PUBLIC SESSION

MINUTES OF ORAL EVIDENCE

taken before

HIGH SPEED RAIL COMMITTEE

On the

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON – WEST MIDLANDS) BILL

Tuesday, 2 February 2016 (Morning)

In Committee Room 5

PRESENT:

Mr David Crausby (Chair)

Sir Henry Bellingham Sir Peter Bottomley

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Mr Mark Hendrick

_____________

IN ATTENDANCE

Mr James Strachan QC, Counsel, Department for Transport Ms Jacqueline Lean, Counsel, Department for Transport Mr Richard Turney, Counsel, Department for Transport

Mr Alastair Lewis, Sharpe Pritchard

WITNESSES

Mr Ralph Smyth, The Campaign to Protect Rural England Ms Louise Stables Mr David Tomkins

Ms Victoria Woodall Mr David Tomkins

Mr Ron Petesen Mr Andrew Band

Mr Bob Lewis Mr Graham Watts

_____________

IN PUBLIC SESSION

2

INDEX Subject Page The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Submissions of Mr Smyth 3 Response from Mr Strachan 16 Closing submissions by Mr Smyth 32 NFU (Update) Submissions by Mr Alastair Lewis 33 Response from Mr Strachan 43 Response from Ms Lean 47 Closing submissions by Mr Alastair Lewis 49 Hampton-in-Arden Action Group, and others Introduction from Mr Strachan 50 Submissions by Ms Woodall 51 Submissions by Mr Tomkins 52 Response from Mr Strachan 59 Wendover HS2 Submissions by Mr Petesen 63 Response from Mr Strachan 63 Andrew Band Submissions by Mr Band 64 Response from Mr Strachan 65 Wendover Society Introduction by Mr Strachan 66 Submissions by Mr Watts 67 Submissions by Mr Bob Lewis 70

3

(At 09.30)

1. CHAIR: Good morning, welcome to the HS2 Committee. We are going to begin

this morning with petition 1351, the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Ralph Smyth?

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)

2. MR SMYTH: Good morning, can we start with A19252 please? Thank you very

much. So this morning, I hope to address the committee in the spirit of being

constructive but challenging to High Speed 2, the very words the Secretary of State used

when he gave our annual lecture a few years ago. As you will see on the top of the

slide, CPRE has five tests for sustainable high-speed rail, and these will be running

through my submission today like a golden thread.

3. If I could move back to slide (1) please? Just to signpost the matters that I will be

going through this morning. They can be grouped under three headings. The first is

about design processes. The second about protection of the countryside. The third

about climate change and transport. I will try to add value rather than repeat to those

who have gone before, or add detail and nuance. I will also be suggesting that many of

the matters here are – the promoter is not complying with the latest government policy

and I’ll be making specific suggestions to your committee about how that can be

changed.

4. If I could move on please to slide (3)? First of all about the processes for design.

We were delighted when the Secretary of State announced that he would be setting up a

design panel at our annual lecture, but as you can see from this quote from the

Architects’ Journal, significant questions remain whether this panel will have any teeth

when it comes to design quality and adding value. Now, last year the Department for

Transport set up not one but two design panels, and the other design panel which I sit on

relates to Highways England. There are clear conditions on Highways England to

comply with that design panel. I have taken the quote at the bottom of this slide from

the statutory licence for Highways England – between Highways England and the

Secretary of State. That states that Highways England has to have due regard to the

advice and general recommendations of the design panel, and the particular observations

of the panel on specific schemes.

4

5. Now, the promoter has resolutely rejected writing in any mention of the High

Speed 2 design panel into the plethora of guidance, the EMRs, the Schedule 16 guidance

– I could give you a long list – many places where one might expect the design panel to

be referred to. And, as a result, CPRE is asking for this committee to recommend that

the Bill is amended, the EMRs, and also the Schedule 16 guidance to our planning

authorities, so that the same weight can be given to the hopefully sage advice of the

design panel.

6. Now the promoter has come back to us with a number of arguments why this

should not happen, if I could address those briefly. First, and this was Mr Miller on 15

July 2015, he said, ‘It’s not our role to tell others what to do’. But I contrast that with

the MPPF paragraph 62, which highlights the importance of referring major

infrastructure panels to design review panels, and to have regard to is recommendations.

7. The next argument by Mr Miller on 15 July was that no one would make a poor

design because that will impact on their careers. Well, there are probably many

buildings and bridges out there that one wonders, what happened to the career of the

designers –

8. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we can pick this point up quite quickly;

there’s no need to hammer the nail in too often.

9. MR SMYTH: Okay, forgive me, sir. The other point was that the design panel

has not design panel has not been mentioned in previous Bills. Then again we say that

actually this design panel has been created earlier in the process in other Bills. So I

have set out the remedy, and I hope that the committee would find favour with it.

10. If I can move on to slide (4) please? This is the one area where we have had

movement from the promoter about publishing a data strategy by Royal Assent. The

issue is, as the process continues to be ever more complicated data, that will be difficult

for planning authorities and communities to follow, we are particularly worried about

construction traffic – a matter your committee has heard about in previous hearings.

The promoter has refused to provide live data of where lorries on the basis that it’s

impossible to track all fleets at all times; and we are concerned that is effectively a get-

out clause.

5

11. If I could turn to the next slide (5) please? Very simply, here, you can see that live

data is provided for aeroplanes; that allows communities to monitor particularly noisy

planes; and we say that the same should be provided by HS2 to allow that the conditions

on lorry routes and movements should be complied with.

12. If I could move on now to slide (6) please, in relation to the green belt. I don’t

need to repeat the Prime Minister’s views about the importance of protecting the green

belt.

13. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You don’t.

14. MR SMYTH: I’m not going to; it’s there on the slide. CPRE does accept that

HS2 counts as engineering operations, not unacceptable development. Nonetheless, we

say that the impacts on openness should be minimised and offset as far as reasonable.

15. If I could turn to slide (7) please? The promoter now acknowledges that no

assessment was carried out on the impacts of green belt. Effectively, the promoter has

been following the EU approach in environmental assessments rather than applying

English planning policy; in particular, for the purpose of green belt which relates to

openness. Now, for example, what that means in practice is that the promoter has

highlighted where there’s a loss of public open space; they haven’t considered where

there’s an actual loss of openness where that open space is perhaps surrounded by large

constructions. The policy before the MPPF had specific detail about land use objectives

for major developments. Now, that was cut out as part of the move to shorten the MPPF

from the combined works of Shakespeare to just 57 pages. We say that it’s not – we say

that clearly didn’t mean to change green belt policy – indeed, it says as much in the

Coalition Agreement of the previous government. Therefore we have put out a remedy,

our next slide, (8), setting what we believe the remedy should be.

16. So if you can see the image on the right of this slide, this shows the line going

through the Meriden Gap, the green belt you’ll be familiar with, outside Birmingham.

The pink stripe shows the visibility of HS2, what’s known as the zone of theoretical

visibility, and how that impacts on the openness of that critical section of green belt.

Our suggestion is that as part of the detailed design, HS2 should seek to reduce that zone

of theoretical visibility with a remedy that, where they fail to, a small amount of money

should be provided to reduce or offset the impacts on the green belt.

6

17. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Have you got a calculation of how much that would

be?

18. MR SMYTH: Forgive me?

19. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Have you got an estimate of how much that would

be?

20. MR SMYTH: How much what would be?

21. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: For each percentage point?

22. MR SMYTH: We don’t. We would say though that the ES calculations are the

worst case – that’s the rule of the Environmental Statement. There have been good

changes, such as the extension of the Chiltern Tunnel, that already mean quite a lot of

movement. Having a target, as part of detailed design would help High Speed 2 focus

on green belt, a matter it hasn’t engaged with generally in the past.

23. If I could maybe move on now to slide (9) – I appreciate you’ve had a lot of

discussions about the Chilterns, so we make a simple point here. On the right there is a

photo montage of what we would say is the most visually intrusive part of High Speed 2

along the whole route – that’s the Wendover Dean viaduct. We are asking for two

remedies here. First, that every structure visible in or from the AONB should be a

signature structure. At the moment, there has been a commitment to viaducts being a

signature structure, but there are other elements such as over-bridges and noise barriers

that haven’t, as I understand it. Now, looking at the impact of HS1 through the Kent

AONB, those do stand out, and we believe that commitment should be extended

marginally.

24. The second principle, and this is another example of offsetting, is that the same

amount of the pylon – the electricity transmission line you can see on the right of that

image – should be undergrounded for the length of HS2 that remains running on the

surface of the Chilterns AONB. Given this is an AONB and green belt, we say there are

strong grounds why some of the harm should be offset.

25. If I could move on now to slide (10) please? Just to explain the image on the right

of this slide, this shows the designated AONB boundaries in pink; HS2 in a thick black

7

line; and the lines – the dashes – are electricity transmission lines. The colour relates to

CPRE’s tranquillity mapping which has been accepted and incorporated in the ES by

HS2. Clause 32(b) of the Bill changes the normal position that local authorities can

require Public Inquiries for new transmissions lines. This says that where there’s a new

transmission line – this is outside what’s been planned already by HS2 – Ministers can

block Public Inquiries. We say the balance there is wrong. Where there are nationally-

recognised assets or indeed, the intrinsic character, beauty of the countryside which is a

core planning provision of the MPPF in paragraph 17, we say that there should be a

right for local authorities to require a Public Inquiry. This isn’t banning transmission

lines in these sensitive areas you can see on the map; it’s simply nudging the

government to think again – and perhaps given all these opportunities for connections in

different places to HS2, to avoid the most sensitive areas of countryside.

26. If I could move on to slide (11) please, which relates to noise? Now, I very much

appreciated that you’ve heard detailed and excellent submissions from the local

authority noise consortium. But, it has focused on the noise impacts to residents from

HS2 trains passing their homes. CPRE would like to make points about the need to

protect quiet areas, for the benefit of everyone to enjoy the countryside, which is

recognised in EU law, and UK policy. Now, the EU Environmental Noise Directive has

a reporting requirement on protection of quiet areas and open country. In fact, we’ve

been working with the Commission and they’ve just launched a new consultation a

couple of weeks ago, and we would say that we should future-proof HS2 to meet the

Directive at the time it opens, rather than where it is now. The National Networks MPS

also highlights the need to be aware of areas that are particularly valued for their

tranquillity and landscape quality. Similarly, the MPPF.

27. What I would stress, though, is that the detail – the noise planning practice

guidance – highlights, and this is the first phrase of the bottom paragraph, there are no

precise rules. I think this is one matter where we would differ with the excellent

submission made by the local authority noise consortium that said the rules are actually

quite precise. The fact is, the rules aren’t precise in relation to rural areas.

28. So if I could move on to slide (12) please? The promoter has said that people

should accept the acceptable, so to speak; and where it isn’t acceptable, they should

receive land compensation. Well, that’s one matter for people in their homes; it’s

8

another for those who want to enjoy the countryside. Information Paper E20 only

extends as far as external amenity spaces. Those are defined as being private gardens.

So there’s no protection whatsoever for other outside areas like parks, or tranquil spaces

that are enjoyed for their recreational value.

29. If I can move on to slide (13) please? We have our research which has been

submitted about the impact of traffic noise in rural areas; I’m not proposing to go

through it as it’s rather detailed. But it does highlight how some people will just avoid

areas affected by noise. Others visit them less; and many of those that remain find that

their experience has been degraded. Also, the study shows that even villages that aren’t

allowed to have noise compensation, they still are seriously affected.

30. If I could move on to slide (14) please? This is an example of a significant rural

noise impacts. This is the meandering Oxford Canal, which would have very noise

impacts for over a mile, from HS2. Now, apart from the farmhouses highlighted on this

mapping, HS2 suggests that the – the promoter suggests there’s no need to reduce noise.

We would say that would impact very much on an area popular for recreation, that’s

also in an area of high tranquillity.

31. If I could move on to slide (15) please? I hope this is not too fast, sir?

32. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: No, it’s not too fast; it’s the right speed, at least to

me. It’s interesting as well.

33. MR SMYTH: Thank you. In relation to noise, we have two suggested remedies.

The first is to extend the scope of the 50dB limit in the Information Paper E20, on noise,

to cover rights of way, public amenity spaces, in AONBs and also areas identified in

green on the CPRE tranquillity mapping – that’s to say areas of high tranquillity.

34. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Even if this gave you major screening in areas that

have very few visible structures?

35. MR SMYTH: Forgive me, sorry?

36. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Even if this meant rather visible screening in areas

where you had very few visible structures?

9

37. MR SMYTH: It’s a fair point; the balance, the trade-off. We would say that,

actually, well-designed noise barriers – perhaps ones that aren’t completely straight but

use natural materials and vary a bit, can fit into the landscape; if you put plastic straight

lines, that would, yes. That would be unacceptable.

38. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can you, when you make these ideas, give us some

idea of the costs? Because clearly cost has to be a factor? So, what, first response

example would your proposals on this slide cost?

39. MR SMYTH: There are different ways of meeting them, and some of that will

become clear in detailed design. I think even HS2, the promoter, whose resources are

somewhat greater than ours, would only come up with a guestimate at this stage.

40. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: You can’t realistically put a proposal before this

committee before giving us some idea of what it’s going to cost. Because everything

has to be a trade-off and a balance in this whole preparation.

41. MR SMYTH: What we would say in relation to the second measure here is trying

to have an overall principle to reduce noise impact. There are many ways of reducing

noise – one, for example, is Mr Hendrick’s suggestion, of using double-decker trains.

These mean a shorter burst of noise, and they would be suitable for some of the captive

stock between Birmingham and London. Another example is to reduce the speed,

slightly, from 360km/h to 330km/h – a matter that you heard about yesterday – where

the additional time would be very small, but even with a 30km/h drop in speed, there

would be a 3dB, a very noticeable drop in noise.

42. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Sorry, 3dB is not very noticeable; 3dB is noticeable.

