noise; it introduced the concept of noise exposure categories for residential development, encouraged their use and recommended appropriate levels for exposure to different sources of noise; and, advised on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise.

J2.4 PPG 24 considered the relationship between the planning system and industry and commerce with the objective of minimising noise and vibration impacts without providing unreasonable burdens on business and development. In regard to this development, its main concern is avoiding the juxtaposition of new noise and vibration sensitive land uses near to existing sources of high levels of noise and vibration, without incorporating adequate mitigation into the new noise and vibration sensitive land uses such that acceptable acoustic conditions are



achieved; and, that the continued operation of sources of high levels of noise and vibration are not unduly prejudiced.

J2.5 Also of relevance is the Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE)3. This document sets out a strategic vision for the management of noise issues. Two key policies are:

1. The Government recognises that the effective management of noise requires a co-ordinated and long term approach that encompasses many aspects of modern society (Policy 1.2).

2. The aim of this document is to provide clarity regarding current policies and practices to enable noise management decisions to be made within the wider context, at the most appropriate level, in a cost-effective manner and in a timely fashion (Policy 1.3).

Regional Policy

J2.6 Due to the location of the development, noise and vibration planning policy at a regional level is provided in the Regional Strategies for both the West Midlands and East Midlands produced by the Government Office for the West Midlands and East Midlands respectively. The coalition Government signalled its intention to abolish the regional tier of planning and economic development, with the implication that Regional Spatial Strategies will be revoked. Once revoked, and in the absence of this policy tier, the guiding principles will revert to the local policy context.

J2.7 The relevant West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy policies are QE3: Creating a high quality built environment for all, QE4: Greenery, Urban Greenspace and Public Spaces and QE6: The conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Region’s landscape.

J2.8 In relation to noise, Policy QE3 states:

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

J2.9 Policy QE4 covers a range of issues, including:

“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….”.

J2.10 Policy QE6 includes:

“considering other factors that contribute to landscape character including tranquillity and the minimisation of noise and light pollution”.

J2.11 The relevant East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy policies are objectives 2 and 6 from Policy 1, Regional Core Objectives:

“Development Plans, Local Development Frameworks, Local Transport Plans and Economic Development Strategies will seek:



2. to protect and where possible enhance the quality of the environment in urban and rural areas so as to make them safe and attractive places to live and work;

6. to achieve effective protection of the environment by avoiding significant harm and securing adequate mitigation where appropriate, and to promote the conservation, enhancement, sensitive use and management of the region's natural and cultural assets.”

Local Policy

J2.12 Whilst noise isn’t specifically mentioned in the Daventry Local Plan (1997) there are two items in retained Policy GN1 which are relevant:

J2.13 The granting of planning permission for development will be guided by the need to

1. - safeguard the natural resources of the district

2. - protect and enhance the environment

J2.14 Two policies are relevant from the Rugby Borough Development Plan (Adopted Local Plan - July 2006 - Written Statement - Chapter 4) Policy GP3 – Protection of amenity and Policy GP11 – Pollution control.

J2.15 Policy GP3 states:

“Planning permission will not be granted for development if there would be an unacceptable adverse impact on amenity in an area, including the amenities of persons occupying other premises, or the development itself, in terms of:

1. Overlooking, or

2. Loss of privacy, or

3. Loss of sunlight/daylight, or

4. Disturbance from traffic, or

5. Excessive illumination, or

6. Noise and dust, or

7. Fumes and smells.”

J2.16 Policy GP11 states:

“Planning permission will be granted where it is demonstrated through an appropriate assessment, taking full account of previous and proposed uses, that the proposal would not result in material harm in relation to:

1. Surface or ground water, particularly potable sources,

2. Air quality,

3. Soil conditions,



Or result in unacceptable levels of noise, light or air pollution.

It may be necessary to prevent developments with the potential to pollute, separate them from other land uses liable to be affected, or require mitigation measures sufficient to satisfactorily reduce, or avoid the risk of harm.”



J3.0 Assessment Methodology & Significance

Criteria

Perception of Noise

J3.1 Between the quietest audible sound and the loudest tolerable sound there is a million to one ratio in sound pressure (measured in pascals, Pa). Because of this wide range a noise level scale based on logarithms is used in noise measurement called the decibel (dB) scale. Audibility of sound covers a range of approximately 0 to 140 dB.

J3.2 The human auditory system does not respond uniformly to sound across the detectable frequency range and consequently instrumentation used to measure noise is weighted to represent the performance of the ear. This is known as the 'A weighting' and annotated as dB(A).

J3.3 Table J3.1 lists the sound pressure level in dB(A) for common situations.

Table J 3.1 Noise Levels for Common Situations

Typical Noise Level, dB(A) Example

0 Threshold of hearing

30 Rural area at night, still air

40 Public library, Refrigerator humming at 2m

50 Quiet office, no machinery, Boiling kettle at 0.5m

60 Normal conversation

70 Telephone ringing at 2m, Vacuum cleaner at 3m

80 General factory noise level

90 Heavy goods vehicle from pavement, Powered lawnmower, operator’s ear

All values are A-weighted sound pressure levels in dB re 2 x 10-5 Pa

J3.4 The noise level at a measurement point is rarely steady, even in rural areas, and varies over a range dependent upon the effects of local noise sources. Close to a busy motorway, the noise level may vary over a range of 5 dB(A), whereas in a suburban area this range may increase by up to 40 dB(A) or more due to the multitude of noise sources in such areas (cars, dogs, aircraft etc.) and their variable occurrence. Furthermore, night-time noise levels are significantly reduced, by approximately 10 dB(A), compared to daytime levels. For considering environmental noise, it is necessary to consider how to quantify the existing noise (the ambient noise) to account for these transient variations.



J3.5 The noise index LA90,T is widely used for assessing background noise level. This describes the noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period, T, and generally reflects the noise level in the lulls between individual noise events. Over a one hour measurement, the LA90,1h will be the noise level exceeded for a total of 54 minutes during that period.

J3.6 The total noise or ambient noise at a location during a specific period is usually measured using the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level, LAeq, (as recommended by BS 74454). This is the single number that represents the sound energy measured over a given time period, T. LAeq,T is the sound level of a notionally steady sound having the same energy as a fluctuating sound over a specified measurement period, T. It is commonly used to express the energy level from individual sources that vary in level over an operational cycle.

J3.7 The LAmax,FAST,T measurement parameter is the maximum instantaneous sound pressure level attained during the measurement period T, measured on the ‘FAST’ response setting of the sound level meter. It is generally used to assess the likelihood of night-time sleep disturbance.

J3.8 In the UK the noise index traditionally used to assess the impacts of road traffic noise is the LA10,18h. This is the arithmetic average of the 18 one hour noise indices LA10,1h, i.e. the arithmetic average of the noise level exceeded for 10% of each hourly period from 06:00 to midnight. This noise index has been shown to provide a reasonable correlation with resident’s disturbance from road traffic noise experienced in the homes.

J3.9 Human subjects, under laboratory conditions, are generally capable of noticing changes in steady levels of about 1dB(A) or more. It is generally accepted that a change of 10 dB(A) in an overall, steady noise level is perceived to the human ear as a doubling (or halving) of the noise level. (These findings do not necessarily apply to transient, non-steady or intermittent noise sources).

Assessment Methodology

J3.10 Background noise surveys have been undertaken to provide input to comparison with predicted future noise levels to assess the likelihood of change and impact. The baseline noise and vibration survey comprised continuous long term and short term (attended) measurements in the area surrounding the proposed DIRFT III development. Attendance at a sample of the monitoring locations enabled record of noise sources influencing the measurements to be noted.

J3.11 A noise model has been developed in the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) software of the proposed DIRFT III development and surrounding road and railway network to predict road, rail and container



freight handling activity noise during the operating phase at noise sensitive receptors.

J3.12 The Cadna-A software employs methodologies found within CRTN to calculate road traffic noise, CRN to calculate railway noise and ISO 9613-2:1996 ‘Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors -- Part 2: General method of calculation’ for the calculation of propagation of noise from industrial sources such as container handling equipment. ISO 9613-2: 1996 calculates the attenuation of sound over distance, taking into consideration factors for ground conditions, screening and reflection.

J3.13 One order of reflection has been included within the calculations to account for significant reflections and all building facades, such as the buildings within the proposed development, have been set as acoustically reflective. Ground absorption in the model has been set to 50%, an equal mixture of sound absorbing and non-sound absorbing ground cover.

J3.14 A vibration baseline survey was also undertaken to provide an indication of the existing levels of groundbourne vibration from the railway lines in the vicinity of the DIRFT site and so assist in the assessment of any potential changes to vibration levels due to the additional train movements from DIRFT III.

J3.15 The noise and vibration assessment includes impacts from the construction of the development.

Baseline Noise Survey

Measurement Parameters

J3.16 Measurements were undertaken during the survey using a fully calibrated Norsonic 140 sound level meter (SLM) (s/n 1402919), a fully calibrated B&K 2238 SLM (s/n 2106914), and two fully calibrated Rion NL-32 SLM’s (s/n 00840884 and 00840885). Each SLM is subject to a valid UKAS accredited calibration certificate. Field calibration was undertaken using a B&K 4231 (s/n 2385082) portable calibrator.

J3.17 Measurement practice was undertaken in accordance with the principles of the relevant British and International Standards.

J3.18 A-weighted noise indices were recorded: the equivalent continuous noise index, LAeq,T, statistical noise indices used to assess noise from road traffic, LA10,T, and background noise, LA90,T. The sound level meters were set to the ‘FAST’ time response.



