Section 61 Consents Lessons Learned
type: Good Practice Document
Author: Crossrail Ltd
Publication Date: 13/03/2018
The Noise and Vibration Guidance Note CoPA 1974 Section 61 Consent Applications and the Model Conditions were developed in consultation with the local authorities and were based upon similar arrangements made between local authorities and other major projects such as CTRL (HS1) and the Thameslink programme. A lessons learned review has been undertaken with local authorities, contractors and the client organisations (Crossrail Limited, Network Rail and London Underground) on the Section 61 process applied to Crossrail works with the objective of identifying any recommendations for implementation by future projects and programmes. This paper captures the comments made at the meetings and recommendations for improvement to the guidance note and model conditions, as well as lessons learned in their application.
Read the full document
Introduction and Context
The Noise and Vibration Guidance Note, CoPA 1974 Section 61 Consent Applications document was developed as part of a suite of documents produced during negotiations between the Promoter and the local authorities during and after the passage of the Crossrail Bill through the parliamentary process. It sets out guidance that the nominated undertaker and the local authorities would adopt when applications were made to obtain Section 61 (S61) consents for Crossrail construction works. It also sets out the level of information that would be required in support of S61 applications, templates for S61 applications, dispensations and variations, and an indicative timescale for the S61 consent process.
Section 5.1 of the Crossrail Construction Code sets out the context for the S61 guidance, in terms of the approach the nominated undertaker would take to controlling and limiting noise and vibration levels, including the application of Best Practicable Means (BPM) as defined under Section 72 of CoPA 1974, and obtaining consents from the relevant local authority under section 61.
The guidance note was based upon similar arrangements made between local authorities and other major projects including the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), East London Line Extension, Thameslink, and the West Coast Route Modernisation projects and was used as the basis of further negotiations with the Environmental Health sub-group of the Crossrail Planning Forum to agree a set of model consent conditions.
The guidance note has been applied to all Crossrail construction activities to which section 61 consents applied, including surface and sub-surface works both for land and river based activities.
The nominated undertakers passed the guidance on to their contractors. Crossrail Limited did this for the central section works by writing the contents of the guidance note into the Works Information. London Underground, the nominated undertaker for station upgrade works at Tottenham Court Road and Bond Street stations, wrote the guidance note requirements in its Works Information, but also provided a copy of the guidance to its contractors. Network Rail was not a nominated undertaker, but was bound to comply with the contents of the guidance note through an arrangement with Crossrail Ltd whereby it was responsible for delivering the on-network (surface section) Crossrail works. Network Rail reproduced the information contained within the guidance note within the preliminaries contract that was sent out during the tender process and then provided a copy of the guidance note to its contractors at the kick-off meeting following award of contract.
Objective of Lessons Learned Review
The purpose of the lessons learned review was to obtain feedback on the section 61 process as it was applied to Crossrail works, with the objective of identifying any recommendations related to lessons learned, best practice and amendments to the guidance note and model conditions based upon the practical experience gained in their application with a view to helping inform future major infrastructure projects.
A series of workshops were held to obtain feedback from the three user groups:
1. Local authorities
2. Contractors – split across two workshops:
a. Crossrail Ltd (CRL) and London Underground (LU) contractors from central section works
b. Network Rail (NR) contractors from surface section works
3. Client representatives from CRL, LU and NR
The workshops focused on feedback on important aspects of the guidance note and quality and consistency of consent conditions.
Each workshop was split into 3 facilitated groups to discuss different parts of the guidance:
1) Seeking, obtaining and modifying S61 consents
2) Implementing the consent
3) Model conditions
Each group had an opportunity to discuss all the 3 topics. At the end of the workshop the facilitators presented back the collated comments for each topic for consensus.
The rest of this lessons learned paper captures the outputs from each of the four workshops. There has been no attempt to merge the outputs from these workshops as varying opinions by the different user groups make this impossible. The reader is instead invited to make their own interpretation in the context of their own unique circumstances.
Local Authority Perspective
Seeking, obtaining and Modifying Section 61 Consents
1. The quality control provided at the project review by the client improved the quality of applications.
Recommendation: Sign off box by the client should be added to a transmittal form accompanying applications for section 61 consents, dispensations and variations.
2. Borough boundaries were unclear and often confused with highways boundaries.
Recommendation: Local authorities should provide boundary information where adjoining boroughs.
3. Adjoining boroughs may have existing working relationships which it would be useful for the contractors to tap into when planning the engagement.