43. MR SMYTH: Yes, it’s noticeable.

44. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: You are giving a political answer. What is the cost of

this proposal? On one of your scenarios, you’ve told us variations, okay; so what is the

cost of one of those variations?

45. MR SMYTH: In terms of lowering the speed.

46. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Don’t trouble yourself with lowering speed; try

10

going for physical intervention.

47. MR SMYTH: I am afraid I don’t have that cost; we’ve tried to discuss these

matters with HS2 and they haven’t progressed them.

48. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Okay, let’s turn it around then; when HS2 come to

respond, perhaps they could give us a piece of string answer to, say, a mile along the

Oxford Canal.

49. MR SMYTH: I’m grateful. If I could move on now to slide (16); I think you’ve

seen this slide yesterday. This shows the carbon budgets, particularly the fourth and

fifth carbon budgets, 4CB and 5CB, that are most relevant to the opening of Phase One.

Now, I don’t believe that the Committee on Climate Change reported to Parliament in

November, on the lowest cost course for the country for meeting these future –

50. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’ve got a lot to contribute; on this, I don’t think

there’s anything particularly that we haven’t heard before, twice.

51. MR SMYTH: I’ve seen the presentation yesterday, so I am focusing on different

matters – forgive me. So I don’t believe that you’ve heard that the committee have said

new policies will be needed to meet these budgets.

52. If I can move on to slide (17) please? This shows the emissions from UK surface

transports, and you can see that actually, following the opening of HS2, emissions

increase. On 7 January, the Secretary of State at DECC said that, ‘We know we need to

make more progress on heat and transport’.

53. If I can move on to slide (18) please? In this context, it’s worth comparing

progress of HS2 and other railways. So the Department for Transport secured

contractual obligations to reduce emissions from the TransPennine Express in December

– a very substantial reduction in carbon and energy use. By contrast, High Speed 2 has

slid backwards, both in terms of modal shift from 8% to 1%; and also in terms of

embodied carbon, with a 6% increase from Bill deposit to AP5. Even with the removal

of the High Speed 1 – High Speed 2 link. That, we say is critical. We are simply asking

for passive provision to be made, because St Pancras is filling up. The Department for

Transport accepts they have no information about its capacity.

11

54. The October 2015 Report on HS1 showed that the benefit-cost ratio was as low as

0.5. Now, it’s unlikely you’ll have a higher benefit-cost ratio from connecting HS2 to

HS1, but we would say just as no one is arguing – no one is really arguing HS1 should

not have been built; so we suggest in the future, no one would suggest this link should

not be built. The carbon savings from it would be very substantial in terms of reducing

flights.

55. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: CPRE, Protecting Rural England, is advocating

having a straight link on rail from HS2 to HS1?

56. MR SMYTH: That’s right sir, yes. Not through the original proposals – we

accept the costs of those to communities would be severe and it wouldn’t be engineered

well – come on to later. Also, just to mention the HS2 to the south-west link. I can see

Mr Clifton-Brown is out, but there would be very significant benefits to the south-west,

to Gloucestershire and beyond, from having a link to allow trains to run from the

southwest onto HS1 in Phase Two.

57. If I could move on to slide (19) please? In 2012, CPRE published research on the

carbon impacts of HS2. This was referred to – this was relied upon by the

Environmental Audit Commission in 2014. One of the top- line recommendations was

to limit the maximum speed of HS2 until the grid was decarbonised. Now, HS2 have

promised to publish studies; nothing has happened three, almost four years, since the

study was published. We also say that there should be targets to reduce the carbon

impacts of HS2 in the long-term; but I would emphasise that it’s the short-term, those

critical fourth and fifth carbon budgets, where the emissions are absolutely vital. We’d

also say there should be a requirement for no net increase in private motor traffic around

HS2 stations – and I will come on to more of that later in the policy support for it.

58. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Taxis and hire cars are alright?

59. MR SMYTH: Sorry?

60. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Taxis and hire cars are alright?

61. MR SMYTH: It’s something, if I can come on to in a moment? There’s a policy I

wish to rely on.

12

62. If I could move on to slide (20) please? Forgive me, A1925(20)? Forgive me –

just very briefly, two quick lessons from HS1. HS1, the public space around the station

is problematic; there’s anti-pedestrian deterrent paving around the back; and it shows

the need to plan positively for future travel around the station. Ebbsfleet; there’s a very

large car park and that’s meant poor public realm; and also a repeated failure to deliver

the land use objectives of a garden city.

63. If I could turn now to slide (21)? While there’s been good constructive challenge

to the East Midlands Hub, there hasn’t been for the Birmingham Interchange Station. I

would highlight the report by leading architects, Farrells, for East Midlands councils

that, late last year, highlighted the need to limit the footprint of transport facilities,

especially car parking; minimise road access for cars and congestion, to maximise

economic growth; and also to achieve high-quality cycle connectivity to the surrounding

areas.

64. Slide (22) please? Now there’s a real challenge here. The promoter says that all

this can be dealt with at future detailed design. But there is a major discrepancy

between the core planning principle and the MPPF, that requires the fullest possible use

of public transport, walking and cycling; and Schedule 16 which limits grounds for

refusal for planning authorities, simply in relation to reducing prejudicial effects on road

safety or the free-flow of traffic. What that means is that measures to – the planning

authorities will not be able to insist on measures for the fullest possible use of public

transport, walking and cycling, because they will be severely curtailed by Schedule 16.

65. In addition, the forecasts from traffic around the new stations show a lack of

ambition, particularly around cycling. The remedy we wish to seek is either the Bill is

amended, so that Schedule 16 can mirror the MPPF; and also an undertaking to seek to

secure no net increase in car trips around the area of HS2 stations.

66. If I could move on now to –

67. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Which are the rail journeys for which people most

usually either take their bicycle with them or bicycle to the station?

68. MR SMYTH: I think in terms of central London and Birmingham, there is great

potential for a lot more cycling. But even we will say – and I will come on to this in a

13

moment – the Birmingham Interchange, there are a number of villages and towns within

5-8 miles of the station, where there could be higher cycling rates.

69. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: This is major for stations that include trains which

are on local and shorter journeys?

70. MR SMYTH: Actually if one is cycling to get onto an HS2 train, rather than

having to drive and risk being stuck in congestion and not finding a car parking space,

there are advantages of just being able to nip there on a bicycle, I’m sure you’ll be

aware.

71. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I remember estimates from a number of people

about walking to Euston. I can’t remember the estimates of the proportion of cycling,

though?

72. MR SMYTH: Forgive me, I’ve focused on Birmingham because I have been

dealing with London, I wanted to add value. In relation to Birmingham it has some of

the lowest cycling levels in the country and as a result, they’ve not been able to model

increases in cycling; and they simply aggregated the figure. As a result – and I come on

to all this in a future slide – we believe opportunities are being missed.

73. If I could move on to slide (23), please? We have here an infographic from the

Highways Agency Route Strategy from 2014, for the Birmingham Box. As you can see,

there are – there is very severe congestion already on the section of the motorway

running past the HS2 station. The promoter is forecasting very significant increases in

traffic. Its argument seems to be, things will become so worse, a bit more traffic from

HS2 won’t make it noticeably so. But I would highlight that in all the traffic

assessments, the promoter has managed to ignore the main planning document, namely

the Circular 2/2013, it’s entitled, ‘Planning and Strategic Road Network’, which is a

Department for Transport circular. This highlights at paragraph 26, that promoters

should put forward initiatives to manage down the impact of traffic, and that this is

particularly necessary on sections of the strategic road network that could appear as

capacity problems. By paragraph 30, it sets out the approach – you’ll see I’ve been

banging on about in previous slides. This suggests that where a new development has

significant traffic impacts, it may be possible to free-up capacity by engaging with

existing development. So, what I’m effectively suggesting is that HS2 should work in

14

partnership with the NEC, and wider settlements, trying to reduce the car traffic there,

for example, with the new tram that’s been proposed, or new bus services, so there is no

net increase in vehicular movements, other than, say, coaches and buses, to the HS2

station. Now, that simply hasn’t been considered, even though it’s a DfT circular.

74. We also would say that it’s actually in some of the traffic assessments that the

modal share targets for Birmingham Airport, the NEC and the business park, are driving

private operators to improve bus services. But, by contrast, there’s no target for the HS2

station. As a result, we say, opportunity to secure the fullest possible use of buses and

other forms of transport are simply being missed.

75. If I could turn on now to slide (25)? Which is about the Interchange. Here you

can see the Interchange with the associated car parking. Now, we have a particular

concern in relation to clause 22 of the Bill. That sets a limit of 7,500 short-term car

parking spaces at the Interchange, but there’s no definition of short-term. I was

interested to see that Luton Airport describes short-term parking as being up to eight

days. So, in effect, there is no limit here. There would be very high car use at this

station; and there’s no attempt to minimise the sprawl of the station onto the green belt.

Now, we say that the remedy should be amending clause 22, removing the reference to

undefined ‘short-term parking’, and limiting down the net increase in car parking. What

I mean by that is that there may be opportunities to reduce car parking around the NEC,

because of the improved public transport accessibility, and therefore that would offset

larger increases in car parking around the HS2 station. Also, saying there should be an

area-wide travel plan, not just a station travel plan; that would conform with the

guidance in paragraph 30.

76. If I could move on finally to slide (24) – this is going one backwards, forgive me?

This is about cycling. So, to quote from the Cycling and, also, happily, the HS2

Minister, the problem we have is that we should have started 30 years ago; we need to

redouble our efforts to get what the Prime Minister called a ‘cycling revolution’. The

promoter is saying, we can simply leave cycle routes to detailed design. The problem is

that these will possibly require additional land take if they’re going to be segregated.

For example, AP5 sets out requirements for additional land take for the People Mover.

At the moment, the HS2 proposals have no access for the Interchange Station from the

south, the west or the east. There’s simply a route going north, where one has to

15

dismount around every exit of a roundabout. If one does go around in a spiral, coming

out to the nearby villages, the mitigation measures to reduce the motor traffic impacts

will make conditions about as unpleasant for cycling as possible. There will be slip

lanes one has to cycle over that will be extremely busy. Now, what we are asking for is

that the promoter should provide space for high-quality links around the station to the

south and the east. The promoter accepts that people won’t use public transport from

Hampton in Arden and other settlements in that area, because it won’t be competitive to

driving. We say that, actually, those are about five miles from the station; it would be a

great opportunity for people to cycle to that station.

77. The government is due to publish the draft Cycling-Walking Investment Strategy

in March, and we say there are opportunities to dovetail this and what’s known as the

CWIS. Now, in particular, these cycle routes would open up the green belt so perhaps

they wouldn’t be used by commuters during the weekend, but they would be a fantastic

way for people in Birmingham to go past the wall of motorway and HS2, into the

surrounding countryside, and as a result, they’d also help achieve the green belt benefits

I mentioned earlier.

78. So forgive me for taking up 35 minutes, but I hope that was at a reasonable speed

and I’m very happy to comment on the response from the promoter. Thank you.

79. CHAIR: Sir Henry?

80. SIR HENRY BELLINGHAM: Thank you very much, and I should declare an

interest for being a keen supporter and member of the CPRE. But I think that a lot of

these points are generic and you’ve outlined them very well. But I think further to the

question asked by my colleague Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, it would be really good if

HS2, if they are able to, could cost some of these suggestions and initiatives. I think

quite a lot of what you said has already been built into the detailed design phase, and I

think the influence of CPRE nationally, but also your local branches, working with

Parish Councils, with different groups, has been effective. So I think you can take some

pride in what has been achieved so far.

81. MR SMYTH: Thank you very much.

82. SIR HENRY BELLINGHAM: But I really am keen to drill down a bit and to get

16

some financial detail if possible?

83. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

84. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I will do my best. Can I, just by way of

introduction, explain that within the packs you’ve got at P14180(1), there is a document

which contains a response to all of these points, in rather more detail that I’m

necessarily going to propose going through now, because I’ll adopt the same principle:

the committee can read faster than I can speak. But just for your note, we have sought

to deal with all the outstanding points from the CPRE. That doesn’t mean we’ve

reached agreement on the points, but we’ve explained our position. But I’ll cover the

key points as we go along, by reference to that document.

85. First of all, I think the first issue was in respect of the design panel, and you can

see on page 3 of this document that we have responded to the issue about the design

panel. The way this document works is that on the right hand side we’ve got our

general response on the design panel; we’ve explained that the design process is

ultimately governed by Schedule 16 to the Bill and as Sir Henry was already pointing

out, some of the points that are being expressed are already reflected in terms of

mechanisms that exist in the Bill for control. But the design panel is intended to form

an important part of the process in coming up with the ultimate design.

86. Can we go on to slide (4) please? I think the only difference between us is

whether it’s necessary to amend the Bill to make an express reference to another

material consideration which would inevitably be taken into account amongst many

other considerations by the planning authorities in making their ultimate decision.

There’s no doubt as to the project’s commitment to the setting up of the design panel,

and indeed, it already has a Chair. What is more, you can see that the design panel and

its role is actually built into the scheme, because in Information Paper D5, which forms

part of the Environmental Minimum Requirements, the design panel is expressly

referenced; as it is in Information Paper G6. So it’s not right to say the design panel

forms no part of the stated part of the scheme; it’s already built into those

Environmental Minimum Requirements, and we have already I think explained to the

committee the role it will have in assisting in the formulation of the design of key

elements. Ultimately of course, the approvals of those are governed by Schedule 16

17

process by the local authorities and certainly it would be wrong for us, any more than

the design panel, to dictate what is ultimately sanctioned by the planning authority, what

decision they make. But no doubt the recommendations of the design panel like many

other things, will be fully taken into account as part of that process.

87. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Strachan, can you explain – it says that the London

Borough of Camden will take the lead for local authorities for this, which I find slightly

curious, because surely the London Borough of Camden is an urban authority; a lot of

this line is dealing with designs in rural areas which are totally different, the

requirements are totally different? I do find that process slightly curious.

88. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I am fairly sure and I will be corrected if I’m

wrong, we didn’t dictate who took the lead issues as local planning authorities; that was

very much a matter for them to decide who would take particular lead issues amongst

themselves in presenting evidence to the committee. So it’s not something that – all we

are stating as a matter of fact that amongst the local authorities, the London Borough of

Camden took up the cudgels, as it were, for the issues relating to general route-wide

planning issues. That hasn’t, of course, precluded – and indeed the committee will be

testament to this – it hasn’t precluded local planning authorities coming along and

making points regarding design generally; and the committee have already heard, I

think, extensively on issues of design and design process from, amongst others, the

Chiltern District Council as it affects the Chiltern, amongst others. I’m not going to do

a long list. But that’s recorded as a matter of fact, who’s taken on board the planning

regime; and the planning regime covers in particular the Schedule 16 process. I hope

that explains it.

89. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think the point as I understand it better now –

thank you both – is that Camden led the local authorities in agreeing with the promoters

Schedule 16, providing the controls for what would happen in design in particular

places, where Camden don’t get involved in that. They’re not designing; they’ve been

involved in helping to reach agreement on how things would happen in every area.

90. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Absolutely, and sorry – yes – I now understand the

thrust of the question, and I apologise. It’s absolutely right. By virtue of Camden being

the lead authority to deal with the Schedule 16 mechanism, that’s not in any way

18

supplanting the role under Schedule 16 of the specific planning authorities of structures

in their area. It’s just simply that the London Borough of Camden were being the lead

authority to make submissions about the mechanism under the planning regime. But as

Sir Peter has correctly focused my attention, the process itself for determining approvals

under Schedule 16 will fall the relevant planning authority in whose area the structure is.

So I hope that assists.

91. I’ve dealt with the Information Paper and the role of the design panel and I think I

can then turn to the issue of green belt. We’ve similarly dealt with the issue of green

belt in quite a full way in this document which I’m not going to, again, read out. But

there does appear to be something of a difference of principle between us on page 8 as

to the role of green belt and a misunderstanding, for example, the zone of theoretical

visibility. The first point to note is green belt is a planning designation; it’s not a

landscape designation. It’s a planning designation as the committee will be very

familiar with; and therefore it’s not something that directly raises a new landscape and

visual assessment point. Our landscape and visual impact assessments take full account

of the landscape and visual effects of the project as it passes through any particular area,

bearing in mind its characteristics.

92. The second, I think, misapprehension relates to the zone of theoretical visibility,

because all the zone of the zone of theoretical visibility is a modelling tool; it’s a

starting point for assessing where the project might be seen from in the landscape,

bearing in mind the characteristics of it. So it’s only a tool and it’s a starting point. So

once you’ve identified where the scheme might be theoretically visible from, you then

build up a picture of its impacts and you build up a picture of what mitigation you’re

going to put into place. So, there’s no merit in altering or using the zone of theoretical

visibility by reference to the green belt. There’s no correlation between the two. You’ve

seen in the landscape and visual impact assessment, the way in which the zone of

theoretical visibility is there to help those who are building up the overall assessment to

understand where the project will be seen from, be it in green belt or be it in the AONB

or be it in an urban area. That’s just simply that sort of tool. So we don’t agree with the

idea of changing the assessment in the way that’s been suggested.

93. Likewise, the idea of then working out a percentage of where the project is seen

from within the zone of theoretical visibility is an inapposite tool. What we have done,

19

and what the project does, is assess the impact of the project and mitigate its effects, be

it visual or noise or whatever it may be – but in visual terms, you’ve heard a great deal

about the balance that’s been struck between mitigating the visual effects of the project,

be it with earth bunding, or noise barriers or vegetation planting, all of which has led to

where individual petitioners regard it as too much or too little, specific points being

raised in front of the committee. But the idea of altering in a generic sense the way in

which a project operates in assessing these things, in our submissions, is completely

wrong as an approach. It would of course, inevitably, lead to a cost which I can’t assist

you with that specific calculation, but clearly it’s going to be very, very considerable if

one were to seek to impose a levy on where the project is seen from in particular areas.

It’s not an approach I’m aware has ever been adopted, and it’s also contrary to the

general thrust of the approach we’ve adopted of looking to see where the project can be

seen, and what is appropriate mitigation bearing in mind a balance of a range of

considerations.

94. So, just to go over to slide (9), please, you’ll see that our response on the green

belt continues; and the broad effects of which, you have assessed the impacts of the

project, whether or not it’s within green belt or AONB or whatever other open

countryside. So the green belt for landscape impact doesn’t assist further in posing

some additional requirement. We’ve taken into account green belt, we’ve taken into

account AONB, we’ve taken into account other aspects of the effects, such as on

heritage or whatever it may be.

95. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Strachan, I’m following very carefully what you

say and I agree. But it does seem to me that one of the main ways of mitigating this

railway is through trees. I just wonder, how this Bill can be enacted in a way that gives

the greatest priority to planting good size trees at the earliest possible moment after

enactment of this Bill – long before any works take place, the trees need to be planted.

96. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well I think you’ve heard from us previously that

the general objective is – where mitigation planting is proposed, where it’s possible to

put it in at an early stage, that’s the aspiration to do that. There are obviously

circumstances where that’s not possible, because you’re constructing the railway first,

and the mitigation has to go in and it would be counterproductive to do the two. But

generally speaking, there’s no difference between the point you’ve just made and the

20

aspirations of the project, which is to get the mitigation in early, where it can be done.

97. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: This is my point: I think it ought to be an obligation

rather than an aspiration.

98. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I will see – what I need to do is to check –

99. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I understand your point that there will be areas where

there’s operations that are going to take place, and there’s clearly no point in planting

the trees there. But where it doesn’t hinder the operational ability to construct the line,

they ought to be planted at the earliest possible opportunity; and instead of planting

six-inch ones, they should be reasonable size ones as well.

100. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, well there is of course the detailed design of

what trees go in, is obviously a matter for future determination. There is an approval

process, for example, in relation to earthworks and embankments and consequential

planting. So a lot of that is work to come. The precise height of the trees that are used,

of course that is a matter of balance between identifying trees which are of sufficient

size to take, and of course, trees which aren’t excessively or prohibitively expensive in

terms of planting, referable to the fact that the project won’t be operating or running for

a number of years after construction starts. So there’s time in a lot of cases for the

vegetation to take. What we have done – we recognise that vegetation and tree planting

in particular, develops over time, and that’s why the Environmental Statement does

carry out an assessment of effects from year one; and then I think eventually year 15 to

show that whilst there may be shorter term or medium term impacts, they progressively

diminish. So we have sought to assess the point you’re making. We can’t put in totally

mature trees into planting, not just for cost, but I think it’s practically more difficult.

But there is a major cost implication as well. But that is factored into our

Environmental Statement; we’ve made assumptions as to what sort of planting stock

goes in and the time it will take to develop. I will try to come back to you on precisely

where our aspiration is reflected, and I note that you would like to see an obligation – it

may already be – but I will find out for you

101. On the AONB which was the next point, you are well aware of the assurances that

we have already entered into, regarding the AONB and the review group – I think

there’s an issue of whether it’s called a panel or a review group, and its precise terms of

21

reference – but the objective there is to develop design principles, through a

combination of the local authority, the board responsible for the AONB to bring forward

design principles specific to that area. So that’s already in hand by virtue of the

assurances that you’ve seen.

102. Undergrounding of electricity lines is a matter – I know you’ve heard a lot of

evidence about – it has a significant cost implication; it’s something that was

considered, and one can’t simply underground short section. If you do, as we’ve

explained for example, particularly in the context around South Heath where the issue

arose – it in itself has its own environmental impacts, because of course, you have

ceiling compounds where the line comes and then goes into the ground which have to be

permanent structures, more land take. The lines themselves require undergrounding;

they’re heavy voltage lines, they involve construction impacts where you underground

the lines; and then the line comes back up through ceiling compounds, wherever you’re

proposing short sections.

103. MR HENDRICK: I understand as well from my electrical engineering

background that it costs a factor of 10-times?

104. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I understand that’s generally the National Grid’s

working assumption. There is a – whilst you benefit from, for example, less

maintenance costs in the short term, because you’re not exposed to the elements in the

same way – there are more significant maintenance costs if there are any issues with

undergrounded lines for obvious reasons, you need to get them up. So I understand that

is the rule of thumb that’s sometimes expressed by National Grid.

105. MR HENDRICK: And also there’s the scarring effect of reinstating land along

the way, where the cable has been buried?

106. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. It is often raised as a point, as to the

construction – that is what I was saying about the construction effects. Of course,

there’s a long-term benefit in terms of not being able to see those lines, but so far as the

project – this project is concerned, whilst we have taken on board the points where they

have been made, the general conclusion is that the costs of undergrounding short

sections of where they’ve been raised would be prohibitive and not worth it in terms of

balance between you would need to do as compared with the removal of the pylons.

22

107. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Would you let me bring up, ask if we can see

1925(9)?

108. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Of the CPRE slides?

109. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s Smyth’s. I think the point he’s making is, if

you’re going to introduce – without being too pejorative – a foreign structure into the

landscape, if you look over on the right hand side, I think you can see a pylon. His point

was that as part of general mitigation – not mitigation that stops the noise 200 metres to

a church or a school – that you try to say, if we’re changing the landscape in a way that

is potentially adverse, putting a viaduct in the middle of the profile of the hill, maybe as

mitigation generally, we should take off that thing sticking up in the top. That was your

point, wasn’t it, Mr Smyth?

110. MR SMYTH: That’s right. We’ve had discussions with National Grid, both

specifically and more general. We’re on their project that looks at visual impact of

transmission lines. I very much take Mr Hendrick’s point about the scarring; from our

discussions we understand there would need to be a temporary line installed, and then at

the same time, you build in the underground line along but not absolutely next to the

trace of the high-speed rail line. But because one has the construction machinery on

site, it’s easier to do that then, say, retrofitting it afterwards, and so that’s our point.

There still are some cost savings, compared to doing it entirely separately to the HS2

project.

111. MR HENDRICK: The route of the cabling isn’t necessarily the same as the route

of the line?

112. MR SMYTH: The map does show similarities.

113. MR HENDRICK: In that particular section?

114. MR SMYTH: Yes.

115. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well I can ask Mr Smart to tell you what the

implications of that are – I understand the point.

116. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s improbable that we will write into this Bill that

23

that happens. I think it may be possible for us to put some words in our Report which

say that the point that CPRE have raised is actually one of general interest, and one

which should be built in.

117. MR SMYTH: I’d be grateful.

118. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I think we have touched upon this issue in the

past, but I can ask Mr Smart to come back. This is a 400kV line. The costs – leave

aside the costs of doing this, which are considerable – there is also the point about the

construction effect we’ve just identified. If you underground the 400kV line in a

localised way as I was alluding to before, you have additional – quite significant

additional land take; you have the ceiling compounds which you have to put in place at

either end.

119. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We understand, on balance, it would need to be

worthwhile and affordable. Those are taken for granted.

120. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): And there is I think, the separation of distance, if I

can find out for you, of the line, is quite considerable. You’re talking a 100m separation

distance. They obviously can’t go where the line is, so you’re talking about another

construction corridor in the Chilterns AONB for whatever length is proposed, in

addition to the construction effects which you’ve heard a lot about, and the

consequential construction traffic etc.

121. MR HENDRICK: I think to try and put it along the line is impractical because

there needs to be a gap for I think the reasons Mr Strachan says, otherwise that 400kV,

very high voltage, will be picked up by the line-side equipment and you know, the field

will run right into the train where the passengers are. So there are dangers with it.

122. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Could you either point to an academic paper or ask

HS2 to produce a little note for the committee on the precise cost difference, the precise

long-term maintenance difference, the energy losses – because there are more energy

losses putting it underground than overground I understand because of the heat losses –

and whether the actual corridor of the underground 400kV line has to be more or less

sterilised, in other words, there are no agricultural operations. I don’t know whether that

is the case or not. But if we could have either an academic paper already written, but if

24

there isn’t one, could you produce a note for us?

123. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Certainly, I will do that.

124. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Thank you.

125. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): In relation to the costing exercise, of course, that

will depend upon the length that you’re contemplating, but yes, we will try and give you

a broad flavour.

126. Can I just turn then to the way in which the Bill deals with the diversional effects

on electricity lines, because I think that’s a point that’s been raised – one of the points

raised. We’ve covered that at slide P14180(7)? Clause 30 of the Bill disapplies the

requirement to obtain consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act, where we are

providing for the installation of an electricity line as part of the Bill. I think the request

is to amend that so that there’s some further enquiry. If that’s the case then clearly we

say that’s not necessary; this Bill is itself approving the principle of the line and works,

so would clearly be duplicative as well as cutting across Parliament’s ultimate decision,

to go for a further enquiry process. On slide (8), there’s a further change, which deals

with section – sorry, a further change where there isn’t a mandatory requirement to hold

a Public Inquiry; the Secretary of State will have a discretion as to whether to hold a

Public Inquiry if there’s further section 37 consent required for any part of the railway.

That is ultimately a matter for Parliament, as balancing the legislative provisions of the

Bill, that it’s considered appropriate to strike the balance between allowing the

infrastructure project to proceed and local involvement. It doesn’t preclude any Inquiry;

it just means that a decision would be made depending upon the nature of the objections

at the time. The Secretary of State I think has discretions to hold Inquiries in a number

of circumstances, as the committee will be well aware. such as the planning context.

127. So, that is electricity lines. Noise – this brings me onto a point. I will try to

answer Sir Henry’s question to some degree. What would be the cost of introducing of

additional noise barriers in order to protect area of open space or recreational areas or

tranquillity as they are described by the CPRE?

128. I can only give you a crude cost at this stage, but the general crude cost, subject to

all the caveats – because sometimes people use these in a way in which they weren’t

25

intended – the barrier itself, generally speaking, costs, at 3 metres, £941 per metre and a

5-metre barrier costs approximately £1,841. It is approximate, but I’m giving a rather

precise figure. Let’s call it £940 and £1,840. That is simply per metre. You would

obviously factor it up if you are doing a length.