Monitoring Locations

J3.19 Noise monitoring equipment was set up at a height of approximately 1.5m above ground level at each measurement location. A list of the measurement locations used is provided by Table J3.2 and shown at Appendix J1. These were chosen to provide an indication of noise levels at representative locations around the proposed development. Continuous long term measurements were conducted at sensitive receivers closer to the proposed development, while short term measurements were generally undertaken at locations further afield.

Table J 3.2 Noise Monitoring Locations

Position Location Measurement Type

A 41 Hillmorton Lane, Lilbourne Attended

B 45 Rugby Road, Clifton upon Dunsmore Attended

C 54 Crick Road, Rugby Attended

D Ibis Hotel, Northampton (next to A428) Attended

E A428, Crick (next to 24 Fallowfields) Attended

F High Street, Yelvertoft (next to 1 Hillmorton Lane) Attended

G A5, Kilsby (north end of Watling Street) Attended

H Yelvertoft bridleway (location indicative of Crick Lodge) Attended

1 A5 (close to Station B and C entrance) Continuous

2 Hillmorton Locks, Rugby Continuous

3 Normandy Hill Farm, Hillmorton Continuous

4 North-west of Station C (North-west site boundary) Continuous

5 Nortoft Farm, Kilsby Continuous

6 Lilbourne (edge of field between Hillmorton Lane and M1)

Continuous

Assessment Guidance

J3.20 Methods and sources of guidance used to assess the noise and vibration impact of the development have included:

• PPG 24 Planning and Noise (now withdrawn) – this provided advice to local authorities on ‘how the planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens of business’;

• BS 8233:1999 – ‘Code of Practice for Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings’5;

• BS 4142:1997 – ‘Method of Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas’6;



• BS 5228:2009 – ‘Code of Practice for Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’7;

• BS 6472:2008 – ‘Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings’8;

• Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organisation (WHO) 9;

• Technical Advice Note: Assessment of Noise, Scottish Government101;

• ISO 9613: ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors’11;

• DMRB volume 11 section 3 part 7 ‘Traffic Noise and Vibration’, HA213/0812;

• Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.3.2 – The Noise Sub-Objective – DoT November 200613;

• Calculation of Road Traffic Noise – DoT 198814; and

• Calculation of Railway Noise DoT 199615.

Significance Criteria - Operation

Road Traffic Noise

J3.21 Road traffic noise impacts due to the development may arise as follows:

1 changes in traffic flow and composition on the existing road network serving and surrounding the development; and,

2 road traffic using the road network within the development.

J3.22 Noise from a flow of road traffic is generated by vehicle engines and the interaction of tyres with the road surface. The traffic noise level at a receptor, such as an observer at the roadside or residents within a property, is influenced by a number of factors including traffic flow, speed, composition (% Heavy Goods Vehicles, HGV), road gradient, type of road surface, distance from the road and the presence of any screening factors between the road and the receptor.

J3.23 Noise from a stream of traffic is not constant and therefore to assess the noise impact it is necessary to derive a single figure estimate of the overall noise level. The index adopted by the Government in ‘Calculation of Road Traffic Noise’ (CRTN 1988, first issued in 1975) to assess traffic noise is LA10,18h, which is the arithmetic mean of the noise

1 This has been referenced rather than the Draft IOA/IEMA guidelines due the age of

the IOA/IEMA document and the fact that it has never been officially adopted. The use of the Technical Advice Note is now becoming standard industry practice.



levels exceeded for 10% of the time in each of the eighteen 1-hour periods between 06:00 and 24:00. A reasonably good correlation has been shown to exist between this index and residents’ disturbance in their homes over a wide range of exposure to road traffic noise. The traffic forecast data used for the noise predictions are presented in Appendix J2. The most likely traffic forecasts have been used for the prediction of road traffic noise.

J3.24 A change in road traffic noise of 1 dB(A) in the short term (e.g. in the opening year of a scheme) is the smallest that is considered perceptible. In the long term, a 3 dB (A) change is considered the minimum perceptible. The magnitude of effect should therefore, be considered differently in the short and long term.

J3.25 The classification of magnitude of effects to be used for traffic noise as stated in DMRB HD 213/11 are shown in Table J3.3 (Short term) and Table J3.4 (Long term).

Table J 3.3 Classification of Magnitude of Noise Effects in the Short Term

Noise Change, LA10,18h Magnitude of Effect

0 No change

0.1 – 0.9 Negligible

1 – 2.9 Minor

3 – 4.9 Moderate

5+ Major

Table J 3.4 Classification of Magnitude of Noise Effects in the Long Term

Noise Change, LA10,18h Magnitude of Effect

0 No change

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible

3 – 4.9 Minor

5 – 9.9 Moderate

10+ Major

J3.26 With regard to the potential impact of noise and vibration from traffic using the road network within the development, the predicted LA10,18h noise levels have been converted to an equivalent LAeq,(07:00 to 23:00) using the procedure advised in paragraph 9 of annex 1 of PPG 24.

Rail Traffic Noise

J3.27 There is no standard annoyance response relationship for railway noise. One has been developed for the Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) methodology, although this guidance recognises that very little is known



about the combined effect of noise from different sources, as one source of noise can mask another. However, the impact can be considered by an assessment of the existing trackside noise levels and future levels with the increased number of trains due to the proposed DIRFT III development.

J3.28 Guidance on criteria to define the significance of differences in noise level change is offered by the Technical Advice Note: Assessment of Noise. This is summarised in Table J3.5.

Table J 3.5 Criteria Used to Define Magnitude of Noise Impacts

Magnitude Difference Between Existing and Predicted Noise Level

Evaluation of Effect

Severe >10dB(A) More than a subjective doubling of the noise level

Substantial 5 to <9dB(A) Perceptible to just less than subjective doubling

Moderate 3 to <5dB(A) Just perceptible.

Minor 1 to <3dB(A) Not perceptible

None <1dB Clearly not perceptible

Fixed Plant Noise

J3.29 The impact of noise of an industrial nature can be assessed using the BS 4142 ‘Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’. This standard sets down the following guidelines for assessing the likelihood of complaints based upon the difference between the measured background noise level (LA90) and the rating level of the source under consideration, as shown in Table J3.6 below:

Table J 3.6 BS 4142 Assessment Criteria

Difference between Rating Noise Level & Background Noise Level

Likelihood of Complaints

Greater than +10 dB Likely

+5 dB Marginal significance

More than 10 dB below Unlikely

J3.30 The principal terms used in BS 4142 are broadly defined as follows:-

1 Specific noise – The equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level at the assessment position produced by the specific noise source over a given reference time interval.

2 Rating level – Specific noise corrected to allow for certain distinctive acoustic features.



3 Residual noise – The ambient noise remaining at a given position in a given situation when the specific noise source is suppressed to a degree such that it does not contribute to the ambient noise.

4 Background noise – The A-weighted sound pressure level of the residual noise at the assessment position that is exceeded for 90% of a given time interval, T, measured using time weighting, F, and quoted to the nearest whole number.

J3.31 The standard states that the appropriate reference time interval for assessment of noise during the daytime and night-time is 1 hour and 5 minutes respectively.

J3.32 Background noise commonly varies throughout the day and night-time as human activity changes, such as a reduction in road traffic during the night-time. For a new fixed plant that may operate continuously on a 24-hour basis, it is appropriate to measure the reasonable minimum background noise level (which would normally occur in the early hours of the morning) at the nearest noise sensitive property and to compare this value with the predicted noise level for the new proposed development (fixed plant, including gantry cranes and train movements within the proposed project boundary). If it can be shown that the noise from the proposed development would not exceed the minimum background noise level by more than 5 dB(A) for the quietest period of the night, then it follows that the 5 dB(A) excess will be met at all other times of the day, assuming the intensity of operations between night-time and daytime remains the same. In such circumstances noise from the new development should therefore prove satisfactory at all times without being likely to cause complaints.

Vibration Survey

Measurement Locations

J3.33 Although further from the proposed development that the M1 motorway, the only existing significant source of vibration was found to originate from rail traffic on the Northampton Loop, located close to the south west boundary of the site. Railways, because of the unsprung mass of the rolling stock, exhibit greater potential for vibration effects beside the tracks than roads.

J3.34 Vibration measurements were undertaken at two locations, Position V1 on the site boundary (175 metres from the railway line) and, Position V2 which was 20m from the nearest rail. The measurement locations are presented in Appendix J1. These locations were chosen to provide an indication of the decay of vibration with distance which is significantly influenced by ground conditions.

J3.35 It should be noted that levels of vibration from road traffic on the M1 were not considered as significant in this assessment.



Measurement Parameters

J3.36 Vibration measurements of trains were carried out with a fully calibrated Rion VM-54 Tri-axial Vibration Meter, which was fitted with a PV-83CW Tri-axial Accelerometer. The measurements were undertaken in accordance with the principles of the relevant British and International Standards including BS 6472:2008.

J3.37 At Position V1, located at the site boundary of the proposed DIRFT III development, vibration levels were recorded for four train pass-bys on the WCML. The duration of each train pass by measurement was 30 seconds.

J3.38 At Position V2, 20 metres from the railway, vibration measurements were recorded for a 24-hour period from 13th to 14th May 2009.

J3.39 As required by BS6472:2008, the Y-axis vibrations have a Wd weighting and the X and Y axes vibrations a Wb weighting. This weighting system is correlated to the response of the human body by BS6472.

Vibration – Human Response

J3.40 BS 6472: 2008 ‘Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings’ provides guidance on predicting human response to vibration in buildings over the frequency range 0.5 Hz to 80 Hz. The standard uses the unit Vibration Dose Value (VDV), derived from frequency weighted vibration measurements, to estimate the probability of adverse comment from exposure to vibration in buildings. Factors including periods of exposure and the type of building.

