I am writing to express very considerable surprise that ExA has not invited Challenge Navitus, PCBA or their acoustic consultants to answer the questions set out in the Noise, Vibration and EMF section (section 3).
This is despite the fact that it is due to our work that the developer has had to admit his first claims about noise impact were understated and completely wrong. More progress was made in this direction when John Yelland and Andrew Langley conducted the cross examination at the ISH. Without straying too far into the noise objection, suffice it to say that they have disproved the developer's claim that the Noise Regulations would not be infringed.
None of the invitees has the expertise in acoustics which we are fortunate to possess at CN and PCBA, although the other bodies do of course have an operational interest in this serious matter.
Having regard therefore to the depth of criticism of the Applicant?s noise analysis, it is surprising that ExA do not want to investigate in detail. The matter will again be referred to at the Compulsory Acquisition ISH and we should have thought, it was of great concern to ExA.
As you make clear on the documentation, anyone can take it upon themselves to answer a question despite not being so invited and that is planned to take place in this case. Nonetheless, it would be helpful to know please just why there was no invitation.

Thank you for your email. The questions are designed to seek information on a number of points including those of a technical nature, updates on positions between parties and to seek clarification and views of the persons or organisations to which they are directed. The ExA have identified the persons that they feel can best answer these questions. As you have noted you can of course, if you feel it is appropriate, supply an answer to the questions.
You will also have noted that deadline VII provides an opportunity for IPs Comments on responses to ExA?s second written questions.