129. MR HENDRICK: Does that include VAT?

130. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Of course, as you’ve also heard,

Mr Thornely-Taylor, you had to have a certain length of barriers for them to provide a

localised effect. And, of course, in addition to the cost of barriers, you may have

additional landscaping costs if they are required to be integrated into the landscape – so

things can escalate quiet quickly.

131. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We might briefly look at 192514 just to remind

ourselves of the context.

132. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. That brings me onto my second point, which

is about where we have proposed noise barriers principally to address noise effects on

what are identified as sensitive local receptors.

133. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Occupied buildings.

134. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Occupied buildings. We have identified noise

barriers and the costs of those have factored into the project. The approach in relation

to, for example, open space is set out in the environmental statement. It’s in our note at

page 13, P14180, if I can take you away from that slide for a moment. We’ve applied

this approach to any number of open spaces, be they footpaths, canal towpaths, sports

grounds, race courses, golf courses, show grounds, and nature reserves. The general

approach is because the use of those areas is generally transitory, i.e. they’re not people

residing there. We don’t approach it in the same way as for residential properties.

135. The issue – this will be familiar territory for the Committee – is, where noise

barriers have been raised as potential solutions for localised effects, they themselves

bring their own environmental effects – principally visual. In order to have a localised

beneficial effect, they may need to be more than 3 metres and you then get into an

assessment of what benefit are you providing to a localised area as compared with the

26

visual adverse impacts you introduce, effectively drawing attention in a different way to

the line as it passes through. That’s the balanced assessment that’s been gone through

as we’ve passed through all these areas. Generally speaking, for the reasons you’ve

heard about, railway lines, as they pass through rural areas, are not uncommon features

of rural areas. They obviously have a visual effect, but, generally speaking, putting in

significant noise barriers, with the consequential cost plus the consequential visual

effect, we have identified, isn’t justified.

136. Where there are specific examples or specific instances where there is a concern

about areas, we have looked at those as requested mainly by petitioners, but also

groups. But the CPRE’s request of the canal towpath I understood to be a more general

one to impose noise limits on all open areas or recreation areas. That would obviously

have a very considerable cost impact on the project. It would have a very considerable

different visual effect. For the reasons we’ve identified, it wouldn’t be justified.

137. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Can I ask this question? I may be wrong, but I’m

going to ask you the question in any case, because I’m stretching my mind back to the

sound laboratory and everything else. Did we hear from Mr Thornely-Taylor that the

effect of sound barriers is to actually throw the noise further away? In which case,

putting noise barriers in open spaces could have a disadvantage, because people

walking on footpaths or whatever would hear the noise for a longer distance.

138. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think you did hear from Mr Thornely-Taylor in

answer to that question. And he’s going to be here a bit later on to deal with the issue at

Wendover. I’m probably going to park that, so you can check with him.

139. MR HENDRICK: Mr Clifton-Brown is right.

140. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think I recall that the challenge is for higher

barriers, but that can be an effect which then has to be designed into the structure of the

barrier itself to avoid transmitted noise of the type you’re identifying. There is a

potential issue that can arise but can be designed out. It also has cost implications, of

course, as to the cost of the barrier.

141. MR HENDRICK: Could I ask you to address Mr Smyth made about the actual

contours of the barrier? He made the point that straight lines, in many cases, are much

27

more intrusive. What did you make of his comments with regard to different shapes

and contours or the barrier? And what would the cost implications be other than, ‘It’ll

cost more’ to that?

142. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I can find out more about costs, as in how that

factors into cost, but generally speaking – I think you’re going to hear about this later

on in the context of Wendover – the external appearance of the noise barrier is

something which is open for the detailed design process to minimise its visual effects.

For example, a horizontal emphasis rather than a vertical emphasis reduces the

perception of height; landscaping in front of the barrier obviously reduces its visual

effects.

143. MR HENDRICK: I think he was speaking in the context of the Wendover

viaduct.

144. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes, obviously, if you are reducing the form of the

barrier – again, Mr Thornely-Taylor can assist you on that – then you’re going to affect

its performance, bearing in mind you’re trying to screen the noise.

145. MR HENDRICK: Is that even across the area concerned?

146. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. It’s probably getting into some technical

issues, which Mr Thornely-Taylor can assist you with.

147. MR HENDRICK: I mean –

148. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Generally speaking, in answer to your question,

there are ways of designing noise barriers to minimise the visual effects. Certainly,

that’s our aspiration where we do put in noise barriers, but, as you’ll hear later on today,

noise barriers are controversial – particularly when they’re of a higher height. There’s

always a balance to be struck between putting these structures in to mitigate a noise

effect and the consequential permanent visual effect.

149. That’s why – I’ll just come back to our general approach, which has been used in

other projects – so far as open space is concerned, we treat it differently in terms of the

overall balance to permanent effects on residents who occupy the premises. Of course

there’ll be a change in the noise environment if you’re close to the line, or even at a

28

distance from the line, in an area which is countryside or a recreational area. Those

have generally been assessed.

150. You know, for example, that in Twyford there’s a cricket pitch which we have

talked about. We discussed and have considered the merits of, potentially, raising yet

further the noise barriers because – with the visual detrimental effect that would have as

compared with the noise conditions that will continue to exist in that area – that will

allow cricket to be performed. Yes, it will be a different noise environment – but it will

still be an environment that allows recreation to take place. The same is true for this

scheme: as it passes through the countryside, there will be noise effects, clearly, but

generally speaking those noise effects are ones that can be tolerated through what we’ve

done to the railway, and we’ve addressed specific effects as and when they have arisen

for particular areas.

151. For the Oxford Canal, as I understand it, there is actually a landscape bung

between the line and the canal, where the landscape bung will attenuate some of the

noise. It’s an example of where, on a specific impact, we’ve sought to balance the

interests. Coming back to the original question, I hope I’ve given you at least a broad

indication of the cost. They would be very considerable indeed, if you were to adopt a

blanket approach of requesting this project to put in noise level targets for all open

space and recreational areas.

152. I wasn’t going to say too much about the effect of reducing speed, because you

have heard about that yesterday.

153. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: With respect to Mr Smyth, we’ve done that.

154. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Just for his assistance, there is an information paper

E10 on climate change, which explains both the project’s commitment to dealing with

carbon emissions and the sustainability. As I told the Committee yesterday, volume 3

of the environmental statement has a specific chapter on climate change. It assesses the

carbon footprint of the scheme. It assesses it over a 60-year period and starts to look at

a 120-year period and it deals with speed reduction in the way I explained yesterday.

But there is quite a considerable amount of information on the general policies for

bringing down carbon emissions both during construction and operation. It’s

principally the construction which adds to the main carbon footprint in the first place,

29

rather than the operation of the railway. That’s why, over a longer period, from 60 to

120 years, the project, as described in that, becomes close to carbon neutral in terms of

emissions. That’s all explained in volume 3, as well as the alternatives we considered

on different speeds.

155. Passive provision in relation to HS1 and, indeed, connections to the South West

are addressed in our note. I know the Committee will be very familiar that the

completion of the HS1 link is an exercise that has been looked at in some detail in

developing the scheme. And, indeed, there was an assessment of that.

156. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That was on your page 6, 14180(6).

157. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you very much. I was just looking for it in

my notes. Exactly, yes. That included, of course, looking at other links to Bristol,

Gloucestershire and South Wales.

158. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: 5 was High Speed 1; 6 is the south west.

159. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Exactly, yes. I’ll just note, if you’re interested, that

it also deals with rolling stock selection, including the potential for double-decker

trains. That’s an issue which has been looked at. It’s not quite as simple as one think,

because double-decker trains do not bring a doubling of capacity, as one might think.

We’ve established that it’s about 20%, but they raise other issues of the type that are set

out in the slide in the way you operate the railway. If you want to hear more about that,

Mr Smart is behind me to explain the approach to single-decker versus double-decker

trains. But it’s ultimately the sorts of issues you see on this slide.

160. Can I deal with traffic and transport compositely? There’s an issue that’s been

raised about modal shift, as it’s called, i.e. getting people to avoid using non-sustainable

modes of transport and the design of the stations. Within the process itself, the design

of stations – for example Euston, Birmingham and the interchange at Birmingham itself

– is all subject to detailed design processes. You’ve heard that there are some specific

assurances that have been given and work that’s been done to ensure connectivity for

those pedestrian –

161. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I’m looking at your page 14.

30

162. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t think we’ve captured all of the subsequent

assurances that have been given in this note, whether it be at the Euston end or the

Birmingham end or, indeed, the Birmingham Interchange. There is, for example, a

specific assurance to North Warwickshire to review cycle access from Coleshill to the

Birmingham Interchange station and to take account of that review in the detailed

design of Birmingham Interchange. The issue of ensuring best provision for cyclists

both at the station and connecting into cycle ways is work that is ongoing.

163. In terms of wider super-cycle-ways, we’ve explained in this document that that’s

outside the scope of the Bill. What we have looked at is connectivity with cycling.

And we’ve had some discussion about that, for example, at the Euston end specifically.

164. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: I think we’ve seen some quite good plans for

Euston. We heard from Mr Smyth that there are problems at St Pancras, around the

back, and he also has reminded us of the trend towards electric or electricity-assisted

bicycles, which could transform the proportion of people who use them. He was

asking, how will you future-proof – that’s the technical expression – the stations for

that?

165. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t know whether this is going to satisfy you,

but the answer to that is going to come in the detailed design of the stations as to the

provision that’s made at the stations as a result of a full assessment and design of the

station facilities themselves. That process is obviously to come. It’s not part of this

Bill to fix the detailed design of any of the stations. But there are, certainly in the

documents we’ve shown you, a clear understanding of the need to connect with cycling

and pedestrian links. That’s part of the ongoing design process.

166. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That’s actually spelled out more on your page 18.

Okay, yes.

167. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): At the risk of repeating some of the information

papers, I know we’ve referred you on a number of occasions to the factors that have

been taken into account in design – generally in design policy but also specifically in

relation to stations and connectivity. You’ll recall that, in the assurances, there are a

number of criteria that have to be applied, one of which, of course, is connectivity for

cyclists and pedestrians.

31

168. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Allied to that, in the next 2-3 years there is going to be

a significant shift of cars to either hybrid cars or electric cars – a significant shift. Will

the station car parks incorporate more charging points?

169. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. That is certainly something that will be

looked at as part of the detailed design process. The stations at the moment are, as

already indicated, not fixed in terms of their detailed design. As I understand it, on the

provision of car-parking facilities, whilst there are certain minimum or maximum

requirements in relation to numbers of spaces in particular locations, the configuration

of those spaces and, indeed, provision for electric vehicles, one would expect will be

dealt with fully in the detailed design process – in consultation, of course, with the local

authorities who are responsible for transport policy in their area and reflecting a change

to increase reliance on, one hopes, electric cars.

170. There is quite a lot of material in here, by reference to our information papers.

I’m not going to take you through all of it now. There is a specific point about

Birmingham Interchange station on slide 25.

171. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’re saying you’re not going further into the

green belt. You do reckon that says green belt, the modal stuff.

172. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The modal split is something that will come from

the transport plans in due course. We’re not intending to fix targets.

173. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You also give an explanation of what you think

short-term is in terms of parking, where you think it’s 1-2 hours rather than all day.

174. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Precisely, yes. We’re certainly not treating it as a

day, which I think is the concern. Mr Smart very helpfully provided me with some

evidence about Ebbsfleet, which I think is one of the stations that CPRE was concerned

about regarding connectivity and the numbers of car-parking spaces there. For your

information, as I understand it, that type of parking is what’s called ‘lift and shift’

parking provision. It’s there in the interim pending the future development of Ebbsfleet

station, which I understand is now proceeding. There was a hiatus in the process.

175. That parking comes out as development goes in. There is, of course, a bridge

32

across HS1, which currently doesn’t connect to anything, but that’s because it’s there to

provide connectivity for the future development that was, at that stage, contemplated.

It’s not a good parallel with what’s been proposed here in terms of the numbers of

parking spaces or the provision of connectivity. But that’s just for your information.

176. I think I’ve covered the key points. I’ll come back with the information on power

lines for you, but if there’s anything more, on reflection, having read this document,

that the Committee wants, I’m sure we can provide it either by way of note or one of

the witnesses today.

177. MR HENDRICK: For the record, Chairman. I know Mr Strachan referred to it

and Mr Smith originally raised it. I don’t recall advocating double-decker trains.

Mr Smyth can correct me if I’m wrong.

178. MR SMYTH: Forgive me. I simply saw, sir, that you asked about the possibility

– and that’s what I was referring to.

179. MR HENDRICK: Okay

180. MR SMYTH: If I could ask the Committee to indulge me, I really want to

comment, with just a sound bite, on some of those issues in response. In relation to

design, we’re not calling for dictation; we’re calling for guidance to have regard not just

for the planning authorities but also the nominated undertaker and the Minister.

181. In relation to green belt, we have seen the response of the Promoter – we have

read it in detail – and we say there’s still no engagement with the green-belt planning

policy, which is the proper yardstick to consider the greenbelt, rather than the

environmental statement. On noise, we did caveat our recommendation, not saying

‘blanket’ but simply areas of high tranquillity or AONBs. On carbon, the response was

simply about assessing it rather than seeking to reduce it. We say that the fact that

emissions have increased shows they’re not giving enough regard to that.

182. Finally, on traffic and transport, again there are assurances about detailed design,

but, as pointed out earlier, there’s a big discrepancy between the NPPF core planning

principle and what planning authorities are allowed to object to under the constraints of

schedule 16. We say that needs to be addressed. Finally, on cycling, though Coleshill

33

is to the north of Birmingham Interchange, there’s still nothing about the routes to the

west, south and east – where there is actually great potential to link in even perhaps as

far as the outskirts of Coventry with electric bikes.

183. That’s all I have to say this morning. Thank you very much for your time.

184. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Well prepared and well presented. Thank you.