J3.41 VDVs may be used to assess the severity of impulsive and intermittent vibration, such as experienced from rail traffic, and steady vibration such as from a busy road or fixed plant. The VDV is measured in each of the three whole body orthogonal axes and the maximum from the three axes used. Where the vibration conditions are constant or regularly repeated only one representative period need be measured (or predicted) and the 16-hour daytime (or 8-hour night-time) overall VDV level may be calculated from the shortened data.

J3.42 The VDV may then be compared to Table 1 of BS 6472, (reproduced below as Table J3.7), to identify the likely impact.



Table J 3.7 BS 6472 Assessment Criteria

Location

Low probability of adverse comment

(ms-1.75)

Adverse comment possible

(ms-1.75)

Adverse comment probable

(ms-1.75)

Residential Buildings (07:00 – 23:00)

0.2 to 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 0.8 to 1.6

Residential Buildings (23:00 – 07:00)

0.13 0.26 0.51

J3.43 For example, for VDV values between 0.4 and 0.8 ms-1.75 adverse comment is possible during the daytime, and when VDV is above 0.51 ms1.75 at night adverse comment becomes probable. For office and workshops, the suggested daytime limits above are relaxed by a factor of 2 and 4 respectively.

J3.44 BS 6472 may therefore be used to assess the likelihood of adverse comment arising at residential property exposed to new temporary or permanent vibration sources introduced into a residential area (demolition, construction, new industrial premises etc.), or for future occupiers of residential property proposed on a site subjected to existing vibration (a railway line for example).

Vibration – Building Damage

J3.45 There are currently two British Standards that offer advice on acceptable levels of vibrations in structures. BS 7385: Part 2: 1993 ‘Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings Part 2, Guide to damage levels from ground-borne vibration’ gives guidance on the levels of vibration above which the building structures could be damaged. BS 7385 classifies damage from cosmetic (formation of hairline cracks), minor (formation of large cracks) to major (damage to structural elements). Guideline values are provided for the threshold of cosmetic damage, which usually manifest in walls and ceiling lining materials.

J3.46 The level of vibration required to cause building damage is considerably greater than the level which can cause a response to occupiers of buildings (summarised in the section above). Consequently, to provide a robust and precautionary approach to assessing levels of vibration, changes in vibration levels as a result of the proposed DIRFT III development have been assessed in terms of human response.

Significance Criteria - Construction

Construction Noise

J3.47 Chapter C of this ES provides the construction parameters that have been used as the basis for an assessment of construction noise and



vibration. It is considered that sufficient information is available at this time to allow a meaningful quantitative assessment to take place.

J3.48 Construction noise is regulated by guidelines and subject to local authority control. Advice is provided by BS 5228: ‘Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ and whilst there is a 2009 version of the standard, the 1997 version has statutory status by way of section 60, part 4 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

J3.49 For projects of significant size such as the construction of a new railway or trunk road, historically, there have been two approaches to determining the significance of construction noise, depending on the site location. Noise levels, between 07:00 and19:00 hours, outside the nearest window of an occupied room closest to the site boundary should generally not exceed:

• 70 decibels (dBA) in rural, suburban and urban areas away from main road traffic and industrial noise;

• 75 decibels (dBA) in urban areas near main roads in heavy industrial areas.

J3.50 Due to the proximity of the proposed site to the M1, the A5, the West Coast Mainline, and the Northampton Loop; the area has been considered as urban so the upper daytime noise level of 75 dB(A) for construction noise is considered applicable to this assessment. Consequently, noise levels proposed in Table J3.10 have been recommended for the proposed DIRFT III development, which along with working hours have been discussed and agreed with both Daventry District Council and Rugby Borough Council.

Table J 3.8 Proposed Construction Noise Level Criteria

Assessment Period Sensitive Receptor (facade level)

Day of Week Time of Day SPL, dB LAeq,T

Monday – Fridays 07:30* – 19:00 75

Saturday 08:00* – 13:00 75

Where T = duration of period time of working day *Start times modified to correspond with Daventry DC’s requirements for large scale developments

J3.51 From the above table, for normal daytime operations (Monday to Friday) a sound pressure level threshold of 75 dB LAeq,12h (façade) is recommended between the hours of 07:30 and 19:00 hours (weekdays). Works outside these hours shall only take place in the case of pre-planned railway possession or highway works and with the prior written approval of Daventry DC or in emergency situations. Daventry DC have however, have granted working on Sundays and bank holidays (hours to be agreed) for works which do not cause noise that is audible outside the boundary of the site.



J3.52 As agreed with Daventry DC, no start up/ shut periods are permitted.

J3.53 If exceedances of criteria in Table J3.10 are anticipated to occur, the contractor should seek consent to carry out noisy work from the local authority under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Section 61 allows the contractor to apply for prior approval of the construction work with information on how noise will be minimised by ‘Best Practicable Means’, as defined by Section 72 of the Act The main benefits of such further prior approvals are that:

1. the noisiest components of the construction programme are identified in advance of works commencing and appropriate control measures are implemented before they commence; and,

2. provided the contractor complies with the prior approval, the works may be progressed with less risk of noise complaints from the public holding up the programme.

J3.54 In the event of unforeseen difficulties onsite that may necessitate a variation to the prior consent, this may be granted by the local authority with appropriate justification and a means to minimise noise provided by the contractor.

J3.55 Irrespective of whether contactors for the proposed development elect to seek optional prior approval under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act, they will monitor noise levels as required from the works following an agreed methodology with Daventry DC and Rugby BC.

Construction Vibration

J3.56 Demolition and construction generally give rise to impulsive and intermittent vibration. For monitoring onsite it is often necessary to be able to quickly compare the levels against criteria to provide an immediate evaluation of the likelihood of a potential exceedance. Under these conditions, assessment criteria based on Peak Particle Velocities (PPV) are appropriate.

J3.57 The PPV Action Levels in Table J3.9 are based upon multiples of the vertical velocity base curve from the previous (1992) version of BS 6472 and have previously been adopted for construction projects near residential and commercial property. The illustrative notes on community response are offered purely on the basis of experience of several different projects and are potentially helpful because they relate to the response of groups of people who are going about their normal daily business at home or at work.

Table J 3.9 Action Levels for Subjective Response to Vibration

PPV in mms-1 Measured at Occupied Buildings

Descriptor Illustrative Notes on Community Response when Receptors are Normally Occupied



PPV in mms-1 Measured at Occupied Buildings

Descriptor Illustrative Notes on Community Response when Receptors are Normally Occupied

up to 0.56 Not

Significant Above about 0.3 mms

-1 receptors sometimes

perceive vibration.

> 0.56 – 1.12 Slight Receptors generally perceive events above about 0.5mms

-1.

> 1.12 – 2.24 Moderate At these levels occupants of offices, homes, shops etc. Spontaneously make complaints.

> 2.24 – 4.48 Substantial Use of offices, shops, homes etc. Is disrupted by repeated events of this level of magnitude.

> 4.48 Severe

Receptors very concerned about the danger of structural damage and potential resultant hazard. Offices, shops and homes unlikely to remain occupied when repeatedly subject to vibration above this level.

J3.58 The above action levels are simplified in Table J3.10 and recommended for the proposed DIRFT III development.

Table J 3.10 Guideline Vibration Limits for Occupied Buildings

Type of Building Peak Particle Velocity (mms-1) – Day (07:00

to 23:00)

Peak Particle Velocity (mms-1) – Night (23:00

to 07:00)

Any permanently occupied residential building or school

1.0 – 1.5 0.5

Any occupied hotel or commercial/industrial building

2.0 – 2.5 1.0

Consultation

J3.59 The following local authorities have been consulted and agreed to the noise and vibration assessment criteria and methodology proposed for the DIRFT III development.

1 Rugby Borough Council Environmental Health Department; and,

2 Daventry District Council Environmental Health Department.

J3.60 Meetings with Rugby BC were held on 24th November 2008 and with Daventry DC on 16th February 2009. A meeting with both authorities took place on 26th April 2012.



J4.0 Baseline Conditions

Noise

Meteorological Conditions

J4.1 During the first part of the noise survey undertaken in November and December 2008, the average temperature was 8°C and the average wind speed was 10 km/h. For the majority of the monitoring period there was no precipitation, but there were brief periods of rainfall over a two day period.

J4.2 The second noise survey was concluded in May 2009 and during the measurements the average temperature was 11°C and the average wind speed was 12 km/h. The noise monitoring period was dry with sporadic periods of rainfall.

J4.3 A further noise survey was carried out on 26th and 27th June 2012 to provide additional noise data representative of noise sensitive receptors at Lilbourne and Crick Lodge. Weather conditions during these noise measurements were dry with an average temperature of 18°C and average wind speed of 11km.h.

Noise Sources

J4.4 The majority of the noise monitoring locations were located adjacent to roads and the dominant source of noise originated from road traffic and, to a far lesser extent, pedestrians, at locations where a pedestrian walkway was present. Noise monitoring sites located further away from roads experienced a variety of sources such as trains, aircraft, wildlife and farm machinery. These noise sources were generally short term and occasional in nature. In between these events, even at distance from main roads, road traffic was the dominant source of noise in the form of a low background hum. This was particularly noticeable at locations in the vicinity of the M1 motorway.