Recommended update to S4: Contractors should coordinate liaison with the relevant local authorities when planning engagement to tap into any existing liaison arrangements the local authorities may have.
4. Derogation process was very successful.
Recommendation: new section should be added to formalise the derogation process.
5. Local authorities struggled to keep track of the overall impact of all the applications, dispensations and variations associated with NI/TRH trigger levels.
Recommended Update to S3.1: Note should be added that contractor should consider the overall impact of applications, dispensations and variations.
6. The guidance note currently requires notification to residents. However, community engagement has worked successfully on the programme in reducing complaints.
Recommended update to s3.8: Note should be added to the guidance that community engagement should be undertaken proportionate to the situation.
7. Boroughs struggle to have oversight of all current section 61 applications. S3.1 required that a programme of planned submissions be maintained, but not current applications.
Recommended update to s3.1: Borough wide trackers of section 61 applications should be maintained by the client for overlapping boroughs or cumulative applications.
8. Some issues with lack of coordination of utility companies.
Recommendation: Suggest change paragraph 2 of section 3.1 of the guidance note to “For inner London stations, utilities and other major work sites…”.
9. Information pre-application and dispensation meetings helped resolve any queries before formal submission.
No update required.
Implementing the Consent
10. Resident notification not considered comprehensive enough in the guidance note. Suggested actions:
– More engagement and communication with residents, specifically to provide more awareness of the noise impact and evolvement within large projects. Provide an awareness of some of the unpredictability that may be encountered (particularly for piling works).
– Local authorities would like to be included in communications planning.
Recommendation: Amend guidance note to include for proportionate community engagement as part of the consultation and notification process.
11. Commencement of Works – handover of site to new contractors did not include any context regarding the previous engagement with the surrounding community.
Recommendation: The guidance note should include:
– Guidance on what relevant information should be handed over by one contractor to another that is replacing it on a site. Example information would be complaints received to-date, relevant knowledge of the community around the site and site specific issues that may trigger complaints.
– A requirement for a comprehensive/specific handover briefing between the contractors and the relevant local authorities.
– A requirement that there be a briefing meeting at the start of any new project between representatives of the environmental health, highways and planning departments of the local authority and the contractor.
12. Noise and Vibration Monitoring – difficulty identifying responsibility for the noise issues occurring when multiple contractors on site
– This may be a section to include in the cumulative noise section (3.5).
– If issue is caused by overlapping project boundaries, one contractor should be identified as coordinator of noise monitoring and issues.
– Consider allocating one overall contractor to be responsible for dealing with noise complaints.
13. Noise complaints
– Many complaints regarding staff noise, reversing alarms, site housekeeping. These elements should be explicitly covered in the guidance.
– The noise insulation and temporary rehousing trigger levels should be reviewed to confirm they are appropriate for specific projects.
14. Poor noise monitoring data received from contractors
– Specify the type of reporting required and make the information available on line to share with the local authorities.
– Specify that noise monitoring can only be carried out by appropriately qualified personnel e.g. Associate Members of the Institute of Acoustics (AMIOA).
15. No consistency of noise monitoring carried out by different contractors
Recommendation: Guidance note should include guidance on data requirements including a template for submission.
16. Checking Best Practicable Means (BPM) – BPM not always sufficiently provided for during a project
– Amend the guidance to include specific BPM monitoring and how/if it will develop.
– Provide an appendix to the guidance detailing BPM for certain types of working.
17. Ongoing Liaison with the Local Authority – Lead time on the project was very long. Preparation was very London centric and outer boroughs were not so aware of impact and scope when works finally started.
Recommendation: Wider engagement required with all affected boroughs and counties earlier in the process highlighting the wider scope of the project.
18. Ongoing liaison with the local authority – better working relationships sooner in the project.
– To provide more formal briefing structure. For example: monthly compliance meetings; activity reports and forward action plan; monitoring summary reports – perhaps display like the RIDDOR statistics on site to raise the profile and importance.
– Nominated undertaker to have ongoing discussions with the local authorities as a group. This may have helped shape and improve the guide
19. Ongoing liaison with the local authority – complaints notification.
Recommendation : To include in the guidance that any noise complaints are notified to the local authorities within 24-hours to enable them to deal with residents/Councillors effectively. However, the basic premise that all complaints are to be investigated by the nominated undertaker should remain.
20. Dispensations and variations – overall this was felt to be a really useful part of the guidance although clarification is required on the definitions of dispensation and variation linked specifically to the definition of material and non-material change. In some projects it was not clear where the boundary was.