185. CHAIR: Thanks, Mr Smyth. Now I’m going to move to Petition 1617, NFU

update, represented by Sharpe Pritchard. Mr Lewis?

NFU (Update)

186. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: Good morning, sir. First of all, can I thank the

Committee for the opportunity being given to the National Farmers’ Union of England

and Wales to come back today to provide an update on where we are with the matters

that were raised back in November 2014?

187. Just as an introduction, sitting to my right is Louise Stables, who Committee

Members from that time may remember gave evidence for the NFU. I’m not intending,

you’ll be relieved to know, to reopen any of the cases today; this is purely an updating

exercise. I’m going to go through a list of points that I hope is being or has been

handed in, which are outstanding. I’m not going to dwell on all of them by any means,

but I will spend just a little time on a couple of the issues the Committee has already

shown interest in: in particular, tax and replacement buildings.

188. We acknowledge that there has been some movement by HS2 towards some of

type concerns raised in particular. The general undertakings that were secured about

engagement with farmers, the carrying out of works on their land and the assurances

that have been agreed with respect to temporary possession of land as against

compulsory purchase. We’re grateful for the way HS2 have cooperated in that, and I

think the Committee has found that useful, since we appeared. There’s still some way

to go, though, and where the NFU has failed to convince the Committee and HS2 of the

merits of the points in the list that I’ve given, it reserves its position to go to the Lords.

189. On engagement generally with HS2, there has been some – but we have to say

that the NFU have been kept waiting for some time in relation to the negotiation of

34

assurances. The appearance before you today seems to have had at least some effect,

because we got a very long-awaited letter at the end of last week responding to a

number of our queries on the outstanding assurances. There was some success achieved

in that regard.

190. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Have they talked to you face-to-face?

191. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: I’m going to ask Louise to answer that question,

please. There have been some meetings but not many.

192. MS STABLES: We haven’t had a face-to-face meeting in regard to our

petitioning points, but we have had some meetings in regard to the temporary land take,

which was back in last July.

193. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: As far as you’re aware, HMRC have not talked to

you.

194. MS STABLES: Sorry, HMRC have not talked to us.

195. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: What did your letter at the end of last week say?

196. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: The letter from HS2 is quite a long letter. I don’t

intend to go into it in any great detail. It followed up points w raised on a number of

assurances we’re seeking from HS2, which deal with a number of the points raised in

the list which you’ve got in front of you.

197. In many respects, it didn’t quite meet the points we raised and, in that respect,

that’s why we’ll probably have to be reserving our position to the House of Lords

unless we get a favourable decision from this Committee on those outstanding points.

It wasn’t focused on any one particular issue, Mr Clifton-Brown. For example, it

wasn’t about tax per se; it was more about –

198. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Shall I put it up on screen?

199. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Yes, that would be really helpful.

200. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): P15808. It’s a letter of 29 January to Mr Raymond

of the NFU. Sorry for the slight interlude.

35

201. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: I wasn’t intending –

202. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We’re having difficulty loading it onto the system,

but I will get copies to the Committee. It covers groundwater quality, time limits for

compulsory acquisition, temporary possession for maintenance, coloured plans,

planning-permission time limits, clause 47 development and regeneration plans, rights

of entry for surveys, land-take for mitigation, interest on payments, noise barriers, buns

and sustainable placement, accommodation works, balancing ponds, hedge rows,

capital gains tax, inheritance tax, stamp-duty land tax, VAT. I think that’s the lot. It

sets out a summary of our position. It picks up on a lot of previous correspondence

that’s been going on between the NFU and ourselves. The last letter was 10 September

before that.

203. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s arrived.

204. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There we go.

205. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: I wasn’t going to spend too long complaining about

lack of engagement, because I know you’ve heard it so many times before. But what

you’ll see there, if you look at the first paragraph, is the September letter that

Mr Strachan referred to is in response to a letter dated 30 March and this letter, of

29 January this year, deals with points raised in a letter of 8 April last year. So, slow

progress – which we hope will be increased.

206. I want to mention, in introduction, as well – because I know the Chairman and

other Members of the Committee have mentioned it as well, dealing with other

individual petitioners – the proposed farmers’ pack, which has been mentioned. Now,

the NFU welcomes the idea of the farmers’ pack. What it’s intended to be is a living

document or set of documents, copies of which would be held both by the farmer and

by the nominated undertaker, which contain information provided by the farmers about

the land and, in particular, the special requirements of land – for example, any drainage

requirements that the nominated undertaker will have to take into account – and

hopefully it will also contain a good deal of information from the nominated undertaker

for the farmer about how his land is likely to be dealt with in detail once the works are

underway.

36

207. The point I would like to make about the farmers’ pack, which of course the NFU

are going to continue to work with HS2 in developing, is that it should not be seen as a

cure-all for all the issues that farmers may raise. It does not, of itself, contain a set of

assurances, as far as I’m aware, dealing with individual farmers’ concerns. Those will

be negotiated separately between farmer and the nominated undertaker. Whilst we

welcome it, we should make it clear that we don’t see it as being, if you like, a cure for

the different problems that farmers may raise

208. If I can then move onto tax, please, first of all we want to thank the Committee

very much for taking such a keen interest in the points which the NFU raised about

taxation. We’ve seen the latest correspondence between the Chairman and the

Financial Secretary to the Treasury and we acknowledge that quite a lot of this is out of

HS2’s hands, in a sense, and that it is in the hands of other Government Departments.

On capital gains tax, we asked for a complete CGT exemption for farmers when their

land is acquired compulsorily with a fallback position of an extension to the statutory

time limits for rollover relief.

209. The Committee seemed to be sympathetic to the idea of a statutory extension to

the time- limit approach, as evidenced in the Chairman’s letter to Mr Gauke. The NFU

thinks and maintains that the evidence supports the need for this. Unfortunately, as far

as the NFU is concerned, they do not think that Mr Gauke’s letter does more than to

suggest that this issue might be considered when the next Finance Bill comes around.

This will do little, we say, to relieve the uncertainty that farmers feel, which will

intensify as the Bill progresses. The NFU believes that the evidence provided to the

Committee makes it clear that the prospect of farmers being able to replace agricultural

land and buildings taken by HS2 within the existing statutory deadlines and claim

rollover relief as a result is extremely limited.

210. As the NFU’s evidence made clear, the availability of farmland is very limited

and, as the Chairman made clear in his letter to Mr Gauke, it becomes even more

limited nearer to the HS2 line. It’s very, very difficult for farmers who’ve had their

land taken compulsorily to be able to replace it at all, we say, let alone – as they would

need to do – nearer to their existing farms. Therefore, we think there is a real potential

disadvantage, as you know, to farmers in this regard. And that’s the basis of our case. I

won’t say more than that, because, as I said, I don’t want to reopen the arguments again

37

and I don’t have my accountant with me either, so we’ll move on from that one.

211. The NFU don’t think it’s reasonable to require individual farmers affected by

HS2 land acquisition to prove to HMRC’s satisfaction that they’ve been unable to

replace the farm assets within the existing statutory deadlines when it’s clear that it will

be virtually impossible for them to do so. The burden and uncertainty placed on NFU’s

members must be removed, in their submission. It’s essential that the time limits in

relation to agricultural land and buildings taken by HS2 should in all cases be extended

to the limits which can already be applied on a discretionary basis. In effect, the

statutory time limits in relation to compulsory disposals arising from HS2 should be

extended to three years before and six years after the disposal, we say, with only claims

outside those limits having to be evidenced and considered on a discretionary basis by

HMRC.

212. Whilst we say that new HMRC guidelines, if they come, might be helpful, the

impression that’s been given by the HMRC to the NFU hitherto is that those guidelines

would not be able to provide what the NFU wants, which is effectively a guarantee of a

longer rollover period, because, by its very nature, we think, HMRC are saying that

guidance has to be guidance and has to involve some sort of discretion. In that respect,

it seems to us that probably the only way this could be addressed is through legislation

rather than HMRC guidance. We realise that legislation is not going to come in the

HS2 Bill but would more likely be in a Finance Bill. Again, we would just ask the

Committee to continue, please, to press the case on the NFU’s behalf it that particular

issue.

213. In relation to engagement – this picks up on a point that Sir Peter has just made –

even though Mr Gauke suggested in his letter that there have been productive

discussions with the CLA, the NFU have not been involved in these discussions – but

have asked to be involved in them. As Ms Staples mentioned, despite having asked to

be involved in face-to-face meetings, that invitation has not been taken up. We hope

that a further steer in that regard from the committee might come.

214. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Is it true that, given that this line goes through a lot

of working farms, there will be more working farmers who will be members of the NFU

than there will be working farmers who are members of the CLA?

38

215. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: I’m not going to comment on membership numbers,

but what I can say, Sir Peter, is that there are certainly differences, potentially, in the

landholdings of the members. As far as the NFU members are concerned, they will all

be farmers and they will all have to look for replacement farmland near to their farms.

The CLA, of course, represent a lot of farmers as well and there is a lot of crossover

between membership, too. But the CLA will also include landed estates and others.

216. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: And the NFU will include farmers who don’t

actually own the land.

217. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: Absolutely, yes, as we made clear when we gave

evidence. On inheritance tax and the question of agricultural or business property

relief, again the NFU were pleased with the Chairman’s suggestion to Mr Gauke about

how to deal with the sensitive issue of the case where a landowner dies before being

able to fulfil the rollover requirements. So far as the NFU is aware, there has been no

progress on this issue. It may be that this issue can be dealt with in guidance this time,

with a recognition that the replacement of suitable agricultural land should be subject to

longer timescales and a positive presumption that the money will be reinvested in the

farm business in the event of an untimely death, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

218. On VAT, the Committee suggested – and Mr Parker, who gave evidence for the

NFU, the accountant, agreed – that there seemed little difference between the parties on

the issue of how the sale process and sale documents could be managed and produced

in such a way as to ensure farmers don’t find themselves unwittingly unable to recover

the cost of VAT on a compulsory acquisition. The NFU thought that agreement could

easily be reached with HS2, but this has not happened and there has not been any

further engagement on the issue, unfortunately.

219. On stamp-duty land tax, the ask here related to whether stamp duty should be paid

on the purchase of a replacement investment asset and whether this would be

recoverable through compensation. And, in particular, the NFU are seeking parity with

the timescales between investment and trading assets. SDLT can only be claimed on,

for example, let holiday cottages on a farm if the replacement is purchased within 12

months. Again, no progress to report on this issue, I’m afraid, save to say that there is

currently a proposal that will probably be in the Finance Bill coming up shortly in

39

which stamp-duty land tax is likely to be increased – therefore making the issue

potentially worse for farmers.

220. The last of the issues, which I’m going to spend a little more time, is the issue of

replacement buildings, which I know the Committee took a great interest in and has

come back to on a number of occasions where farmers have brought it up individually.

This is where a farmer is having buildings taken by HS2 – say, for example, a

farmhouse – and wants to rebuild it elsewhere, but, because invariably the land is within

the green belt, the local planning policies mean that is very difficult to secure. Different

planning authorities having different policies doesn’t help. For example, some might

require that the farmhouse in question might need to be demolished or having assurance

that it will be demolished before granting planning permission for the new building –

again, providing uncertainty for the farmers.

221. Now, as far as we understand it, the Planning Minister sent a letter to planning

authorities about this issue, and the NFU are grateful for that. But, from what they’ve

seen of the letter, it doesn’t seem to go far enough, in their view. What the NFU would

like is for there to be a firmer steer to planning authorities from on high, so as to seek to

avoid cases, for example, where permission for a replacement building is refused under

the circumstances I’ve mentioned. HS2 have offered some assistance by offering to

provide a statement of impact and timing to the planning authority in each case, but the

NFU would also like the Secretary of State to consider the idea, in particularly difficult

cases, of providing positive support for individual planning applications, where

circumstances allow.

222. If I can now move on to the remainder of the points in the list, starting with

number six on the list, liability for contractors, progress has been made on this one. In

fact, there was a useful exchange before the Committee, when we appeared.

Assurances are being discussed in detail. One point we’d like to just point on the

record is that HS2 say that prompt remedy of any damage caused by contractors will be

covered under the statutory regime. We’d like a little bit of clarity as to what statute is

being referred to in that regard. We can deal with that, obviously, separately, through

correspondence.

223. The next point is point seven, the use of private farm roads for HS2 traffic.

40

Again, this is unresolved. The main issue here is that farmers need longer notice for

when their roads are going to be used by HS2 traffic and, in particular, I recall that

evidence was given in respect of, for example, where there could be a clash at harvest

time, where it would be obviously very, very helpful to know long in advance if the

suggestion was being made for HS2 traffic to use these private roads and therefore

interrupt the farmers’ business.

224. On drainage, again not agreed and details being discussed, the NFU have a

standard country-wide agreed provisions with National Grid and other developers, for

example Highways England, which work well in relation to how drainage is dealt with

when infrastructure is put in. It’s very important, obviously, for farmers that this is

done right. We’re hoping that HS2 will do the right thing and agree with the NFU

provisions similar to those we manage to agree on with other infrastructure developers,

but at the moment we have not reached that position – unfortunately. We’d also like

any assurances on this matter to go into the Code of Construction Practice and the

EMRs, with a firmer commitment that HS2 will do remedial work on land outside the

limits and on third-party land, where it’s necessary.

225. On groundwater quality, we want assurance relating to remedial works to extend

to groundwater supplies – for example, a reservoir or borehole that feeds irrigation

measures – and this has not yet been agreed either.

226. On time limits, here we are talking about the time limits within the Bill itself for

the exercise of compulsory acquisition, which is five years, extendable by statutory

instrument to a further period of five years. The NFU’s case was that, again, gives

uncertainty for landowners and it could not see the need for the possibility of a further

extension. Five years should be plenty of time in relation to the exercise of CPO

powers. I would say, from my own perspective, having worked on the CTRL and

Crossrail Bills, those powers, although included in those Acts, have never actually been

exercised. That is an element itself: it really isn’t an issue and, therefore, should not

form part of the Bill.