Results

J4.5 The results from daytime and night-time noise measurements, both attended and continuous, taken during the noise monitoring periods from 18th November to 15th December 2008 and 13th May to 18th May 2008 are summarised in Tables J4.1-J4.4. Additional attended noise monitoring took place on 26th and 27th June 2012 at locations A and K to supplement noise data at sites where equipment was vandalised or removed during the noise survey in 2008.



Table J 4.1 Daytime Attended Noise Monitoring Results

Position Date Start Time

Duration (mins)

LAeq (dB)

LAmax (dB)

LA10 (dB)

LA90 (dB)

A 26/6/12 10:15 180 49.1 77.3 50.8 43.3

A 27/6/12 10:05 180 47.8 76.2 48.3 42.8

B 19/11/08 10:48 180 67.9 88.0 72.5 52.0

C 20/11/08 11:41 180 71.7 91.7 76.0 51.0

D 20/11/08 09:46 180 64.2 80.6 66.0 60.5

E 13/05/09 11:31 180 69.9 97.0 73.3 42.3

F 18/05/09 14:47 180 62.2 83.5 65.3 48.8

G 13/05/09 10:55 180 73.1 88.4 77.6 53.8

H 26/6/12 13:47 180 58.6 63.1 59.7 56.7

H 27/6/12 13:44 180 58.5 62.5 60.0 56.2


Table J 4.2 Night-time Attended Noise Monitoring Results

Position Date Start Time

Duration (mins)

LAeq

(dB)

LAmax

(dB)

LA10

(dB)

LA90

(dB)

A 27/6/12 01:57 30 43.2 57.0 45.0 40.3

B 19/11/08 00:47 30 46.5 69.9 44.5 41.0

C 20/11/08 01:18 30 44.0 84.4 59.1 33.4

D 19/11/08 00:27 30 59.3 70.7 62.0 53.0

E 13/05/09 00:43 30 63.2 86.7 46.7 36.2

F 13/05/09 00:01 30 50.1 75.3 43.4 32.0

G 14/05/09 00:40 30 65.1 84.4 60.9 31.6

H 27/06/12 01:16 30 50.0 61.4 52.7 48.0


Table J 4.3 Daytime Continuous Noise Monitoring Results

Daytime (07:00-23:00)

Site Start Finish LAeq

(dB) LAmax

(dB) LA10

(dB) LA90

(dB)

1 19/11/08, 09:51 20/11/08, 17:15 75.2 102.9 79.6 55.2

2 10/12/08, 10:09 15/12/08, 08:39 49.5 77.4 49.8 44.1

3 14/12/08, 22:57 15/12/08, 08:57 52.6 84.2 51.9 45.7

4 03/12/08, 05:33 03/12/08, 12:18 51.0 93.0 50.6 44.3



Daytime (07:00-23:00)


(dB) LAmax

(dB) LA10

(dB) LA90

(dB)

5 13/05/09, 16:56 18/05/09, 12:56 69.2 102.9 58.0 47.3


Table J 4.4 Night-time Continuous Noise Monitoring Results

Night-time (23:00-07:00)


(dB) LAmax

(dB) LA10

(dB) LA90

(dB)

1 19/11/08 09:51 20/11/08 17:15 71.1 91.7 73.4 47.6

2 10/12/08 10:09 15/12/08 08:39 45.3 67.4 45.0 40.2

3 14/12/08 22:57 15/12/08 08:57 45.6 76.3 45.9 40.2

4 03/12/08 05:33 03/12/08 12:18 48.9 82.8 47.1 40.5

5 13/05/09 16:56 18/05/09 12:56 52.8 91.7 64.2 42.1

6 19/11/08 09:51 20/11/08 17:15 56.8 83.2 58.3 52.9


Vibration

J4.6 Table J4.5 presents the results obtained at Position V1 (see para J3.36), approximately 175 metres from the WCML.

Table J 4.5 Position V1 Vibration Results

Time X-axis VDV ms-1

Y-axis VDV ms-1

Z-axis VDV ms-1

13:03:14 0.0004 0.0005 0.0072

13:19:48 0.0011 0.0009 0.0034

13:22:48 0.0009 0.0007 0.0036

13:13:29 0.0009 0.0007 0.0036

J4.7 Table J4.6 presents the ten highest vibration measurement results recorded during the 24-hour monitoring period at Position V2, 20m from the nearest rail.

Table J 4.6 Position V2 Vibration Results


Y-axis VDV ms-1

Z-axis VDV ms-1

19:00:59 0.0021 0.0023 0.016

19:55:29 0.0024 0.0025 0.019

20:42:59 0.0024 0.0029 0.017




Y-axis VDV ms-1

Z-axis VDV ms-1

20:50:29 0.0018 0.0020 0.017

21:51:29 0.0021 0.0023 0.018

07:48:59 0.0021 0.0028 0.020

09:15:59 0.0024 0.0027 0.020

09:55:29 0.0020 0.0020 0.017

11:57:29 0.0023 0.0025 0.017

11:05:59 0.0025 0.0023 0.017

J4.8 At Position V2, The daytime and night-time VDVs were calculated to be 0.04 and 0.02 ms-1.75 respectively.

Discussion of Baseline Conditions

Baseline Noise Levels

J4.9 The baseline noise survey provided data on the background noise levels around the proposed DIRFT III development.

J4.10 The noise environment at the boundaries of the development site is dominated by transportation noise from road traffic from the A5 and M1 to the East and from the A428 to the South, and rail traffic on the WCML and the Northampton Loop located close to the western and southern boundaries.

J4.11 Noise from operations on DIRFT I sites (located to the south of the proposed DIRFT III site) along with associated road traffic and rail traffic contribute to the soundscape of the area.

J4.12 Noise in the surrounding area of the proposed DIRFT III site can be considered typical of a semi-urban environment.

J4.13 Noise measurements indicate that there are high levels of road traffic on both the A5 (noise monitoring site 1) and the A428 (noise monitoring position D) during both daytime and night-time periods; with the night-time LA10,T noise level at both locations only reducing by approximately 5 dB from the daytime levels.

J4.14 At distance from the roads and railways, noise levels are relatively low and sources include occasional aircraft and agricultural activity.

J4.15 Both Daventry DC and Rugby BC acknowledge that the background noise measurements conducted are accepted as being representative of the general noise environment of the entire area.

Baseline Vibration Levels

J4.16 Vibration levels are low at the site boundary closest to the WCML (175 metres), the only significant source of vibration in the vicinity of the



proposed development. A VDV (vibration dose value) of 0.01 ms-1.75 was calculated (from BS 6472) and this considerably below threshold of ‘Low probability of adverse comment’.

J4.17 From measurements recorded at Position B, 20 metres from the nearest rail, the daytime and night-time VDVs were calculated to be 0.04 and 0.02 ms-1.75 respectively, which are considerably below the threshold for ‘Low probability of adverse comment’.



J5.0 Potential Impacts

Introduction

J5.1 The proposed DIRFT III development has the potential to generate noise and vibration from the following activities:

1 Change in road traffic flows on existing roads due to DIRFT III.

2 Additional train movements due to the DIRFT III trains.

3 The operation of gantry cranes and the movement of heavy goods vehicles and trains into, within and out of DIRFT III.

J5.2 Noise mitigation measures have been included in the design of the proposed DIRFT III scheme and incorporated into noise prediction models. These mitigation measures consist of:

1 The Lilbourne Ridge – a bund to the north of the DIRFT III site to mitigate noise and reduce the visual impact of DIRFT III for residents of Lilbourne.

2 The railway spur embankment – a bund to the north of the railway spur to mitigate the propagation of train noise northwards into the proposed SUE development site.

3 A 350 metre long, 3.5 metre high noise barrier constructed for the DIRFT II Zone 1 development.

Noise Model

J5.3 Railway and road traffic noise levels were predicted using the Cadna- software, which utilises the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) and Calculation of Railway Noise (CRN) methodologies.

J5.4 For road traffic, the methodology uses 18 hour annual average weekday traffic data (AAWT) input, along with the percentage of heavy goods vehicles, an assumed bituminous road surfacing and average speeds to first calculate a Basic Noise Level (BNL) at the roadside as defined in CRTN. This is then used to predict the noise level at the point of interest using acoustic propagation factors including receiver distance, topography and screening from barriers or buildings. The CRTN methodology calculates LA10,18h noise levels, which is the standard index for assessing road traffic noise in the UK.

J5.5 The road traffic data used in the noise models for each scenario is presented in Appendix J2. The locations of road sections are presented in Appendix J3.

J5.6 Refer to Appendix J7 for detailed information on noise modelling of the operational DIRFT III site, which includes rail traffic noise, on-site road traffic noise, and plant noise.



Impacts during Construction

Noise

J5.7 Construction will be carried out over 5 principal stages each of which relates to a different area of the site16. Each stage and associated construction tasks that may result in adverse noise levels are summarised in Table J5.1. A figure indicating the area of the DIRFT III site associated with each stage can be seen in Appendix J4.

J5.8 As a worst case, it has been assumed for the purpose of noise predictions that construction tasks for each stage will occur simultaneously. A list of associated plant for each task can be seen in Appendix J4. These are based on an estimation of the likely construction activities and associated plant expected to be used. Normal daytime working hours are assumed, but where night-time works are necessary, they will be planned in accordance with the construction noise criteria (Table J3.10).

J5.9 Noise predictions have been made for each of the five stages (refer to construction assumption in Appendix J4) at selected nearby noise sensitive receptors (refer to Table J5.1); in addition noise contour plots have been produced, which provide a graphical representation of the results (presented in Appendix J5).

J5.10 To represent the predicted noise level at a settlement (e.g. village), as a worse case, noise predictions have been made at the nearest residential property within the settlement to the proposed DIRFT III site. The location of receptors can be seen in Figure J4.12 of Appendix J4.

