Peter Carey shows how Camden Council's open and transparent approach towards a major construction project enabled it to successfully minimise adverse impacts on the local community

When Railtrack undertook a major railway infrastructure project called the Euston remodelling scheme, between August 1998 and December 2000, Camden Council worked hard to minimise disruption for residents living around Euston station. The project presented a considerable challenge for the council, as on the one hand, the need for the works was accepted and the investment in the public transport network welcomed, but on the other, the extent and impact of the construction work on a large and densely populated area was of serious concern.

Despite initial fears around the disruption caused by construction noise and out-of-hours working, feedback from residents has shown that Camden's efforts to minimise disruption not only worked, but worked extremely well. The project was urgently needed because the infrastructure, much of which dated from the 1960s, was outdated and in need of replacement. The works included renewal of all track work, signalling and overhead electrification between Euston station and the Primrose Hill tunnels, a distance of approximately 3km. The key difficulty was that the whole project had to take place while railway services continued to run to and from Euston station - one of the busiest stations in the UK.

The railway between Euston station and Primrose Hill, passes through an area with over 10,000 residents. Much of the surrounding residential area has "conservation area" and/or "area of special character" status and there are also a number of listed structures. Although the council was given early warning of the proposed works, the detail of the project and its implementation was slow to emerge. Railtrack commissioned an environmental appraisal but, in many respects, the report was limited. This made it difficult for the council to inform the local community about the nature and timescale of the works.

News of the project was made public in the spring of 1998. Two stormy public meetings followed and councillors were inundated with letters from residents. The main concerns fell into two areas: whether the project required planning permission; and fears about the environmental impacts of the works, including construction noise. Other concerns regarded a proposal to construct a major access ramp to the railway off a quiet residential side street, and to replace or reposition a bridge that formed an important pedestrian link across the railway corridor.

Although this was a Railtrack project, Camden Council recognised that there was a need for it to become more involved in the interests of residents. The environmental health team was identified as the lead section and a project officer was put in place to manage the council's response, with support from other teams, including highways and planning. The key aims were to ensure that adequate environmental controls were in place and that the community was kept informed, with practical opportunities to air its views.

The question of whether planning permission was needed for the works was the most contentious issue in the early stage of the project. Two residents' associations argued that planning permission and a formal environmental impact assessment was required. The council's view, supported by legal opinion, was that the project did not need planning permission as the works were covered by Railtrack's "permitted development" rights under planning legislation. However, the residents' associations launched a legal challenge, which led to a six-day public inquiry in June 1999. The Secretary of State ruled that planning permission was not required and granted a "certificate of lawful development" in January 2000.

PROJECT SCOPE
After Railtrack appointed its main contractor, Balfour Beatty, more information emerged about the scope of works and how they would be carried out. Railtrack adopted a partnership approach with Balfour Beatty and the principal signalling contractor, Westinghouse Signals, under the banner of the "Euston Alliance". From this point onwards, Camden was able to develop a good relationship with the alliance, suggesting that it minimise the negative environmental impacts of the project and involve the local community from the outset - a priority for the council.

With Camden's input, the works to the pedestrian link bridge were redesigned to limit disruption. In the event, the bridge was only completely closed for one four-hour period overnight on a Saturday and local people now say that the works have significantly improved the bridge. The proposal for the access ramp in the residential area was abandoned by Railtrack when it became clear that the contractor did not require it for the project works. The public hostility to the proposal, combined with the council's opposition, undoubtedly influenced the decision.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND WORKING HOURS
Construction noise and out-of-hours working were always expected to be the most serious environmental issues - and the most controversial in terms of how this would affect the residents. In the initial phase of the project, up to April 2000, all works could only be undertaken at night and during weekend blockades, when the railway was closed to passenger trains. Between April and September 2000, there was a major blockade of the Euston approaches, with only half the tracks open at any one time. During this period, work was undertaken on a 24-hour basis.

In early discussions with Railtrack, Camden negotiated that the company should use the Section 61 (Control of Pollution Act 1974) consent process. This meant that applications needed to include detailed noise predictions and outline working methods to minimise noise impacts. This allowed Camden to be open and realistic about the works with local residents. The applications submitted included details of working methods, control measures and noise predictions. Estimated noise level measurements were provided for both day and evening periods, and the highest hourly level at night, at a large number of locations along the 3km route. Predictions of 75 LAeq(T) were common at properties when track relay activities were taking place at the closest point of a property to the railway; although the worst case was a level of 90 dB LAeq(1hr) during one night-time period. During the Summer 2000 blockade works, it was predicted that properties in the "throat" - the narrowed section of track immediately outside Euston station - would experience high levels of noise for up to two weeks at a time.

The issue facing the council was how to facilitate the works taking place while at the same time ensure that the interests of residents were being protected. The legal position appeared to be that the council could not prevent these high-noise level works taking place, so it sought expert advice on the detail in the Section 61 applications. It was concluded that the contractors' general approach to addressing noise impacts was sound, but as the predicted levels were so high, particularly at night-time, there was little point in trying to set specific noise limits. The only way forward was to continually review working methods and closely monitor the works on behalf of residents to ensure that best practicable means were being used at all times to control noise.