227. On planning, the deemed planning consent under the Bill has to be implemented

within 10 years of Royal Asset. All we’re asking for here is that the Bill should say that

the power to extend that period, which is within the Bill and exercisable by statutory

41

instrument, should only be done where there are exceptional reasons to do so. Again,

no movement on that one.

228. Temporary possession for maintenance, again, is outstanding. Farmers need

longer. We’ve asked for six months’ – not 28 days’ – notice for the nominated

undertaker when they’re coming onto our land. After the railway has been constructed,

we would have thought the nominated undertaker would have a regular pattern of

maintenance, a regular timetable for maintenance, which would allow a much longer

period of time.

229. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’re talking about planned maintenance rather

than emergency maintenance.

230. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: Exactly. I don’t think we would ever, obviously, want

to prevent emergency maintenance happening. We just think that a little bit longer is

required so, again, we can ensure – particularly those members who supply

supermarkets – we keep up to our contractual obligations and are able to plan properly

for that.

231. Clause 47 is the clause that allows for the compulsory purchase outside limits for

regeneration purposes. You’ve heard Camden raise that issue and I can say that

Camden will be writing to the Committee very soon with some proposed amendments

as suggested by Sir Peter, I think, when we appeared in December. The NFU asked for

clause 47 to be removed, thinking that it was necessary. They would be prepared, as a

fallback, to support the position that Camden will be taking in their proposed draft

amendments, which the NFU have seen.

232. On rights of entry for surveys, there are existing arrangements with HS2 in place

that are satisfactory as far as NFU are concerned under the non-statutory regime that

exists at the moment, where farmers cooperate with HS2 in relation to allowing them on

to carry out surveys. The provisions in the agreed arrangements work well; we just see

no reason why they shouldn’t be carried forward after Royal Asset. Again,

unfortunately, there’s no agreement to that as things stand.

233. On ecology, the NFU remain firm in their view that, in relation to biodiversity, no

net loss should remain the aim, not net gain. Also, where farmers have other, more

42

appropriate land available and suitable for mitigation, then HS2 should take that into

account, even if the land is outside the Bill limits, and should be considered in

particular in cases where better agricultural land is proposed to be taken by the

nominated undertaker and there is a good alternative elsewhere. I think this is a point

that Mr Clifton-Brown was particularly interested in.

234. It’s understood that HS2 will now discuss the areas to be taken and created and to

minimise prime agricultural land-take. That is a good step in the right direction, but the

NFU are still concerned about the actual amount of farmland that is being taken under

the current proposals.

235. Interest on compensation payments, very briefly, was about the interest rate at

which outstanding compensation is paid when it has been agreed. The current rate is

0.5% below base, which in effect is zero. The NFU put the case that –

236. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: It’s non-taxable.

237. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: True. The NFU put the case that, again, using the

National Grid as another example, with other infrastructure providers there is a national

agreement that 4% will be paid. We were hoping that there would be a steer in a

similar direction for HS2 limited.

238. On accommodation works, we need more commitments on consultation in

relation to the dimensions in particular of accommodation crossings, like underpasses.

This, we hope, is something that can be picked up in the farmers’ pack, as things

progress, but I think the way we put it in front of the committee and which has not been

accepted is that there should be some minimum dimensions for farm vehicles. We’re

not asking for, if you like, future-proofing in any great sense. We’re asking that,

effectively, what is provided by HS2 meets the current needs of individual farmers and

the size of the machinery that they currently use.

239. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: You’re not asking for it, but I hope it won’t be

taken by the Promoters as a reason to disregard those individual farmers who have

asked for it.

240. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: Well, quite. Finally, on hedgerows, the Committee –

43

those who were there – may remember the particular point. It was quite an interesting

little point. Where the railway bisects a field which has a protected hedgerow, there

may be little corners of the hedgerow left that really are impractical for the farms to use.

What we were looking for here is some help in amending the exemptions under the

hedgerows regulations to allow farmers to potentially remove those little corners so as

to rationalise the remaining farmland left once their farms have been bisected. And,

again, there hasn’t been any movement on that. I don’t think we’ve really heard

anything from HS2 in response to the detailed discussions we had in the corridor, I

remember, after we appeared in 2014.

241. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Maybe when Mr Strachan responds to that, he can

say which sponsoring Department it would be for amendments to regulations and

whether they would be statutory instruments or primary legislation. That is to do with

the hedgerows.

242. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: I think it would be Defra and I think it would be a

statutory instrument. It would be a push.

243. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: So it wouldn’t necessarily have to be written into

this Bill. It might be a commitment from Government.

244. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: A recommendation in a report would be gratefully

accepted and, as you say, not necessarily something that would have to be written

precisely into the Bill. Although we did give some suggestions for amendments in the

corridor afterwards to HS2 at the time.

245. And that’s all in terms of my run-through of the outstanding points. There are

others, you will be pleased to know, which I haven’t mentioned, where there has been

agreement. It’s not all doom and gloom for the NFU, but I just thought it would be

helpful to update you. Thank you.

246. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

247. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Thank you. I think Ms Lean is going to respond on

the list of assurances of where we’ve got to.

248. MS LEAN (DfT): Thank you, Mr Strachan. On the issue of tax, obviously we’re

44

very alive to that. It’s something the Committee’s been interested in and there’s been

correspondence between the Committee and the Treasury. The most recent position of

the Treasury is set out in the letter of 26 January 2016. I’m not sure there’s an awful lot

more I can add to that letter, which I know has been sent to the Committee – we can

bring it up on screen if that’s helpful, if we have it on the system – other than to say that

the project is very alive to the concerns of the NFU and the individual farmers.

249. Obviously, we’re doing what we can to ensure we’re in a position where we can

minimise permanent land-take so we’re not in a situation where we’re unnecessarily

billing you for capital gains liability. And we’re keen to keep working with the NFU to

see how we can best achieve that objective.

250. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: That we understand. The merited criticism is of

Treasury Ministers and, in particular, HMRC for not having had direct discussions with

the representatives of farmers, whether NFU or CLA, and having left this issue as long

as they have. As was pointed out – don’t bring it up – in P15808(1), a quarter of a year

may go, on average, between a letter being sent by the NFU and a reply being received.

And for us to be told that HMRC can use their discretion when HMRC have not been

involved in direct discussions is frankly letting down those involved who are adversely

affected and who face the risk either of a landowner dying unexpectedly and getting

inheritance tax unprotected or capitals gains tax because they haven’t been able to roll it

over in time. So that’s not something for the Promoter to respond to, but if anyone

from the HMRC or the Treasury is listening, they should not do it again – and they

ought to go further now.

251. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m sure your comments, if they’re not being heard

directly, will be passed on. I think I’ll just point out – I’m not commenting either way –

that P15802 does indicate that there was a meeting with the Treasury and the County

Land and Business Association in March 2015; it doesn’t detract from the point that

there hasn’t been one with the NFU.

252. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Indeed. 11 months ago, the problem wasn’t

resolved and since then there hasn’t been discussions with the NFU. I won’t emphasise

the point.

253. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I was just making that factual point. It’s not an

45

argument point. It’s a point of information.

254. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Strachan, or Ms Lean, this matter is very

unsatisfactory, I think: the whole matter of correspondence with the HMRC. I don’t

think the case has been properly made to HMRC that farmers in certain parts of the line

are going to have great difficulties in rolling over into new assets – because they simply

aren’t going to be there because of the competition for land from other farmers.

255. The price is going to be driven up. I don’t think the Revenue really concentrated

their minds on this point. It is unfair to the individual taxpayer, who is having his or her

land compulsorily acquired against their will in many cases. They wouldn’t have

wanted this to happen. We heard a case yesterday of somebody who was having 100

acres out of 300 compulsorily acquired and their business being completely altered.

256. This is a dramatic event in any case for the individual taxpayer, and I do think that

this discretion, which Mr Crabtree and the HMRC referred to in this letter of

23 February, should be operated as a blanket, up and down the line, so the individual

taxpayer doesn’t have to fight their case with HMRC. I feel very strongly about that.

257. The other thing that I would like clarification on is that it seems we do have a

precedent case on the other aspect the Committee was concerned about, the inheritance

and the untimely death of somebody between having their land acquired and not being

able to roll over because they die. It seems there is a precedent case Brown, Ralph

Louis (executors of) v IRC [1996] STC (SCD) 27 found that the discretion should have

been exercised in that case, because they would have rolled over the money.

258. Now, that case, I think, may be very helpful in terms of inheritance tax. If that

could be clarified so that in that very narrow special event inheritance tax won’t apply

or capital gains tax won’t apply, because there’s a possibility of both applying in that

case, which would be really punitive on the taxpayer.

259. There are two issues here. This blanket discretion up and down the line, because

of the scale of the project, won’t be setting a precedent, because there’ll be very few

national projects of this scale, but, because of the scale and the scarcity of the land, I

think that discretion should be applied in a blanket way – and I do not feel the revenue

have yet taken this issue seriously. I am wondering what further this Committee can do

46

to make sure they do.

260. SIR HENRY BELLINGHAM: I just want to reinforce what my colleague has

said on this. I think that I actually agree with everything he’s said. We have been

talking about this for a long time and I am concerned that HS2, at the highest level,

including the Chairman and Chief Executive, have not been making sufficient

representations to their Secretary of State to make, in turn, representations to the

Chancellor. I have been getting letters through from Junior Ministers at the Treasury,

but we have not had a letter from the Chancellor. I’m not clear that your

Secretary of State actually really is focused on this. I would urge you to make sure the

mood and feelings of this Committee are passed on to the hierarchy of HS2.

261. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I will certainly do that. All I can say is that the

position that is being indicated by the Committee is very clear, but I will ensure that

clarity of the message is passed on.

262. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: If I’m allowed one extra pair of sentences, ‘where

discretion will be used’ not ‘might’, but ‘will’. Make it plain. In unpredictable

circumstances, where the farmers or other people are affected by this line, if there are

unintended penalties on people because of their circumstances, that is when extra

discretion should be allowed. There should not be penalties on people who suffer

because this project has interfered with their liability to taxation, when it wasn’t

actually intended. I just want to make that clear.

263. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): In a sense, I am acting as a conduit today, but I will

ensure that the points being made, if they haven’t already been heard directly, are made

clear.

264. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: I want to make it clear that Mr Gauke’s recent letter to

us in no way deals with the issue. He hasn’t really moved at all – and in my view that is

unacceptable.

265. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: When’s the Budget?

266. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Well, that’s another opportunity.

267. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: We may not be sitting – or perhaps we ought to

47

suspend sitting until the Budget.

268. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I don’t think I can comment further. I’ve noted

everything that’s been said, as have people sitting behind or alongside me. There are

some other points, which I think Ms Lean is going to cover, that relate to state of play

on assurances that have been given to the NFU and some further discussions in the

correspondence. As Mr Lewis indicated, some of these are a matter for further

discussion and some we can just clarify our position on very briefly – and I’ll allow

Ms Lean to do that, if I may.

269. MS LEAN (DfT): With the Committee’s permission, I won’t go through all of

them in detail because they have been responded to either in a set of assurances which I

think the Committee will have seen in their first version back in November 2014 and

have been through various revisions since then following conversations with the NFU

and CLA. So the most recent version was issued in September. If they’re not in your

packs, we’ll certainly make a copy available which deal with a number of issues such as

drainage, the assurances on temporary versus permanent land take. Those sorts of

matters.

270. There were further assurances which have been offered in a letter of

29 January 2016. This relates specifically to groundwater and extending assurances

about interruption to supplies such as the groundwater situation. It doesn’t quite go as

far as the NFU have asked for but it’s the assurance that HS2 considers to be appropriate

in the circumstances. I’m happy to bring it up on screen or to make a copy of the letter

available.

271. In respect of replacement buildings, the Committee will have heard obviously

there has been a letter from Mr Lewis MP to local planning authorities. We’ve

summarised that letter in our letter of 10 September 2015.

272. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): P15810.

273. MS LEAN (DfT): And the reference to ‘assurance 8’ is a cross-reference back to

assurances we’ve given on HS2 as providing assistance where there’s applications put in

for replacement of buildings that would be affected by the HS2 scheme. Just making

clear and summarising the letter that’s been sent out to all local planning authorities as

48

to what DECLG expect in terms of working proactively and positively when

applications come forward for replacement buildings and having due regard to the

implications for the HS2 scheme in determining applications. But obviously that’s

within the confines of the local plan and national policy constraints.

274. So essentially, from the project’s perspective, the position on replacement

buildings is that that is appropriately dealt with through the local planning processes but

with that steer that’s been given as to the fact that the authorities need to be alive to the

implications of HS2 on these farmers as to why these applications are coming forward.

275. As regards the hedgerow regulations –

276. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Just before you move off that, Ms Lean, can we take it

from what you’ve just said that if the individual planning authority were not minded to

take into account the government’s strictures on this, that the appeal inspector would

certainly look at, very carefully, the government’s guidelines on this matter?

277. MS LEAN (DfT): It would certainly be a material consideration to which the

planning inspector would be expected to have regard if he was considering an appeal

against a refusal. I think I can’t put it higher than that.

278. As regards hedgerow regulations, I’m conscious the Committee has heard quite a

lot from us on regulations in response to various farmers who have brought that issue

forward. I think we don’t see reason at the moment to deviate from Mr Lewis’

suggestion that if there were to be a change to the hedgerow regulations that would be

statutory instrument; and we think that would either be in the jurisdiction of either Defra

or else –

279. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think it’s Defra’s jurisdiction; the Secretary of

State –

280. SIR PETER BOTTOMLEY: Whichever it is, it’s probably easier for the

promoters to get that into government. And it may be an issue which we could refer to

and expect that the promoters or government would be able to respond to the House of

Lords on whether they see that there is an issue which could be helped by sensible

regulations which, on balance, will be of benefit to the hedgerow and the ecology that

49

they are associated with rather than just leaving isolated patches that don’t do much

good and don’t help farmers either.

281. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. Well, I think we’ll clarify precisely who’s

responsible for the legislation. I note the observation that’s been made.

282. MS LEAN (DfT): On a number of the other points, particularly relating to

disapplication of time limits in clause 10 and clause 20 of the Bill, I think we dealt with

this in some detail in our response to the NFU back in 2014; and we’ve explained our

position again in the letter of 29 January. As regard land take and ecological mitigation,

the Committee has obviously heard a lot from us about the work we’re trying to do with

individual farmers to understand from them how their farm holdings and where we can,

if there are alternatives for where we can put the ecological mitigation or drawing back

the boundaries, we are trying to do that.

283. Similarly with accommodation works and minimum specifications and such like,

the Committee heard from us again yesterday how we proposed to work with the

farmers to see what’s needed for their individual holdings and what’s needed on a case

by case basis rather than having a blanket approach. And that’s the approach we

propose to take.

284. I hope I’ve covered all the points the Committee want to hear from us on. Our

response is set out in those letters which I’ll make sure that you have copies of because I

don’t think they’ll have made it into your packs. But, Chairman, we see this as positive

progress has been made, we hope, with the NFU and with individual farmers. And a lot

of the matter and the substance is what I’ve already covered in assurances we’ve given

or will be a matter to be worked out through the ongoing engagement with farmers and

through detailed design as that process goes forward.

285. CHAIR: Mr Lewis?

286. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: Positive in some respects. ‘Slow’, I think, probably

sums it up. We’d like it to be a little more positive and a little speedier I think before we

get to the House of Lords, please.

287. On tax, all we can say is thank you; it was worth coming.

50

288. On replacement –

289. MR CLIFTON-BROWN: Mr Lewis, we haven’t produced a result.

290. MR ALASTAIR LEWIS: Oh, I know that but you’ve produced a steer and I think

that’s all we could ask for.

291. On replacement buildings, Mr Clifton-Brown, you raised the issue of whether on

appeal the guidance would be taken into account. What we want is for the guidance to

be a little bit stronger so that in fact farmers never end up having to go to appeal. That’s

the point really.

292. We’ve had a little conflab between ourselves about hedgerows and who might be

responsible. We think it might actually be DECLG because it’s a planning issue rather

than a countryside issue. But we can talk about that one afterwards.

293. But otherwise I think we’d like to say thank you very much for hearing us and

thank you very much in respect of some of the issues where you’ve made your views

clear to the promoter.

294. CHAIR: Thank you.

Hampton-in-Arden Action Group, and others

295. CHAIR: Now we’re going to hear AP4/191, Hampton- in-Arden Action Group

along with AP4/26, John and Susan Timperley, represented by David Tomkins and

Victoria Woodall. Do you want to briefly introduce, Mr Strachan?

296. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yes. Can I show you, just to give you an idea of the

area we’re dealing with, P15618? That’s the wider context. The Committee may recall

we discussed this issue last week. We’re in the vicinity of Hampton- in-Arden. And the

line is coming through across the page. And Hampton- in-Arden is down here. And we

have discussed, I think, previously some changes that were made in AP4 in relation to

Diddington Lane, and that issue’s not… Sorry, AP2 in relation to Diddington Lane.

297. I think the focus of the petitioners’ points today relate to Bickenhill Waste

Recycling Centre, which is just shown here. In consequence of discussions with

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, under the supplementary Environmental

51

Statement we proposed a relocation of the Bickenhill Waste Recycling Centre from this

location here, where it’s marked, to north of the line or east of the line. And you’ll

recall that that was following further assessment work of the impact on the current waste

recycling centre through works required to the M42.

298. You will also recall that, as a consequence of representations made by the

landowner of Packington Estate, but I think in particular Lord Guernsey, we entered into

an assurance which I showed you on the last occasion, which was to look at the

positional for relocating that proposed relocation to some alternative sites. And that

assurance was one I showed on screen that’s subject to certain caveats about land

becoming available and the necessary consents. So that’s where we’ve got to.

299. We had also – and I think we may be discussing again today – the design of this

particular location as to footpaths and accesses and landscaping. If they crop up, I will

respond. But that’s broadly speaking where we got to on the last occasion.

300. CHAIR: Ms Woodall? Who wants to start?

301. MS WOODALL: This is David Tomkins. My name is Victoria Woodall. And

we are representing the Hampton- in-Arden Action Group and John and Susan Timperley

who live on Diddington Lane. Our action group is 30 households, 20 of which are on

Diddington Lane, and we’re trying not to repeat the points raised last week by the

Hampton Parish Council and the Hampton Society.

302. Next page. So, yes, to remind you we were here a month ago where we, the

Diddington Lane residents, were arguing our locus standi because we were not allowed

to petition against the refuse centre which is now, due to AP2 and AP4, going to be at

the end of Diddington Lane. We appreciate that we’ve been given locus standi but one

of the points that you made at the end of our locus standi petition was that the

conclusion should be that someone ‘talk to them outside and went through very clearly

what is or isn’t in prospect’. Mr Strachan said, ‘I readily agree. We could provide

greater clarity and I will get someone to speak to or communicate with them in the near

future.’

303. Next slide. Just to go through what’s happened since. Despite your

recommendation that they have a conversation with us, they have made no effort to seek

52

clarification or detail on the residents’ concerns. We were sent a letter with points dated

via an email, some of which were relevant, some of which irrelevant. And when we

replied saying ‘is there any possibility of a conversation about this?’ we were confirmed

‘no, that was it’ and there was going to be no further communication, no dialogue.

304. If you look at what they’ve done with Packington Estates and Solihull MBC, they

had a number of discussions, face-to-face meetings. They’ve established potential

alternative plans, which we appreciate that they are looking at alternate sites, but there’s

been no formal communication of these discussions. All we are told is they’re in active

dialogue. We have no idea how far along or how likely it is that the site will be moved

to somewhere else.

305. MR TOMKINS: And also we were only aware because we happened to watch the

video of the AP4 discussions with Packington Estates last week. So there’s been

literally no communication except for a formal wash up following the delivery of these

documents that we were spoken to this morning to tell us what we already knew via the

grapevine.

306. MS WOODALL: Yeah, we had an email at 12.15 yesterday from HS2 saying

would we meet them this morning at 9 o’clock, which we did, but it was just to tell us

that they’re still in active dialogue. And they couldn’t inform us any further along the

discussion they were. It feels to us at the moment like it’s a very undemocratic process

in that they’re quite happy to have sit-down face-to-face conversations and include

Packington Estates and Solihull MBC, who obviously have a large amount of power in

the area, but they’re not interested in talking to just the normal residents who are the

ones who are going to have to suffer the results of these plans. And with the Select

Committee wrapping up fairly soon, we have no confidence that, going forward, the

residents will be consulted or considered. You know, we feel very powerless and we

don’t know what our further position will be after the Select Committee has gone.

307. I’ll pass over to…

308. MR TOMKINS: Thank you. If we move to the next slide. Really around those

concerns. And I know the Select Committee are working hard along with HS2 and, to

an extent, all the petitioners to make sure that this process can move forward. You

know, it feels like we’ll still be talking about this in 2026 at the moment rather than

53

actually jumping on the trains and getting here a lot quicker.

309. The concerns were actually raised by the AP2 hearing last week, where I was in

the back row seats watching other people from the Action Group presenting on, and the

interpretation of the key outcomes of the petition were that both sides have strong

arguments. And you’ll remember Diddington Lane was originally due to be stocked up

and before any additional provisions there was a great dialogue with the village on that

and agreements made on that; and then Packington Estates, without going into too much

detail, spoke directly to HS2 and then we were advised that AP2 was going to re-open

the lane and re-route it at a cost of £2 million. If you can imagine, that might upset you

if you lived on Diddington Lane, especially as it creates all sorts of traffic flow issues.

310. But the challenge is we had some very strong arguments and that’s an opinion but

I would say it was expressed by Sir Peter and everybody else who was there that day in

essentially saying that I think there’s probably strong arguments on both sides. You’re a

landowner who wants to retain the status quo – the ‘status quo’ is a strange term given

that there’s a big railway being built but let’s go with the term ‘status quo’ – of retaining

the lane open as it is today. But we have strong arguments, given the risk of traffic

flows coming through the village and more work to be done both by ourselves and

clearly by HS2 to establish that the appropriate action is taken on AP2. But the

implication was the status quo was AP2, which is the lane is kept open, and the concern

is that in the context of AP4 there’s a certain amount of it can’t be had both ways. That

there’s a handover of responsibility. You can protest against the council; you can try

and make that change to the status quo through the planning process. So our concern is

now that whilst there is active dialogue between HS2, the other petitioners and

interested parties, that that would move. Our concern is that the tip isn’t there and the

status quo actually is not adjacent to Diddington Lane in any way. So if we’re going to

play the argument that says the Select Committee will establish the status quo and then

we can argue against it, we believe that actually there’s probably a number of actions

that can be taken to mitigate against that and really assuage our concerns that says that

once this room is empty and something else is being talked about in here, that we have a

right and an opportunity to have further discussions in the event that these discussions

don’t proceed in a different direction and the tip does remain there.

311. So we’re arguing on shifting sands slightly, if you will. So a number of those

54

points on that slide there I jumped ahead and made. So, just to look at our requests, we

believe that those requests aren’t unreasonable. We don’t believe they have financial

cost and we don’t believe they have unrealistic positions given where discussions are

and the assurances that we’re being made. So, primarily, can we refuse the proposed

refuse centre from the AP4 plans? And that is the true status quo. Otherwise I believe

we should be talking again about AP2 and saying you can’t tell us ‘status quo’ when it’s

convenient for HS2; and say ‘status quo’ when it’s not convenient. So if status quo is

the basis, we can then say if those talks break down then actually it’s an action for the

council or via this Committee to ask for the tip to be put where it is currently drawn.

312. The second one is to make clear the ruling that Solihull, if this is to be part of the

process, that they proactively involve the residents in dialogue. Now, there is a slight

challenge there: of course Solihull would enter into a planning process if this were done

in the event. The challenge we have here – and I believe this is still in discussion as

well – is that they currently have the refuse centre on a 13 year lease; and we understand

anecdotally that it will not be renewed by the current leaseholder. The current AP4

provision is that HS2 – unless it’s changed – will acquire that land on behalf of Solihull

Council and give them freehold on a non-ending site. So clearly arguing with Solihull is

a bad idea and the planning process is somewhat of a loaded gun that I don’t believe we

can realistically argue against. So a number of reasons I believe that actually removing

the refuse centre from the AP4 plans would establish the status quo and allow them to

go through a planning process instead of us having to protest in the reverse.

313. Okay, next slide. Now, our concern too is not with the ambitions of HS2 but with

actually the absolute inevitability around the future actions beyond the establishment of

the plans for HS2 and the Hybrid Bill to go forward.

314. MR HENDRICK: Can I just say, on the points that were made previously, you

weren’t going to comment on the process or lack of process; but you seem to be doing

that now.

315. MR TOMKINS: No, these points specifically, these two concerns, have not been

made specifically and were not made, unless I missed something. I was here for the

AP4.

316. MR HENDRICK: Well, the pinch points are mentioned.

55

317. MR TOMKINS: Unless Hansard tells otherwise, I don’t believe this specific point

was discussed. First of all –

318. MR HENDRICK: The general point about the refuse site, the traffic flows, all

that was discussed in great detail last week.

319. MS WOODALL: This isn’t really about the traffic flows. What we’re trying to

say is that, again, we’d like something in writing that if in the future Solihull MBC

decide to turn this road into an access, that they need to proactively involve us. That’s

what we’d like. We’re not complaining about… we realise that that’s –

320. MR HENDRICK: The consultation points, I think, were made last week.

321. MR TOMKINS: I appreciate your challenge. If we could get a map up of the

area, the one Mr Strachan started the conversation with, that would be useful. Thank

you very much. So, Mr Hendrick, addressing your point as this comes up here, the

concern is that in the movement of the lane across – and this is repeating but it’s

important scene setting – to where you can now see it takes a different sweep and moves

up, it creates an adjacency to what is the new site for the tip. Now, things that were

discussed last week, which again are important but they’re important set up for the final

point, which is the roundabout at the A45 now will have increased number of lanes and

it will have traffic control and flows. You can see the very edge of the car park for the

terminal station here. And you can see obviously the overpass there will potentially be

widened. I understand that’s being widened as well. In essence, this is going to be an

area in which traffic will build up.

322. Now, that’s me setting the scene. The key point here is that when this Committee

has gone and this has been built, if I was in Solihull planning and the tip was put there

and the highways agency came to me and said ‘by having the tip there’… and I’ve seen

the queues at this tip particularly on a warm summer’s morning –

323. MR HENDRICK: These issues will be resolved eventually by the highways

authority. And it will need the permission of the highways authority to implement the

sorts of things you’re talking about. The move of the refuse site was discussed again in

some detail and your predecessors didn’t have an alternative site. Have you got an

alternative site?

56

324. MS WOODALL: For the refuse centre?

325. MR HENDRICK: Yeah.

326. MS WOODALL: Yeah, there’s an alternative site.

327. MR TOMKINS: There’s a number. This is a greenfield site.

328. MS WOODALL: Packington Estates have suggested –

329. MR HENDRICK: But, again, that would require planning authority again from

your local authority.

330. MR TOMKINS: But this –

331. MS WOODALL: Yeah, but our point is that if we’re supposed to go to our local

planning authority, they are Solihull MBC. They are going to be more interested in

putting it there because it is free – that is greenbelt land – than they are in –

332. MR HENDRICK: How does that impact on us trying to get a Bill through on

HS2?