Table J 5.1 Predicted Construction Stage Noise Level Summary

Predicted LAeq,1h Facade Noise Level (dB) for each Construction Stage Receptor

Stage 1 Stage 1B Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

13 The Locks, Hillmorton

56.2 50.7 56.8 55.7 42.5

3 Barley Croft, Crick 52.5 44.4 49.6 49.5 53.4

41 Hillmorton Lane, Lilbourne

65.4 64.6 67.4 58 50

Cloverly, Nortoft Lane 55.9 49 54.8 57 46.1

Crick Lodge, Crick 61.3 51.3 59.1 56.6 63.3

Dolmans Farm, Crick Road

62.4 54.9 60.3 57.5 50.8

Dunsmore Home Farm, Lilbourne Road

57.1 55.1 59 57.8 44.9

Grange Farm House, Hillmorton Lane

55.6 52.2 56.4 55.4 42.8



Predicted LAeq,1h Facade Noise Level (dB) for each Construction Stage Receptor

Stage 1 Stage 1B Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Halfway House, Watling Street

57.7 42.9 58.6 53.6 47.4

Holiday Inn, Crick 50.2 41.3 47.6 49.1 48.7

Ibis Hotel, Crick 53.1 44.2 51.4 64.7 51.1

Lilbourne Lodge, Yelvertoft Road

61.3 62.1 61.7 60.4 46.8

Lodge Farm, Yelvertoft Road

58.5 56.8 59.1 59.1 44.3

Magpie Lodge Farm, Clifton-upon-Dunsmore

58.3 56.7 60.6 59.4 46.1

Meadows Farm, Watling Street

62.1 64.1 66.6 66.3 43.1

Normandy Farm, Moors Lane

51.5 44.7 50.6 49.7 43.1

Nortoft Farm, Nortoft Lane

52.1 42.1 48.3 63 47.1

Nortoft Lodge Farm, Nortoft Lane

52.5 42.2 48.9 58.1 44.9

Residential Property South of Halfway Garage

54.5 41.3 50.9 54.1 47

Strongs Farm, Nortoft Lane

56.1 51.4 56 56.6 45.3

The Cedars, Watling Street

54.3 45.2 53.2 70.3 50.1

J5.11 Predicted noise levels during each construction stage are predicted to be below the suggested daytime working threshold of 75 dB LAeq,12h

(façade). The highest predicted noise level at an existing residential property during a construction stage is approximately 70 dB(A) during Stage 3 at The Cedars. This can be considered as a worst case prediction as all construction activities for each stage are assumed to be occurring simultaneously at the closest approach to the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the work areas.

J5.12 Some construction activities have been assessed individually as they may impact on noise sensitive receptors outside of periods when the main DIRFT III construction operations have been scheduled or due to the particular location of noise sensitive properties. These activities are:

1 zone H building construction – may occur outside of main construction stages;

2 construction of the rail spur – part of rail infrastructure stage;



3 construction of the embankment adjacent to the rail spur – part of rail infrastructure stage;

4 construction of the bridge over the A5 – may occur during night-time; and

5 expansion of the railway track under pass box beneath the A5 from single to twin track – may occur during night-time.

J5.13 Noise predictions at nearby noise sensitive receptors due to these construction activities are presented in Table J5.2.

Table J 5.2 Predicted Construction Activity Noise Level Summary

Predicted LAeq,1h Facade Noise Level (dB) for Individual Construction Activities

Receptor Zone H Building

Construction Rail Spur

Spur Embankment

Bridge (night)

Twin Track Box

(night)

13 The Locks, Hillmorton

36.9 44.6 45.8 43 31.2

3 Barley Croft, Crick

41.6 45.4 37.2 34.5 34.1

41 Hillmorton Lane, Lilbourne

35.9 39.8 48.5 42.7 32.8

Cloverly, Nortoft Lane

49.7 67.1 50.9 41.5 49.8

Crick Lodge, Crick

50 43.7 45.9 39.3 34.2

Dolmans Farm, Crick Road

43.4 52.5 59.4 49.8 38.3


36.1 44.2 48.1 41.8 30.5

Grange Farm House, Hillmorton Lane

36.7 43.2 47.8 41.1 31.1

Halfway House, Watling Street

51.6 54.9 50.7 39.1 64.1

Holiday Inn, Crick

44 46.7 38.6 35 35.8

Ibis Hotel, Crick 60.4 50.2 42.4 37.6 42.4

Lilbourne Lodge, Yelvertoft Road

36.8 39 47.7 42.3 37.5

Lodge Farm, Yelvertoft Road

38.3 38.8 46 41.6 31.8



Predicted LAeq,1h Facade Noise Level (dB) for Individual Construction Activities

Receptor Zone H Building

Construction Rail Spur

Spur Embankment

Bridge (night)

Twin Track Box

(night)

Magpie Lodge Farm, Clifton-upon-Dunsmor

36.1 40.5 48 42 30.1

Meadows Farm, Watling Street

37.7 42.6 51.5 46.4 31.6

Normandy Farm, Moors Lane

39.9 47.2 48.2 36.6 34.3

Nortoft Farm, Nortoft Lane

59 65.4 45 37.3 57

Nortoft Lodge Farm, Nortoft Lane

52.9 80.2 49.7 37.4 59

Residential Property South of Halfway Garage

52.3 58.8 47.6 37.5 64.4

Strongs Farm, Nortoft Lane

48.4 64 48.2 39.6 47.6

The Cedars, Watling Street

65 64.5 46 37.6 60.8

J5.14 Construction of the rail spur is predicted to result in a worst case LAeq,T noise level of 80 dB(A) at Nortoft Lodge Farm. This is because of the close proximity of the property to the proposed construction works. It should be noted that this is a worst case noise level as the noise predictions have been made with plant operating simultaneously at the closest approach to the receptor.

J5.15 Construction of the spur embankment is predicted to result in a worst case noise level of 59 dB(A) at Dolmans Farm which is below the daytime LAeq,12h noise limit of 75 dB(A).

J5.16 Night-time construction activities of the A5 bridge are predicted to have a worst case noise level of approximately 50 dB(A) at Dolmans Farm. This is below the LAeq,1h noise limit of 55 dB(A) for night-time construction work.

J5.17 Expansion of the single track to a twin track box under the A5 is predicted to result in an exceedance of the 55 dB(A) LAeq,1h night-time noise limit at Halfway House, Nortoft Lodge Farm, Nortoft Farm, Residential Property South of Halfway Garage, and The Cedars.



J5.18 Currently, no information is available on construction traffic; however, HGV road traffic in the construction stages can be comparable to operational HGV road traffic with the expectation that construction traffic will be significantly lower than operational traffic. Noise impacts due to changes in road traffic in the short term have been predicted as Negligible (see Paragraph J5.26). Consequently, noise impacts due to construction traffic can be considered to be no worse than Negligible. Careful attention will need to be paid to the timing and routing construction of traffic.

J5.19 It is recommended that any noise issues are dealt with through the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

J5.20 Additional off site highway works will be carried out on the surrounding road network as part of the DIRFT III scheme. This will include road improvements at junction 18 of the M1 and A5/Lilbourne road junction improvements. However, this work has not been assessed as part of the DIRFT III construction noise assessment as these junction improvements works are minor.

Vibration

J5.21 It is understood that piling may be required for the M1 retaining works and the twin track box construction. At this stage the nature of the piling works has not been determined and whether rotary bored piles or sheet piling will be employed, or a combination of both.

J5.22 A worst case scenario would be that sheet piles are employed and are percussively driven. In general, depending on the source levels and ground conditions, ground borne vibration is attenuated relatively rapidly with distance. Unless piling is undertaken at distances of approximately 25m or less to the sensitive buildings, it is considered that construction vibration is unlikely to be a significant issue.

J5.23 With reference to Appendix J5 the minimum distance between construction works and a sensitive receptor is 60m and therefore ground borne vibration is unlikely to be an impact during sheet piling works.

Impacts after Completion

Road Traffic Noise Impact

J5.24 The impact due to change in noise levels as a result of the increase in road traffic due to the proposed DIRFT III and other developments has been assessed using guidance in Tables J3.3 and J3.4. The assessment has included the wider road network as well as roads closer to the proposed DIRFT III development, including the A5, Crick Road, Hillmorton Road and Lilbourne Road. A full list of road links included in the noise assessment along with associated traffic flows is provided in



Appendix J2. A figure identifying the location of each road link is provided in Appendix J3.

J5.25 The first stage of the road traffic assessment involved a screening assessment of the change in noise level on road links based upon the Basic Noise Level (BNL) calculated by CRTN for two-way traffic flows on each road link in the road network surrounding the proposed development. The change in BNL calculations are assessed as the change in noise level in the short-term (difference between 2016 Do-Minimum (without scheme) and 2016 Do-Something (with scheme) scenarios) and long-term (difference between opening year 2016 Do-Minimum and 2033 Do-Something scenarios). The significance of the change in BNL has been assessed using the DMRB significance criteria contained in Tables J3.3 and J3.4.

J5.26 The BNL noise calculations are provided in detail at Appendix J6. Changes in the BNL in the short term are a worst case of Negligible, and in the long term scenarios the worst case change in BNL is rated as of Minor significance. A summary of the results BNL comparisons for long-term which have Minor significance are listed in Tables J5.3. .