In discussions with Railtrack, Camden sought to maximise the undertaking of works between 8am and 6pm and to minimise works between 11pm and 7am, particularly noisy activities. The extent to which this was possible was limited, but Camden was able to intervene successfully on some occasions and it encouraged contractors to carry out noisy track works in the day rather than evening wherever possible. Other control measures included:

• the installation of a system of transformers along the railway corridor to enable lighting and tools to be powered by a mains supply rather than noisy mobile generators;
• installing noise barriers along the railway corridor;
• the use of local, portable noise barriers for activities such as rail cutting;
• providing the workforce with awareness raising "toolbox talks" on the proximity of residents to the works; and
• the introduction of newer Class 66 locomotives, as older locomotive trains caused rumbling which disturbed residents when they were idling (ticking over) ready for use. This reduced the disturbance because the locomotives could be shut down when not in use.

Camden was keen to see a scheme for secondary glazing and/or temporary rehousing put in place if certain noise trigger levels were exceeded. However, noise insulation regulations do not apply to this type of project and Railtrack was not prepared to fund such measures voluntarily.

To ensure that Railtrack and its contractor kept to its obligations, a monitoring strategy was put in place. The council provided personal track safety training for several pollution officers, which enabled them to carry out trackside noise monitoring (including night-time monitoring). This was carried out at various locations to assess whether the best available noise control measures were being used, and that it was effective. Particular attention was paid to complaints, both those made to the council and those made directly to Railtrack or the contractor, with a view to considering whether anything could be done to prevent future noise-related problems.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Three specific measures were put in place to ensure that good communication links with residents were forged. First, following two public meetings held early in 1998, Camden set up a working group, chaired by a Camden councillor, as a vehicle for Railtrack to meet with residents. Meetings were held regularly throughout the project and proved successful because it allowed Railtrack to respond to residents' concerns face-to-face, which fostered good relations. Second, notifications about works - a requirement of the council's consent under Section 61 - were sent to residential properties along the railway corridor every two weeks, to give advance warning of proposed works and likely noise impacts.

Third, Camden succeeded in persuading the contractor to agree to maintain a staffed helpline at all times when works were being carried out. The object was to provide a speedy remedy if residents experienced problems, rather than having to rely on Railtrack's existing helpline operated from a remote call centre. While it was accepted that not all works could necessarily be stopped immediately, all calls were reviewed by the contractor, acted upon where possible, logged and passed on to Camden to review.

Before the works started and around the time of the public inquiry, there was considerable press coverage of the project, much of which was critical of both Railtrack and Camden Council. However, as the worst press predictions about the impact of the works failed to be realised, the level of negative press coverage died down.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Other concerns were also raised at the start of the project, including dust levels, lighting issues, traffic and transport, land contamination, rat infestations and vibration levels. The main source of dust arose from the dropping of new ballast and emissions from diesel locomotives. The former was controlled by damping down ballast before delivery to site and was generally successful. The latter problem was helped by the introduction of the newer, "greener" locomotives. Semi-permanent lighting was installed at a number of locations during the final stage works in summer 2000, to allow night-time working, but this was positioned sensitively and there were few complaints. Many of the initial fears about traffic from delivery of construction materials and equipment did not arise because the railway system was used to transport the majority of materials.

There were many concerns about contamination, especially asbestos, in the railway corridor. In the event, some asbestos was found in one isolated area and was removed in a controlled manner. In fact, the works will have significantly reduced the levels of all contaminants in the railway corridor through excavation. There were fears that the works would cause significant displacement of rats but these concerns were not realised.

PROJECT REVIEW
Complaints: the council received 71 complaints during the course of the Euston remodelling scheme - a very low figure for such a large-scale project. Approximately 85 per cent of complaints were noise-related and made via the hugely successful helpline operated by the alliance, which enabled residents to report issues directly to the contractor and get them dealt with quickly.

Residents' survey: in January this year, a survey of 283 residents was carried out to ascertain their views on the success of the project, with a 30 per cent response rate. Of those who responded, 57 per cent said that the works had no real environmental impacts or that the impacts were not as bad as expected (chart 1). Fifty seven per cent said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the way in which Camden had dealt with the project (chart 2). The survey confirmed that noise and working hours were the main causes of initial concern, but that the helpline and notifications by letter were found to be very useful."Alliance" feedback: both Railtrack and Balfour Beatty were extremely positive about their relationship with Camden during the project. Railtrack felt that the Section 61 process had worked well and is using the council's consents procedure as a model for the rest of the west coast route modernisation works. The Euston remodelling scheme was a tremendously complex project with a number of severe constraints. Although there was some disturbance and inconvenience, the project was generally carried out with little disruption.

It demonstrates the need for an open and transparent approach by all parties in similar projects, with early provision of information. A structured approach to the development of an environmental control strategy through mechanisms such as local environmental assessment, development of a project code of construction practice and use of the Section 61 consent process proved invaluable. The monitoring strategy that was put in place to review work in progress worked well. Above all, the project showed the need to engage with all sections of the local community. Residents need information concerning the project, effective consultation on relevant aspects and mechanisms to enable the community to raise concerns and complaints as the project progresses.

There is also a strong case for noise insulation regulations to cover projects of this type and duration. Had the criteria being used for the channel tunnel rail link project been adopted, a significant number of properties could have qualified for sound insulation packages. The project required a considerable commitment from Camden Council in terms of resources, but this commitment reaped benefits. Camden was able to support Railtrack through the successful upgrade of the Euston throat and approaches, while ensuring that the community was protected. The experience of this project will prove invaluable in shaping how Camden deals with future major construction projects. This strategic approach to enforcement, using the Section 61 consent process, has demonstrated the value of developing a partnership arrangement with businesses, resulting in the highest possible standard of environmental protection for the community.

Peter Carey, Pollution Projects Team, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall Extension, Argyle Street, London WC1H 8EQ, UK. Tel: 020 7974 6922 Fax: 020 7974 5517. This views in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Camden Council.