Recommendation: Provide further definition as to what constitutes a material change to help differentiate when a matter that represents a change from what has been approved pursuant to a section 61 consent requires an application for a dispensation, or can be approved quickly as a variation.
21. There were some examples where a local authority agreed that certain non-material changes could be taken by the client provided that notification of this decision was sent to the local authority.
Recommendation : Consider if non-material variation decision could be taken by the Project (client) with notification to the local authority only.
Model conditions – General
22. Model conditions were considered to be useful, but did not cater for all sites due to the specificity of the local area and the range of types of work. A menu of conditions could be provided, including some for more specific cases (although care would need to be taken to ensure inappropriate conditions were not applied). Westminster City Council (WCC) has used its own model conditions, developed in collaboration with CRL. BPM was found to be more important, as the duration of work meant that BPM developed and had a greater effect on controlling noise.
Recommendations for additional model conditions:
– Require provision of results of compliance monitoring.
– Require consideration and where possible mitigation of cumulative noise & vibration impacts and include a requirement to seek to work with contractors working on other projects in the area to try and reduce any combined noise & vibration impacts.
– Require that the contractor carry out monitoring and surveillance that BPM is being employed on site.
– Intermittent noise is a key cause of complaint – require supervision and control of staff behaviour.
– Monitoring must be undertaken by qualified staff – AMIOA or equivalent.
– Provide a mechanism to inform local authority of non-material changes. A notification process could avoid the need for all changes to require a variation.
– Require contractor attendance at regular meetings to review compliance.
Recommendations for model informatives (information note):
– Provide an informative about noise insulation and temporary rehousing which has been undertaken.
– Provide an informative about any project specific requirements that contractors must observe with regard to notifying the community about the works.
– Establish an industry repository of BPM practice and encourage contractors to use it.
Contractor Perspective – Feedback from Crossrail Ltd (CRL) & London Underground (LU) Contractors
Seeking, Obtaining and Modifying Section 61 Consents
1) The role of the client was generally seen as a positive aspect with an emphasis on facilitation and not micro-management. Further comments included:
– Reviewing applications – The requirement for a project level (i.e. client review) forms part of the process presented in the flow chart in Appendix V of the guidance note. The contractors felt that the local authorities were more likely to approve a S61 application if it had been signed off by CRL.
– Collaboration between CRL and the contractor was a key aspect in reviewing and approving applications in a timely fashion.
– CRL added value through challenging the contractors and assisting in the identification of BPM.
– CRL had a key facilitating role in the assessment of cumulative noise & vibration impacts when there were several different Crossrail projects working in close proximity.
– CRL provided continuity with local authorities when contractors were changing.
2) Handover between contractors
Recommendation: A new section could be added to the guidance note regarding handover between contractors including:
– Details of any model activities.
– Follow on information such as noise insulation.
– Sharing of site-specific best practice and/or BPM.
3) Non-material changes
Recommendation: For very low impact variations such as activities that contribute less than 3 decibels, or those classed as non-material, contractors recommended a client only sign-off with no input required from the local authority. Non-material variation decisions could be taken by the nominated undertaker with notification only to the local authority. This could be done by adding an additional “Small Change Notification” to the guidance note. Such a process has been tried and worked well in Westminster.
4) Dispensations and Variations – timescales for dispensations and variations considered unrealistic (too long) for contractors.
– Provide some case studies detailing and showing that although there are prescribed timeframes these are often dealt with more quickly as required.
– Review the process, identify if/where there were hold-ups. Revise timescales in the guidance if appropriate.
– Provide a summary of examples and associated times to deal with different types of works.
5) Dispensations and Variations – Improvement of forms.
Recommendation: Front cover for Dispensation unnecessary. Should have sign off boxes for local authority, nominated undertaker and contractor on both forms.
Implementing the Consent
6) Resident Notification – was not considered comprehensive enough.
– More engagement and communication with residents – utilise online and social media closer to the time when works are due to take place. Often the initial communication is some time before the works commence.
– Consider using the project website (for example, Crossrail has the “Near You” website page) to inform the community about upcoming noisy works. Contractors could contribute using a template to ensure consistency of message format and content.
7) Uncoordinated notifications – when multiple site contractors were working in close proximity, not all of them were aware of the others’ programme of works leading to multiple, uncoordinated notifications sent to residents.
Recommendation: Sharing of contractors programmes of work so that notifications could be better managed.