Table J 5.3 Predicted Minor Long-Term Road Traffic Noise Impacts

Minor Long Term Impacts Minor Long Term All Dev Impacts

43:115 (Rugby Road, Catthorpe) 25:28 (Lower Hillmorton Road)

34:35 (Watts Lane)

35:36 (Crick Road)

43:115 (Rugby Road, Catthorpe)

J5.27 Although Minor noise impacts were predicted at Rugby Road, Catthorpe; it should be noted that this is almost entirely due to the natural long term increase in road traffic flows (shown by the difference between DM 2016 and DM 2033 scenarios, an increase in noise levels of 4.3 dB(A)). This indicates that changes in road traffic flows as a result of DIRFT III traffic cause an increase in noise levels along Rugby Road of 0.2 dB(A). Consequently, the noise impact due to DIRFT III traffic along Rugby Road can be considered as Negligible.

J5.28 At all other locations, the change in traffic noise level at identified receptors was predicted to be no greater than Minor.

Rail Traffic Noise Impact

J5.29 The impact due to the change in noise levels as a result of the increase in train movements from the proposed DIRFT III development has been assessed using guidance within Table J3.5.



J5.30 There are currently 10-12 freight trains associated with the existing railport. The additional train movements due to the proposed DIRFT IIII development are listed in Table J5.7 below. There will an even distribution of DIRFT III trains arriving and departing towards the south and north along the Northampton Loop.

J5.31 Future freight train movements and their predicted gradual increase have been summarised in Table J5.4. This table also provides an indication on the increase in noise level due to trains associated with DIRFT III based only on the change in number of trains.

Table J 5.4 DIRFT III Freight Trains

Year DIRFT III

Freight Trains Increase in Trains

Change in Noise Level dB(A)

2015 12 - -

2020 18 6 1.8

2025 22 4 0.9

2030 30 8 1.3

2033 32 2 0.3

Total (between 2015 and 2033) 32 20 4.3

J5.32 Noise level predictions due to changes in rail freight movements as a result of the proposed DIRFT III scheme are stated in Table 5.4. These noise predictions represent noise levels originating from DIRFT III freight trains only and consequently, these changes in noise levels would only be representative at locations which are 100% dominated by freight train noise and no other significant noise sources are present.

J5.33 Between 2015 and 2033, the total increase in noise due to the increase in DIRFT freight trains would be 4.3 dB(A). An increase of this magnitude is considered as Moderate according to guidance within Table J3.5. However, increases in freight train movements will be gradual over 18 years as the DIRFT III site is developed.

J5.34 The change in noise level over a 5 year period due to the increase in DIRFT freight trains is predicted to be a worst case of 1.8 dB(A). According to guidance within Table J3.5, this increase in noise level is considered to be Minor.

J5.35 It should be noted that this change in noise level deals only with trains associated with DIRFT and does not consider any other passenger train or freight trains.

J5.36 Forecasts of future rail movements assume that 36 of the forecast 87 freight train movements in 2020 and 64 of the forecast 132 freight train movements in 2030 on the WCML would be running to or from DIRFT.



J5.37 This indicates that in the year of the greatest increase (in 2020), the increase in total train movements from 75 to 87 (increase of 6 trains) would result in a change of noise level of 0.6 dB(A), at locations which are 100% dominated by freight train noise, considered to be a Negligible increase in noise level. At locations dominated by other sources, this increase would be less.

J5.38 Consequently, it can be considered that the increase in freight train movements on the WCML and the Northampton Loop will result in a change in noise level that is considered as Negligible.

Operational Site Noise Impact

J5.39 Assessment of the operating noise levels has been carried according to BS4142. Assumptions and inputs into operations noise models can be seen in Appendix J7.

J5.40 Noise from the proposed development may have an impulsive or tonal character and therefore a weighting of +5 dB(A) has been applied according to the BS4142 assessment procedure to determine the Rating noise level. Corrections have been applied to activities at the proposed lorry park and the proposed intermodal terminal assuming that noise will be tonal and/or impulsive in character.

J5.41 This correction has not been applied to road traffic noise or rail noise as it has been considered that these sources of noise are a significant part of the existing soundscape of the area and, as such, the new noise sources would only intensify existing noise levels and would not be introducing a completely new noise source into the area.

J5.42 The predicted rating noise level for noise associated with the DIRFT III site has been compared to the existing background noise levels obtained at the sensitive receptors as listed in Tables J4.1 to J4.4.

J5.43 The rating noise level is specific noise source (the DIRFT III site) over a given reference time interval which has been corrected to allow for certain distinctive acoustic features. The difference between the measured background noise level at a receptor and the predicted rating noise level of the noise source allows an indication of the likelihood of complaints to be derived using guidance within BS 4142.

J5.44 A breakdown of predicted noise levels from each significant noise source (lorry park noise, intermodal terminal noise, road traffic noise, and rail traffic noise) associated with the DIRFT III site along with daytime and night-time rating noise level plots can be seen at Appendix J8.



Table J 5.5 Daytime BS 4142 Assessment

Name

Rating Noise Level

(dB(A))

LA90 Background Noise Level

(dB(A))

Difference

13 The Locks, Hillmorton 39 44 -5

3 Barley Croft, Crick 33 42 -10

41 Hillmorton Lane, Yelvertoft 44 43 1

Cloverly, Nortoft Lane 38 42 -5

Crick Lodge, Crick 43 56 -13

Dolmans Farm, Crick Road 40 46 -6


41 52 -11

Grange Farm House, Hillmorton Lane 39 44 -5

Halfway House, Watling Street 43 61 -18

Holiday Inn, Crick 34 42 -8

Ibis Hotel, Crick 42 61 -19

Lilbourne Lodge, Yelvertoft Road 46 43 3

Lodge Farm, Yelvertoft Road 44 43 1


43 52 -9

Meadows Farm, Watling Street 49 44 5

Normandy Farm, Moors Lane 32 46 -14

Nortoft Farm, Nortoft Lane 37 47 -10

Nortoft Lodge Farm, Nortoft Lane 46 47 -1

Residential Property South of Halfway Garage, Watling Street

40 61 -21

Strongs Farm, Nortoft Lane 36 47 -11

The Cedars, Watling Street 38 47 -9

Table J 5.6Night-time BS 4142 Assessment

Name

Rating Noise Level

(dB(A))


(dB(A))

Difference

13 The Locks, Hillmorton 39 40 -1

3 Barley Croft, Crick 34 36 -2

41 Hillmorton Lane, Yelvertoft 44 40 4

Cloverly, Nortoft Lane 40 42 -2

Crick Lodge, Crick 44 48 -4



Name

Rating Noise Level

(dB(A))


(dB(A))

Difference

Dolmans Farm, Crick Road 42 40 2


41 41 0

Grange Farm House, Hillmorton Lane 38 40 -2

Halfway House, Watling Street 47 53 -6

Holiday Inn, Crick 36 36 0

Ibis Hotel, Crick 42 53 -12

Lilbourne Lodge, Yelvertoft Road 46 40 6

Lodge Farm, Yelvertoft Road 44 40 4


42 41 1

Meadows Farm, Watling Street 48 41 7

Normandy Farm, Moors Lane 33 40 -7

Nortoft Farm, Nortoft Lane 40 42 -2

Nortoft Lodge Farm, Nortoft Lane 50 42 8

Residential Property South of Halfway Garage, Watling Street

43 53 -10

Strongs Farm, Nortoft Lane 38 42 -4

The Cedars, Watling Street 41 42 -1

J5.45 According to BS 4142 any difference between the measured background noise level and the predicted rating noise level of +5 dB(A) is of marginal significance. Differences of marginal significance or greater are predicted during the night-time at Meadows Farm (7 dB above background noise level), Lilbourne Lodge (6 dB above background noise level), and at Nortoft Lodge Farm (8 dB above background noise level).

J5.46 Adverse noise levels at Meadows Farm are a result of activity on the lorry park and activity on DIRFT III internal roads. Adverse noise levels at Lilbourne Lodge are a result of activity at the intermodal terminal and activity on DIRFT III internal roads. Adverse noise levels at Nortoft Lodge Farm are a result of train movements along the rail spur to access the DIRFT III site. This can be seen in the breakdown of noise predictions in Tables J8.1 and J8.2 of Appendix J8.

J5.47 It should be noted that, since the noise survey was undertaken at Nortoft Farm, the DIRFT II Zone 1 site adjacent to Nortoft Lodge Farm has since been constructed. Consequently, background noise levels used in the BS 4142 assessment are likely to be lower than current background noise levels due to activities taking place on this site.



J5.48 Another consideration is that adverse noise levels at Nortoft Lodge Farm are a result of additional freight train movements. As there are existing freight train movements along the section of track adjacent to Nortoft Lodge Farm associated with the DIRFT II zone 1 site, additional freight train movements can be considered as an intensifying of an existing noise source.

J5.49 The increase in freight train movements between 2016 and 2033 on existing sections of track has been assessed as Negligible (see Paragraphs J5.28 to J5.35). Consequently, it can be concluded that the operational DIRFT III site will not result in adverse noise levels at Nortoft Lodge Farm. It is understood that approximately 15% of floor area in warehouses is likely to be chilled but, at this time, no detailed information is available regarding the type and location of chiller fixed plant. It is recommended that plant is designed and located to achieve NR35 during the day and NR25 during the night. This could be achieved with careful consideration of selection and location of appropriate plant, noise impacts will be Negligible.

J5.50 It is recommended that, where possible, plant is located on the facade of warehouses facing into the DIRFT III site and, if this is not possible, the use of screens or enclosures should be considered.

