Witness Credentials Kieran James Gayler Acoustic Consultant BSC

Witness Credentials • Kieran James Gayler – Acoustic Consultant • BSC (Hons) in Environmental Science • Chartered Scientist, Chartered Environmentalist • Member of the Institution of Environmental Sciences, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and Institute of Acoustics. • Partner at Sharps Gayler LLP. Former Director of Sharps Redmore Partnership Ltd. 20 Years in Acoustics

Summary of evidence • The Promoter has understated and inadequately addressed levels of noise above the night-time LAMAX LOAEL. • The Promoter’s method for judging “reasonable practicability” is flawed and leaves considerable risk with residents, not the Promoter or the Nominated Undertaker. • Failure to manage “Total Noise” has led to insufficient mitigation of impacts, particularly in urban areas. • The Promoter’s approach to quiet and relatively quiet areas does not protect such areas.

Addressing night time LAMAX Levels • The Promoter now acknowledges that the night-time LAMAX LOAEL is the most far reaching of their tests for mitigation: the “governing trigger”. • The LAMAX LOAEL is defined at “façade level”, while all the Environmental Statement (ES) figures for properties are shown “free-field” • Need to add 2. 5 d. B to all ES figures to be comparable to the 60 d. B LAMAX LOAEL. The Promoter has adopted +2. 5 d. B figure as the “reasonable worst case”* • The number of properties between LOAEL and SOAEL has been substantially underestimated *As in letter of 10 June 2016 from Simon Kirby to David Lidington, MP

Comparison of No. of Properties above LOAEL

Does the LAMAX LOAEL matter? • The Promoter says LOAEL is not a health risk threshold, and health effects do not occur until SOAEL • Evidence quoted by WHO suggests the opposite • Levels above the low observed effect levels are not a trivial matter and must be mitigated and minimised • Presumption that the Promoter is right, as opposed to consensus of WHO experts, is problematic

Reasonable Practicability • Information Paper E 20: – reduce noise above LOAELs “as far as reasonably practicable” • All noise mitigation commitments are subject to this qualification • No basis for calculating what is ‘reasonably practicable’ beyond Web. TAG • Web. TAG gives values (£/household) to reducing noise using DEFRA health based tables. • DEFRA advise (1) simplified Web. TAG tables or (2) a bespoke review. HS 2 circumstances justify a bespoke approach

Problems with Web. TAG • No category for high-speed rail noise • No appropriate consideration of LAMAX • No value attributed to reductions of levels below 45 d. B LAeq, day or night • Negligible sums for mitigation and a decrease in value (per decibel reduction) as sound levels reduce. • Compounded by underestimation of properties above LOAEL

Consequence of Promoter’s “reasonable practicability” • Risk for residents of increased noise. • Examples: • • • Noisier trains used on cheaper cost grounds Reductions where slab track used being avoided on cost grounds Limits of deviation being exploited to reduce cost Mitigation being removed to reduce cost Tunnel boom not being resolved on cost grounds ES noise levels exceeded but actions triggered by F 4 investigation too expensive • The “reasonable practicability” clause gives licence to The Promoter/Nominated Undertaker to make more noise than the ES specifies, simply on cost-benefit grounds, with the values attributed to noise flawed and too small.

Total Noise • WHO Guidelines used to derive LOAELs and SOAELs are based on ‘total noise’ • HS 2 is, however, considered in isolation of other sources for LOAELs and SOAELs, making them less demanding • Evidence that sources combine to have an additive effect (sleep disturbance) ignored by the Promoter • Combining HS 2 with existing environment will bring about a need for increased mitigation, especially in urban areas

Quiet Areas High speed rail – pronounced character Low existing noise levels means the impact is enhanced NPSE, NPS and WHO all refer to protection of quiet areas The Promoter’s definition excludes most rural areas from the noise assessment and treats them under landscape. • The ES only considers impacts above 40 d. B Leq (night) and 50 d. B leq (day), irrespective of the change in noise level that can be large in quiet areas. • The Promoter has accepted that his policy is not directed at preserving relatively quiet areas where new noise would be a material addition, but in ensuring that the resultant noise level is ‘acceptable’ • •

Recommendations LAMAX • Additional Mitigation (including slowing trains at night) to minimise properties above LAMAX LOAEL • Update the ES and all future versions to show LAMAX figures at the façade* enabling the correct comparison with the LAMAX LOAEL; • Explanation from the Promoter where mitigation measures are rejected * (+2. 5 db as “reasonable worst case assumption”)

Recommendations Reasonable Practicability • Disallow use of simplified Web. TAG values for HS 2 (for E 20) • Remove the clause for slab track, tunnel boom, HS 2 train acoustic performance, limits of deviation, exceeding ES predicted noise levels, and from the F 4 process • Explanation from the Promoter where mitigation measures are rejected

Recommendations Total Noise • LOAELs and SOAELs should be based on total noise (but be the same values), with mitigation re-assessed Quiet Areas • Lower LOAELs and SOAELs for quiet areas Methodology • Review methodologies when 2016 WHO document is released.