8) Poor and inconsistent noise monitoring data.
– To be included in the guidance note that noise monitoring can only be carried out by appropriately qualified personnel – Associate Members of the Institute of Acoustics (AMIOA).
– Specify in the guidance the type and format of reporting required.
– Make the information available online to share with the local authority.
9) High amount of noise measurement data reporting is required by local authorities of which much is never used and weekly reports are often not read.
– Consider amending guidance note such that reports are required only when certain agreed noise levels are exceeded.
– Alternatively contractors could agree with the local authority from the start how and what data the authority wants submitted as weekly (or other agreed frequency) reports.
10) Checking BPM not always consistent.
Recommendation: A template could be provided in the guidance note and then included as part of the inspection regime to ensure appropriate, consistent approach to inspection by local authorities.
11) Ongoing Liaison with the local authority – better working relationships required.
Recommendation: To be clear in the guidance note that regular meetings must happen with the local authorities and a format agreed.
12) General Recommendations:
– The client should identify one contractor as the lead on noise & vibration matters where major programmes have more than one contractor working in close proximity. This would help with managing cumulative noise & vibration impacts.
– Cumulative noise was suggested as a whole workshop topic.
– Derogations (i.e. the agreement with a local authority that a section 61 consent is not required) were not included in the Works Information, or the S61 guidance note and would be a useful addition. This section could be used to include small change notifications.
– Guidance should be more widely distributed from the start to each contractor.
13) Many contractors were not aware of the model conditions. It was generally agreed that they were useful for both the local authorities and the contractors to the extent that they gave an idea of what conditions would be included. Few contractors received unreasonable additional or modified conditions. Where they did these were challenged. There was general agreement that the idea raised at the local authority workshop to establish an industry repository of BPM practice would be useful.
14) Acceptable additional conditions:
– Require compliance monitoring.
– Monitoring must be undertaken by qualified staff – MIOA or equivalent.
– Westminster City Council mechanism to notify the local authority of non-material changes.
– Require communication with adjacent authorities where work creates noise across a local authority boundary.
15) Recommendations for change/additional model conditions:
– Review the notification requirements – could be done by social media.
– Add a condition regarding notification about emergency works.
– Review core hours – are they still appropriate?
Comments on the guidance note timescales diagram in Appendix V:
Figure 1 – Indicative Timescales for Gaining Section 61 Consent Proposed by Contractors
The CRL and LU contractors proposed an alternative process and timescales for gaining a section 61 consent. This is presented in the diagram below together with the guidance note process for ease of comparison.
The CRL and LU contractors provided the following comments in support of their alternative process:
– No formal draft s61 should be submitted to the local authority as this adds 2 weeks to the process. Instead this should be replaced by an informal review and consultation prior to the final application being submitted.
– Collaboration between the contractor, client and local authority was seen as a key enabler. All parties to be involved in the project review meeting.
– Recommend removing clause that says draft should be submitted 8 weeks ahead of construction start.
Contractor Perspective – Network Rail Contractors
Seeking, Obtaining and Modifying Section 61 Consents
1) Technology – contractors considered that the paper-based approach should be replaced by electronic systems.
– Submissions by letter should be changed to email, or an online system.
– Local authorities should set up an online system for submission, review and approval of S61 notices.
– There should be a central storage location for the status of Noise Insulation (NI) and Temporary Rehousing (TRH).
2) Collaboration between the local authorities and the contractors is key. Site visits are important.
Recommendation: a note on collaborative engagement in producing the draft S61 before submission should be included in the guidance note.
3) Contractors’ planners responsible for works programmes did not always include Section 61 activities in the schedule.
Recommendation: Ensure planners are made aware of the section 61 requirements and programme dependencies.
4) It was unclear how predictions should be presented.
Recommendation: Guidance should include a statement on how predictions should be presented, for example, ambient; ambient and construction; construction only, etc.
5) Sharing between contractors was considered to be important:
– In managing cumulative impacts.
– Including existing information, predictions, baseline, central storage location.
6) Contractors considered the client involvement to be important for assurance purposes, providing support and facilitation where necessary.
Implementing the Consent
7) Rail possession works are highly susceptible to change and loss of working time which means noise does not always occur as predicted. This is not understood by local authorities. The guidance note is written for non-railway works with on-network works (ONW) as an exceptional case.
– Provide a section in the guidance note explaining the particular nature of on-network works.