Operational Vibration

J5.51 At a distance of 20m, from the Northampton loop, vibration measurements revealed that daytime and night-time VDVs are 0.04 and 0.02 ms-1.75 respectively. This is considerably below the threshold for ‘Low probability of adverse comment’ and therefore by comparison, vibration from a far fewer number of trains moving at a much lower speed on the spur line within the boundary of the proposed development is unlikely to be significant at sensitive receivers. Also it should be noted that vibration levels decrease rapidly with distance, as confirmed by the measurements obtained at location V1.

J5.52 For sensitive receptors located alongside the WCML, the greatest change in train movements due to the proposed DIRFT III development will occur happen during the night-time period: there are estimated to be 2 approaches and 2 departures of freight trains per hour using the WCML; and, there will be an equal number of DIRFT III trains travelling in the northerly and southerly directions on the main railway line. The change in rail traffic can be taken as worst case to be 16 additional freight train movements during the night per section of the WCML and the Northampton Loop.

J5.53 The highest measured VDV for a single train movement at 20 metres from the rail track was approximately 0.02 ms-1.75 (occurring during the daytime).



J5.54 The measured daytime VDV of 0.04 ms-1.75 will be influenced by an additional 18 freight trains movements in either direction on the WCML/Northampton Loop associated with the proposed DIRFT III development. Using the highest measured VDV as representative of a freight train movement, the resultant daytime VDV is approximately 0.05 ms-1.75 (an increase of 0.01 ms-1.75). Guidance within Table J3.7 states there is a low probability of adverse comment.

J5.55 The measured daytime VDV of 0.04 ms-1.75 will be influenced by an additional 14 freight trains movements in either direction on the WCML/Northampton Loop associated with the proposed DIRFT III development. Assuming each of these train movements have worst case VDV of 0.02 ms-1.75 the resultant night-time VDV would be approximately 0.04 ms-1.75 (an increase of 0.02 ms-1.75). Guidance within Table J3.7 states there is a low probability of adverse comment.

J5.56 As vibration decays as the separation distance between the source and receiver increases, there will be a low probability of adverse comment due to vibration levels at distances of greater than 20 metres from the WCML and the Northampton Loop.



J6.0 Mitigation Measures

Introduction

J6.1 Based on the identified impacts, mitigation measures have been identified which can be developed as necessary as the design of the development is progressed.

J6.2 As specified in the Requirements, a written scheme will be submitted to the local planning authority for approval for the monitoring of noise generated during the operational phases of the development.

J6.3 On the basis of the noise and vibration assessment undertaken on the present level of detail of the development design, mitigation measures are discussed in the following sections where potential noise impacts have been identified.

J6.4 The threshold of mitigation for each potential noise impact are summarised in Table J6.1. All receptors have been considered as residential properties and therefore of equal sensitivity so mitigation thresholds are consistent for all receptors.

Table J 6.1 Night-time BS 4142 Assessment

Potential Impact Threshold of Mitigation

Construction Noise Trigger Noise Levels – Table J3.10

Construction Vibration 1.0 mms-1 (Day), 0.5 mms-1 (Night)

Operational Noise Marginal Significance (Background Noise + 3 dB(A))*

Road Traffic Noise Moderate (+3 dB short term, +5 dB long term)

Rail Traffic Noise Moderate (+3 dB)

Rail Traffic Vibration 0.4 ms-1.75

(Day), 0.26 ms-1.75

(Night)

Note *Difference rating as defined by BS4142 of +3 agreed with Daventry DC, rather than the more usual value of +5, which results in a more sensitive threshold for mitigation.


J6.5 The following text sets out the best practice methods of working which will be employed to mitigate construction noise levels as far as practicable. These best practice methods should be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and the principle forms the basis for the Requirements.

J6.6 Construction noise impacts were identified under the worst case assumption of the works operating continuously during the working day at the closest approach to existing sensitive receivers located near the boundary of the proposed development.



J6.7 In practice, the contractor may be able to reduce the number of hours noisy equipment is operated. For example, should the rail spur works take place for no more than five hours per day (half a regular working day) near Nortoft Lodge Farm, the 75 dB(A) noise limit would be complied with. Alternatively, the contractor may select alternative quieter equipment, or operate combinations of equipment which result in lower overall noise emissions during these works stages.

J6.8 Should it not be feasible for the noise emissions or operating times to be reduced, the use of a noise barrier where practicable which will screen line of sight between the construction equipment and the sensitive receptor can offer up to 10 dB(A) attenuation. With such screening, the operational on-time of the construction equipment would not be limited during normal daytime operating hours. For much of the time during the construction period, work would be carried out at significantly greater distances and consequently noise levels will be reduced below the recommended limit.

J6.9 It is preferable for the contractor to carefully plan and design the works to allow flexibility in the mitigation methods to mitigate potentially adverse noise impacts. By the contractor complying with Best Practicable Means (for example appropriate mitigation and sensible use of equipment), noise levels at sensitive receptors would be minimised and likely to comply with the recommended daytime level.

J6.10 BS5228 recommends procedures for the practicable control of construction noise (and vibration) and the Best Practicable Means described by this standard will be adopted by contractors appointed to the proposed project. A selected summary of the recommendations in BS 5228 are listed below.

J6.11 The establishment and maintenance of good community relations should be considered, which may include informing local residents on progress and ensuring measures are put in place to minimise noise impacts.

J6.12 Measures should be in place to ensure employees know that minimisation of noise will be important at the site.

J6.13 Measures which could be taken during the works include the following.

1. Where reasonably practicable, ensuring the use of quiet working methods, the use of the most suitable plant, reasonable hours of working for the most noisy operations, and economy and speed of operations.

2. Controlling noise and vibration at source and limiting the spread of noise.

J6.14 Potential measures for the control of noise at source include:

1. Substitution of noisy plant or processes with less noisy alternatives.



2. Modification of Existing Plant and Equipment.

3. Enclosures.

4. Carefully consider use and siting of Equipment.

5. Good standards of plant maintenance.

6. Good traffic management.

J6.15 If noisy processes cannot be avoided then the following should be considered:

1. Increasing separation distance between source and receiver if possible.

2. Screening through barriers or other structures such as site buildings.

J6.16 Where appropriate, on-site noise levels should be monitored regularly by a suitably qualified person appointed specifically for the purpose and in particular when changes in construction method or plant are introduced. A method of noise measurement and schedule of monitoring should be agreed with the relevant Planning Authority.

J6.17 The Control of Pollution Act 197417 (Section 60) permits a Local Authority to serve a notice in regard to noise from a construction site imposing requirements, including the types of plant, hours of working and noise levels to control the impacts of the noise from the site. Contravention of this notice constitutes an offence. The Local Authority must have regard to ‘Best Practicable Means’ in serving such a notice.

J6.18 Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act is a formal agreement between the contractor and the Local Authority which is arranged prior to commencement of work. Where there is concern regarding noise levels from a particular operation or stage, a Section 61 agreement can avoid the risk of being served a Section 60 notice. This should include details on the works to be carried out, the proposed work methodology and the steps proposed to be taken to minimise noise at the site. In granting approval the Local Authority may set conditions for example noise levels and hours of work.

J6.19 Whilst withdrawn, Circular 2/76 (Control of Pollution Act 1974 – Implementation of Part III Noise) provides useful guidance to Local Authorities on implementation of the noise requirements in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It supports the principle of Best Practicable Means. It also makes more specific important points including the following.

1. Attention should be focused on the noisiest aspects of work rather than a detailed involvement in all aspects.

2. In stating requirements on a notice or prior approval a balance may need to be struck between allowing more rapid completion of works at higher noise levels and requiring lower noise levels but also prolonging the work.



Impacts during Construction - Vibration

J6.20 As has been previously stated, the type, number and location of piles (if any) is yet to be determined.

J6.21 There are a range of ways to minimise the effects of piling vibration, although it is recognised that vibration is generally more difficult to control than noise. These include, from BS5228:

1. If practicable, using a low vibration alternative plant and/or methods of work. For example using bored rather than driven piles.

2. Measures to reduce the levels of vibration at source could include, the reduction of energy per blow (for driven piles), pre-boring for driven piles and the removal of obstructions.

3. Cut-off trenches can provide some benefits to control the spread of vibration, they can be considered to be analogous to a noise barrier, but they need careful design and their effects are variable.


Road Traffic Noise

J6.22 The potential noise impact due to changes in road traffic flows is predicted to be, at worst case, Minor and occur during the long term cumulative (including other planned future developments in the area) scenario on Lower Hillmorton Road, Watts Lane, and Crick Road.

J6.23 Minor noise impacts due to changes in road traffic noise are not considered to be significant so mitigation of road traffic noise will not be required.

Rail Traffic Noise

J6.24 Noise predictions indicate that changes in noise levels due to freight train movements associated with the proposed DIRFT III development will be Negligible. Mitigation measures to the existing WCML will not be necessary.

Operational Noise

J6.25 Noise levels at nearby noise sensitive receptor to the proposed DIRFT III site have been predicted to be of marginal significance or lower with the exception of Meadows Farm at which noise levels have been predicted as greater than marginal significance.

J6.26 Meadows Farm is located approximately 450m from the Lorry Park so a reduction in noise level of 5 dB(A) of noise originating from the lorry park will reduce the cumulative (including rail traffic, road traffic, and plant operational on the proposed DIRFT III site) operational noise level to a level which is considered to be of marginal significance.



J6.27 Reduction of lorry park noise can be achieved through erection of a 4 metre barrier along the west and north boundaries of the lorry park. The barrier is recommended to extend along the full length of the west boundary and approximately 150 metres to the east along the north boundary. This would reduce the BS4142 difference rating to +5 dB.