8) The process works if dispensations and variations are used, but all the processes took too long and were unrealistic for ONW. Even the 48hr minimum notice period was too long to catch changes for ONW. Usually local authorities were willing to work with contractors outside of the specified timescales.
– Allow for provision of an indicative programme, commentary on which works are likely to be done together and prediction of worst case, then this can be followed up with notification when things change.
– A process, similar to the ‘overrun’ process, could be provided. This could be similar to the Westminster City Council small change notification process mentioned in other workshops. Local authorities may want to ensure these are limited, however.
9) Best Practicable Means (BPM)
– Guidance is required on how checking of BPM should be done.
– BPM sometimes conflicts with railway practice e.g. reversing alarms. Provide a checklist of BPM options.
– Engage plant suppliers and manufacturers to improve built-in BPM.
– BPM knowledge bank is a good idea.
– Encourage use of social media and email to update changes to works to those who want to be informed, but not instead of postal notification.
– Give a range of dates and activities in communications.
– Is postal notification still necessary?
– Use station poster sites.
11) The narrative at the top of the document about working hours creates a perception that work outside core hours should be an exception, when it is the rule for on-network works. Not all local authorities use them. Those that do sometimes do not remove non-relevant items.
12) Recommendations for additional model conditions:
– Have a specific set of model conditions for on-network works which take account of railway ways of working (e.g. there is no way to place noise barriers around mobile plant).
13) Other recommendations:
– Engage with local authorities more thoroughly to ensure model conditions are what they want.
– NR helpline reaction is variable and if response is slow can put the contractor in breach.
Comments on the guidance note timescales diagram in Appendix V:
The NR contractors proposed an alternative process and timescales for gaining a section 61 consent. This is presented in the diagram below together with the guidance note process for ease of comparison.
Figure 2 – Indicative Timescales for Gaining Section 61 Consent proposed by NR Contracors
The NR contractors provided the following comments in support of their alternative process:
– Information on particular plant planned for possessions is not usually known 4 weeks before the works, i.e. the statutory review period by the local authorities. It was recommended that an outline section 61 be submitted with further details submitted by dispensation or variation once known.
– The following steps were recommended to minimise the number of dispensations required with an outline approval:
o For approval in principle, focus on a list of tasks/activities that need to take place and then just need to submit a variation to schedule the dates rather than a dispensation.
o Break down and categorise the works into similar activities then allocate typical noise levels for each category.
o Identify a range of machines that work within typical levels so not restricted to one specific bit of plant which may not then be available on the day.
o Identify high noise activities in outline section 61 and notify residents of planned activity coming up. Include requirement to submit a dispensation form once details known then issue more specific notification to residents.
Client (nominated undertaker) Perspective
Seeking, Obtaining and Modifying Section 61 Consents
1. Is a client review required in the process? The requirement for a ‘Project’ review is found in the indicative timescales diagram at the back of the Guidance Note (box 8). It was discussed that the client review at times duplicated the review of the local authority environmental health officers (EHOs). In some cases where there were agreements in place to reimburse the costs of EHO time, the nominated undertaker effectively paid for the contractor and its noise specialist to produce the S61, paid its own staff/consultants to review the drafts, and then paid the local authorities for the EHOs to conduct their reviews. In cases where local authorities undertook a lighter level of review due to the fact that the nominated undertaker had carried out its review this was an effective system. However, in the few cases where the local authority officer then conducted further in depth reviews and challenges this resulted in duplication and inefficiency. There was, at times, an over-reliance by contractors on the client to resolve issues with the local authorities.
It was discussed that the client role could be flexed from project to project based on the perceived risk to programme and reputation. Some of the implications discussed were:
– Reduced quality assurance by the client may lead to poor quality applications being submitted by the contractor resulting in rejection by the local authority and delay. However, this would be self-limiting as contractors would soon start submitting applications that were acceptable to deliver the project.
– The client could have reduced oversight of predictions where the noise insulation and temporary rehousing triggers might be exceeded, which could lead to reputational issues. This could be avoided by requiring that the contractor must first identify where any additional noise insulation and/or temporary rehousing would be required before submitting the section 61; making the contractor financially responsible for the provision of any additional noise insulation and temporary rehousing thereby providing incentive to identify means of working that reduced noise impacts; and making the contractor responsible for any delays to the programme incurred while noise insulation and temporary rehousing is provided.
– The collaborative relationship built up by the client with the local authorities has helped resolve a number of issues. This collaboration may be less effective if less input by the client resulting in increased risk, although it is equally possible that effective working relationships between the contractors and the local authorities might take their place.