J6.28 To further minimise impact noise resulting from containers being positioned onto the container stack for example, it is possible to employ crane management systems which employ radar or ultrasonic type devices to reduce the velocity of a container as approaches within 5 meters from its destination, by slowing the hoist to 10% of its original speed. Further refinements can be included in the specifications of these systems to control the proximity of the container to a fixed reference point.

J6.29 In order to trigger the point of slow-down in the hoist motion, a memory pre-set is activated by the crane operator. This enables the Crane Management System to start the slow-down when the trajectory reaches a pre-determined point, e.g. 1 metre from the ground or 1 metre above the next box to be engaged.

J6.30 General working practices can be put into place to minimise the levels of operational noise originating from DIRFT III. A noise management plan could be applied to working practices on site to include:

1. Awareness training for all staff on noise, particularly noise at night.

2. Staff input into methods of improving the noise environment.

3. Foremen to audit the noise being generated during operations and to take steps to enhance the measures to control noise.

4. Radios will be used for communications instead of verbal instructions.

5. Consider the use of alternative to reversing alarms and limit the use of horns for emergency purposes only.

J6.31 The effectiveness of the Lilbourne Ridge at mitigating noise has been assessed by comparing predicted noise levels with and without the ridge. A noise contour plot showing the effectiveness of the ridge at mitigating noise can be seen in J9. This noise contour plot indicates that the Lilbourne ridge reduces operational noise levels from the DIRFT III site by up to 9 dB(A) at properties in Lilbourne closest to the proposed DIRFT III site. This therefore provides important mitigation for noise sensitive receptors in Lilbourne.



J6.32 Noise due to operations associated with the DIRFT III site are also mitigated by the proposed rail spur embankment (mitigated rail traffic noise from the spur propagating to the north) and the barrier at the south boundary of the DIRFT II zone 1 development (mitigates the propagation of rail traffic noise associated with DIRFT III on existing rail track). A summary of existing, proposed, and recommended mitigation measures are shown in Table J6.2.

Table J 6.2 Summary of Mitigation

Existing 200m DIRFT II zone 1 barrier

Proposed Lilbourne ridge

Proposed Railway spur embankment

Recommended Lorry park barrier



J7.0 Residual Effects


J7.1 Construction noise and vibration can rarely be mitigated to the point where all impacts have been entirely avoided, at least not without unacceptable implications to cost, project timetables, technical risk and safety. Therefore it may be unavoidable that during some elements of the construction of this development may result in there being some residual impacts. However, through the adoption of Best Practicable Means, construction noise and vibration will be minimised and to within required levels and therefore impacts are considered to be acceptable..

J7.2 Nortoft Lodge farm, however, due its location is anticipated, for some periods, to exceed the threshold criteria during the construction of the rail spur and is therefore during these times is anticipated to experience a Substantial impact.


J7.3 The effect of the proposed DIRFT III development is likely to affect road and rail traffic flows in the study area, along with affecting noise levels in the surrounding area of the proposed site due to site activities.

J7.4 Noise impacts from changes in road traffic flows due to the proposed DIRFT III development have been predicted and assessed to be a worst case of Minor during the DM 2033 cumulative (including other proposed future developments in the area) assessment scenario.

J7.5 The addition of trains on the existing railway network will not result in a significant impact over the level of existing noise and vibration. No residual impact is expected as the number of trains from the proposed development using the existing railway lines (WCML and Northampton Loop) is low compared to the existing timetable.

J7.6 The operation of rail traffic, road traffic, and plant on the proposed DIRFT III development has been assessed according the BS4142 method. Noise emissions from the 24 hour operation of the terminal are expected largely to be less than a marginal significance of impact when compared to existing background levels of noise if the recommended mitigation measures are employed. Due to limitations in the effectiveness of the proposed noise bunds and barriers it has not been possible to mitigate noise levels to within the target criteria of +3 dB BS4142 difference rating at Lilbourne Lodge, and Meadows Farm during the daytime and Nortoft Lodge Farm, Meadows Farm, 41 Hillmorton Lane and Lilbourne Lodge during the night-time. These impacts are considered to be Moderate adverse.



J8.0 Summary & Conclusions

J8.1 A detailed noise and vibration assessment has been undertaken in order to assess the potential impact of the proposed Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) III development on the existing and future ambient noise levels at existing nearby noise sensitive receptors.

J8.2 Construction impacts, without mitigation, have the potential to exceed recommended construction noise limits. However, with implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring, these would be controlled to within the noise limits.

J8.3 Baseline noise and vibration monitoring was undertaken to establish the existing ambient levels and significant sources in the vicinity of the proposed DIRFT III development.

J8.4 A noise prediction model was used to establish the effects on the local road network in the vicinity of the development of changes in road traffic noise levels.

J8.5 Increases in road traffic noise at existing residential properties due to changes in road traffic flows as a result of the proposed DIRFT III development are predicted to result in a worst case Minor increase in noise levels.

J8.6 Increases in rail traffic noise and vibration at existing residential properties due to the proposed DIRFT III development are predicted to be Negligible.

J8.7 Operation of the proposed DIRFT III development has been assessed according the BS4142 method and the 24 hour operation of the terminal is expected largely to be less than a marginal significance of impact when compared to existing background levels of noise if the recommended mitigation measures are employed. Due to limitations in the effectiveness of the proposed noise bunds and barriers it has not been possible to mitigate noise levels to within the target criteria of +3 dB BS4142 difference rating at four properties, resulting in Moderate adverse impacts.



J9.0 Abbreviations

1. dB(A) - Instead, the dB(A) figure is used, as this is found to relate better to the loudness of the sound heard. The dB(A) figure is obtained by subtracting an appropriate correction, which represents the variation in the ear’s ability to hear different frequencies, from the individual octave or third octave band values, before summing them logarithmically. As a result the single dB(A) value provides a good representation of how loud a sound is.

2. LAeq - Since almost all sound vary or fluctuate with time it is helpful, instead of having an instantaneous value to describe the noise event, to have an average of the total acoustic energy experienced over its duration. The LAeq,(07:00 – 23:00) for example, describes the equivalent continuous noise level over the 16 hour period between 7 am and 11 pm. During this time period the LpA at any particular time is likely to have been either greater or lower that the LAeq,(07:00 – 23:00).

3. LAmax - The LAmax is the loudest instantaneous noise level. This is usually the loudest 125 milliseconds measured during any given period of time.

4. Ln - Another method of describing, with a single value, a noise level which varies over a given time period is, instead of considering the average amount of acoustic energy, to consider the length of time for which a particular noise level is exceeded. If a level of x dB(A) is exceeded for say. 6 minutes within one hour, then that level can be described as being exceeded for 10% of the total measurement period. This is denoted as the LA10,1h = x dB. The LA10 index is often used in the description of road traffic noise, whilst the LA90, the noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period, is the usual descriptor for underlying background noise. LA1 and LAmax are common descriptors of construction noise.

5. BNL - Basic Noise Level

The BNL is the noise level due to road traffic predicted at 10 metres from the nearside carriageway according to the following equation:

Where Q is the 18 hour AAWT, V is the traffic speed, and p is the percentage of HGVs.

6. CadnaA - Computer Aided Noise Abatement

7. CRN - Calculation of Railway Noise

8. CRTN - Calculation of Road Traffic Noise



9. NPPF - National Planning Policy Framework

10. PPG24 - Planning Policy Guidance 24 Planning and Noise

11. PPV - Peak Particle Velocity

12. SLM - Sound Level Meter

13. VDV - Vibration Dose Value

The VDV is given by the fourth root of the integral of the fourth power of the acceleration after it has been frequency weighted, as follows:

Where:

VDV is the vibration dose value (in ms-1.75),

a(t) is the frequency-weighted acceleration (ms-2), and:

T is the total period of the day (in seconds) during which vibration may occur

14. WCML - West Coast Main Line



J10.0 References

1. Department for Communities and Local Government (2012). National Planning Policy Framework

2. Planning Policy Guidance (24), Planning and Noise 1994.

3. Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE), 2010. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13750-noise-policy.pdf)

4. BS 7445-1:2003 ‘Description and measurement of environmental noise. Guide to quantities and procedures’. British Standards Institute (http://shop.bsigroup.com).

5. BS8233 1999 Code of Practice for Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings’. British Standards Institute (http://shop.bsigroup.com).

6. BS4142 1997 ‘Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’. British Standards Institute (http://shop.bsigroup.com).

7. BS5228 2009 ‘Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites’ Part 1, Noise; and, Part 2, Vibration. British Standards Institute (http://shop.bsigroup.com).

8. BS 6472-1:2008 ‘Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources other than blasting’. British Standards Institute (http://shop.bsigroup.com).

9. World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999. (http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html).

10. Technical Advice Note, Assessment of Noise, 2011.

11. ISO 9613-2:1996 Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. (www.iso.org).

12. Design Manual Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 11 Section 3 Part 7 ‘Traffic Noise and Vibration’, HA213/08. (http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/section3/hd21311.pdf)

13. Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.3.2 – The Noise Sub-Objective – DoT November 2006. (http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.3.2.php).

14. Technical Guides - Calculation of Road Traffic Noise 1988. Department of Transport. Stationary Office, ISBN 0 11 550847 3.

15. Calculation of Railway Noise 1995. . Department of Transport. Stationary Office, ISBN 0115518738.

16. DIRFT III Design & Access Statement, (www.dirftiii.com).



17. Control of Pollution Act 1974 www.legislation.gov.uk

Documents

DIRFT III Environmental Statement - Planning Inspectorate · PDF fileor being adversely affected by unacceptable ... Two key policies are: 1. The Government recognises that the