– EHOs have been found to be inconsistent in their reviews. Without the client assurance there is risk that BPM is not applied appropriately. However, it is the statutory duty of the local authority when approving a S61 that BPM is being applied.
Recommendation: Some of the suggested solutions were:
– To agree a service level agreement (SLA) with each local authority to pay for the costs of EHOs reviewing the section 61s while removing the client review requirement from the Guidance Note and thereby avoiding any duplication of effort.
– Provide greater definition of the client review role and the local authority EHO review role in the Guidance Note to avoid duplication of effort.
– Introduce a flexible arrangement into the Guidance Note whereby the audit and assurance activities would reflect the level of review by the client. For example, a lesser level of review could be accompanied by a higher degree of auditing, surveillance and other assurance activities on site and vice versa.
2. There was considered to be a lack of clarity around “non-noise sensitive” works.
Recommendation: Definitions and examples of “non-noise sensitive” works should be included in the guidance note.
3. Dispensations and variations section was deemed to be too prescriptive and inflexible.
Recommendation: The guidance note should allow for alternatives to dispensations and variation in agreement with the local authority.
4. Coordination of cumulative impacts by multiple contractors undertaking overlapping or adjacent works is not adequately addressed in the guidance note.
Recommendation: The guidance note should be updated to require a process to be developed to manage cumulative impacts.
5. There was a lack of co-ordination between contractors in the same vicinity resulting in multiple communications to the same residents. Additionally there were 3 helplines that residents could call – Crossrail, LU and NR which created confusion where the works of each were in close proximity.
Recommendation: The guidance note should require coordination of communication between all parties.
6. Although an appeals process existed it was not clearly communicated.
Recommendation: Include an explicit reference to the appeals process document in the guidance note or attach as an appendix.
7. It was often confused that the off-site protection (noise insulation and temporary rehousing) were part of the section 61 process.
Recommendation: Guidance note should be revised so that it is clear that off-site protection is not part of section 61.
Implementing the Consent
1. No comments.
2. No comments.
John Wade, Chair of the Environmental Health Sub-group to the Crossrail Planning Forum, Deputy Chair of the Planning Forum and Head of Environmental Health for The London Borough of Havering
Barbara Terres, Westminster; Ian Miller, Westminster; Rizwan Yanus, Ealing; Muhammed Islam, Hillingdon; Paul Murphy, Tower Hamlets; Bob Bemu, Tower Hamlets, LA Workshop participants
Lee Sanford, City of London; Lee Casey, Islington; David Gilmour, South Buckinghamshire; Paul Newman, Camden; Steve Braund, Chiltern District Council, LA Workshop participants
Conor McCone, CSJV; Bruno Guillaume, DSJV; Nigel Burton, Bureau Veritas; Norbert Skopinski, Bureau Veritas; Isabel Simpson, Costain; Ashley Webb, Laing O’Rourke; Robert Lockwood, Costain, Contractor Workshop participants
Matthew Brinklow, Laing O’Rourke; Alessandra Colace, Balfour Beatty; Caroline Hutson, DSJV; Marcelle Hornshaw, ATCJV; Simon Taylor, CSJV; Elliott Dennett, ATCJV, Contractor Workshop participants
Alistair Maclaurin, Anderson Acoustics; Prannav Bhalla, Anderson Acoustics, Contractor Workshop participants
Sophia Postoyko, Carillion; Mike Draycott, Carillion; Mark Roberts, Carillion; Andrew Beattie, Carillion; Geri Simak, Costain; Mark Edwards, PB World; Sam Reynolds, PB World, Network Rail Contractor Workshop participants
Justin Feltham, RSK; H Fraser, RSK; Mateusz Garbala, Soldata; Paul Edmonds, Taylor Woodrow; Peter Akhurst, Andersons Acoustics; Robbie Pattison, Crossrail, Network Rail Contractor Workshop participants
Monika Kiss, Roger Dentioni, London Underground/Network Rail respectively, Client (Nominated Undertaker)
Rob Paris, Cathy Myatt, Colin Cobbing, Andrew Bird, Crossrail, Client (Nominated Undertaker)
John Wade, LB Havering, Workshop Lead
Andrew Bird, Rob Paris, Cathy Myatt, Crossrail, Workshop Leads
Karen Elson, Crossrail, Lead Facilitator
Brigid Leworthy, Simon Bennett, Crossrail, Facilitators