333. MS WOODALL: Because this has come out as part of AP4.

334. MR HENDRICK: I mean, it may be a consequence of it.

335. MR TOMKINS: It is a consequence. And if I was looking at this as part of the

highways agency in Solihull Council in, let’s say, five years’ time when the traffic flow

had increased through there and there was construction traffic but also future projections

of more traffic down the A45 and the 452, would anyone else deny or would you deny

in this room that if you wanted to say ‘we have a problem; we have a state-of-the-art

facility that’s been built; the access from the A45 is causing issues because we’re

causing queuing back on to that’, what would be the most obvious issue? And I’ll tell

you what the most obvious issue for me would be: it would be to give access off

Diddington Lane. And my concern is that, whilst it is not the intention of HS2, by siting

the tip on the design there we are being set up for a scenario in which the natural

progression is for Diddington Lane to become a natural road for access to other facilities

–

57

336. MR HENDRICK: I think this point was raised at length last week. Mr Strachan,

did you not address this point last week?

337. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I think on the question of an access from the site, I

think I mentioned on the first time –

338. MR TOMKINS: And I’m not questioning the fact that you gave a strong answer

there, and that’s much appreciated.

339. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): The answer to that is our proposal does not include

any access to the recycling centre –

340. MR HENDRICK: I mean, this was emphasised over and over again.

341. MS WOODALL: We realise it’s not the HS2 but that’s –

342. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): There’s no proposal that we’re putting forward for

access from Diddington Lane. We made that clear. And if someone at a future date

were to propose an access on to Diddington Lane, they would have to seek permission

for it. What we can’t do is preclude what someone might try and do in the future. But if

they did try and put forward an access then it would have to be dealt with by the relevant

authorities based on the planning and highway considerations that apply at the time –

343. MS WOODALL: That’s –

344. MR TOMKINS: The concern is –

345. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): It would be easier if I finish rather than you talking

over me. And therefore any concern of any kind is properly addressed in the future, if it

were to arise, by both the highway authority and the planning authority.

346. MR HENDRICK: Exactly. Which is what I said earlier.

347. MR TOMKINS: And if I may, siting the refuse centre there creates a scenario in

which there is –

348. MR HENDRICK: And the refuse centre has to be approved by the local authority.

349. MR TOMKINS: Absolutely.

58

350. MR HENDRICK: So if you have any problems with that, you should see the local

authority about it.

351. CHAIR: We are going over ground that we’ve gone over before and I think it’s

already been indicated that the Committee will probably say in the report that it would

be better if it went on a brownfield site. Now, I think that that’s probably the extent of

what this Committee can do. Now, I don’t think the Committee can commit future

authorities to anything in the long term.

352. MR TOMKINS: Okay. So of the two points of mitigation I’ve made, it sounds

like whilst I’ve made, I believe, a case that says that we’ve been set up for a scenario in

which HS2, whilst will not be responsible, siting the tip there does create an inevitable

push between the highways agency challenge, which will be traffic flow, and any queue

back beyond the –

353. MR HENDRICK: I think the Chairman’s just made it quite clear that the

indication is that it would be better on a brownfield site. That’s as far as this Committee

can go. We’re not going to get into the whys and wherefores of what traffic goes where

and when.

354. MR TOMKINS: Okay.

355. MR HENDRICK: That’s the business of the highways authority, not the business

of this Committee.

356. MS WOODALL: Can you not make the recommendation that we are actively

included in future discussions on the siting of the tip and any possible planning around

it? You can’t make that recommendation in your report?

357. MR HENDRICK: No, because that is between the community and the local

authority.…

358. MS WOODALL: But we’re trying to get… and they’re not involved with us.

359. MR TOMKINS: It sounds like the Committee are not able or not minded –

360. MR HENDRICK: Well, we heard at length your predecessors on the same issue

of Diddington Lane and the waste site last week. You’re going over old ground here

59

and we came to a conclusion then. We’ve not heard anything new, as far as I can see,

today.

361. MR TOMKINS: May I make one final point then? If I go back to my initial

concern, which was around the statement of status quo here last week around AP2. The

statement that said the status quo will rule on AP2, which is why Diddington Lane is

being kept open. That status quo, if carried on to AP4, says that that refuse centre is not

drawn in on the map and the plan to put it there would be an action of the council, not an

action of HS2. And the statement would be what the current expected position is that it

would be sited elsewhere. I believe dialogue was going relatively well and I understand

an alternative brownfield site which was more suitable would probably be selected. But

I believe that being drawn on is a double standard that says in AP2 ‘we can’t act because

the standard is we currently have an open lane’, but in AP4 ‘there’s no tip there but

we’re going to put it there’. It strikes me as iniquitous to the two petitions that affect us

that different positions are being taken by the Committee in their positioning on how

they respond.

362. CHAIR: Okay. Let’s hear Mr Strachan for his response.

363. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Let me try and provide clarity on that point. We

have identified that in order to construct this railway, given the proximity to the

motorway, we, from our research, cannot accommodate the Bickenhill Waste Recycling

Centre access in its current location. It was for that reason that we identified the new

site in the supplementary Environmental Statement you see on the screen now as the

most suitable location. And that was agreed with Solihull, and the cabinet report for that

and their acceptance of that as the desirable location is in your packs.

364. In consequence of the petitions that have been made, including that from the

landowner, we have entered into an assurance which the petitioners are referring to,

which is at P15439(1), which the Committee knows about as I took you to this assurance

on the last occasion, where we will look for an alternative relocation site including what

we understand is a proposal from the owner of Packington Estate for a new brownfield

site. We will look at the potential to relocate what we have identified to that site, subject

to the conditions in this letter. If you just go to page 2. Obviously the site will need to

be made available to us. It will need to have permission and all of the factors identified

60

in paragraph 4.

365. We have also identified, just to pick up on a further point at paragraph 9, because

there was a further concern about who would own our proposed site in AP4, we’ve

identified that if the Secretary of State requires this recycling centre to be relocated in

accordance with AP4, as provided by assurance in 6, the Secretary of State will, if

requested by the landowner, instead of acquiring land belonging to Lord Guernsey, enter

into negotiations to take on and take reasonable steps to conclude a private treaty

whereby Lord Guernsey can – go to the next page – retain his freehold interest in the

land required for the recycling centre subject to a lease to the council on terms that are

reasonably similar to those that it enjoys in respect of a recycling centre as of

18 January 2015.

366. So if the recycling centre is relocated as suggested under AP4, under this

assurance it would be on the basis of an equivalent lease arrangement that exists

currently for the recycling centre in its current location, which I understand is a concern

of the petitioners.

367. So that covers the assurance that we’ve given to look at an alternative location.

What we can’t do, of course, in order to construct this railway is take out the proposal

for AP4 because that is the identified suitable site that we have identified through the

process we’ve gone through with Solihull.

368. MR HENDRICK: I seem to remember you wanted six sites.

369. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): We did. And the Solihull report identifies that they

accepted this was the most suitable site of the alternatives that were then under

consideration. We have gone further because we are agreeing to look at alternatives, but

it is subject to that proviso that if those alternatives don’t come to fruition this would

have to be the site for the relocation.

370. We’ve dealt with the other issues about traffic and access but I do want to clarify a

point about the information that was provided. Because on the occasion when the

petitioners came in in relation to a challenge to their locus standi, I accepted that the

details of what was shown in the supplementary Environmental Statement about lack of

access from Diddington Lane, the landscaping around it could be better explained to the

61

petitioners; and that was what was referred to and that is what we did because we sent an

email to the Committee and to the petitioners explaining those points which weren’t

apparent to the petitioners at the time. And they were then also transcribed into slides

P15620(1), which you have in your pack. These were slides provided to the petitioners

and indeed Hampton- in-Arden Parish Council when they came in. And we explained in

more detail – go to slide 2 – the point about access, i.e. there is no access from

Diddington Lane. The point about the footpath on slide 3, because there was a concern

about the alignment of the footpath and we explained that. The point about usage and

traffic in slide 4 where our predictions are we don’t anticipate a material increase in

traffic. And the point about landscape assessment in slide 5. And then in slide 6 there’s

a position as to the alternatives that were under consideration.

371. So in showing you those slides, I just want to make it clear that we did do what I

said we would do in the Committee on the last occasion, which was provide

communication to the petitioners of what is proposed and the details around it. And I

think those details have been referred to.

372. The dialogue that’s going on is an ongoing process. We’re trying to reflect at the

moment the assurance we’ve given to Lord Guernsey into a formal agreement. And

then that process of identifying alternative relocation in accordance with those

assurances will go forward. But that is where we are and that is our current position as it

was when we deal with precisely the same issues for the parish council last week.

373. CHAIR: Do the petitioners want to briefly come back?

374. MR TOMKINS: I’d like to say briefly that, whilst it won’t make a massive

difference, my interpretation of what was asked as a dialogue is probably slightly

different to what Mr Strachan’s was in receiving materials that answer questions that we

aren’t necessarily asking. Maybe it doesn’t necessarily fulfil that.

375. Our concerns remain significantly that in the event that the assumed status quo –

let’s call it that – in the plans are… we don’t have a point of recourse against that in the

event that in six months’ time, whilst we really appreciate the fact that there is dialogue

going on, that we’re not involved in it and the fact that we don’t understand what would

happen and we believe the situation is that that dialogue doesn’t come to the expected or

desired outcomes, what our point of recourse would be. I’m unfortunately not a lawyer

62

or a QC so I don’t know what my points of action and activity are.

376. MR HENDRICK: Have you contacted your local councillors?

377. MR TOMKINS: Our local councillors are people who are discussing this site and,

up to a day before it was announced to Committee, were denying to us they were in

discussion with HS2. So we have a challenge in that we are in a bit of a rock and a hard

place situation.

378. I’d just like to say that the meaning of ‘dialogue’ for me generally means some

active communication in both directions, and we feel like actually, generally, AP2 and

AP4 have been communications via email in the shortest and most convenient way.

Understandably, because everyone wants to get this railway built.

379. Would you add anything to that?

380. MS WOODALL: No, that was it really. Yeah, as I said, we just don’t know

what… If the decision goes against us and the tip is placed there, we don’t know what

our recourse is because the people who are putting it there will be the only people that

we could go to and argue against it with. Solihull MBC will be putting it there and

Solihull MBC would be the people that we would go to to complain against. We

haven’t got anyone higher up to take our back and that’s our worry.

381. CHAIR: In the long run, the House of Lords will be dealing with it for about a

year, so you will have the opportunity maybe at some point to petition the House of

Lords.

382. MS WOODALL: Right, okay. So we can do that. That’s fine. If we’ve got

something that we can come back to then…

383. CHAIR: Thank you. Thank you for your contribution.

Wendover HS2

384. CHAIR: That brings me to AP5/7, Wendover HS2, locus objection. Ron Petesen.

Mr Petesen?

385. MR PETESEN: Yes. Shall I proceed?

63

386. CHAIR: Yes.

387. MR PETESEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will take no more than three minutes

of your time. It is a travesty that HS2 has chosen to blatantly ignore this Committee’s

specific instruction to build an extended green tunnel at Wendover. Instead, they have

promoted the construction of sound barriers to the north and south of Wendover –

barriers that will be up to six metres in height. These visually grotesque barriers have

been opposed by all segments of the community. Worse yet, their efficacy is unproven

and, even by HS2 Limited’s own evidence, leave thousands of residents open to

intrusive levels of sound, both day and night.

388. Mr Strachan, in his comments on the CPRE presentation earlier today, argued

against noise barriers in the AONB because of their adverse visual effect. Which side of

his mouth is he talking out of? We maintain that the only effective way to deal with

Wendover’s noise, visual and hydrogeological concerns is a fully bored tunnel

throughout the AONB. The way to prove or disprove the case, because so much

misinformation about cost has been promulgated by HS2 Limited, is to ask the bidding

contractors to bid two alternatives, both above and below ground, at the point of

bidding. And the truth will then emerge as to what the cost really is. It’s a

straightforward process.

389. We will not today argue against the Committee’s locus standi decision, relying

instead on presentations by the Wendover Society and Wendover Parish Council to

make our case. Thank you.

390. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

391. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): I’m not sure if that last statement means that they’re

not seeking locus standi to pursue their petition, because that’s the purpose of this

hearing. We have challenged the locus standi of the Wendover HS2 Group and the

reasons for that are they’re not directly and specially affected within the meaning of the

locus standi provisions. The points that they are seeking to raise are in fact ones being

pursued by other petitioners who are coming before the Committee, so there’s no good

reason for the Committee to extend its discretion to include these particular petitioners.

And, in addition, the petition is not really against AP5 in terms of what it does, but it’s a

petition that they would rather see the tunnel as some variant or extension of AP5. So,

64

for all those reasons, we were challenging the locus standi of these petitioners. And I

think the end of that presentation was that they weren’t contesting that, in which case the

decision has already been made.

392. MR PETESEN: Fine.

393. CHAIR: I mean, are you not resisting the locus challenge?

394. MR PETESEN: We are not petitioning against the challenge, no.

395. CHAIR: Okay.

396. MR PETESEN: Okay, thank you very much.

397. CHAIR: Thanks very much.

Andrew Band

398. CHAIR: That brings me to AP5/10: Andrew Band locus objection.

399. MR BAND: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll be as brief as I possibly can be. As

you’re aware, I live within the 300 metres of the proposed north portal of the green

tunnel at Wendover. The changes in the AP5 documents seem to make things worse for

us rather than better. And the reason for this is we’re now being faced with a six metre

high, dare I say, Berlin Wall type noise barrier which will obscure our horizon and block

the sunsets that we currently enjoy.

400. We will also have to face a 25% increase in the height of the pylons and the

cables, and we understand the reason for this is because the cables need to be lifted to

clear the construction of the so-called green tunnel. And when I talk about the green

tunnel, I’m talking about the concrete construction, the big excavations. I can’t see what

is green about this tunnel.

401. However, the process of the design seems to be an afterthought. The green tunnel

design still takes no account of the hydrogeology issues, nor does it alleviate the noise

issues that we are facing; and now we have the additional visual impact issues.

402. The lessons of the Tideway project and the cost savings that seem to be achievable

with tunnelling nowadays seem to have been ignored, and our previous TBOW

65

proposals for the Chiltern long tunnel also seem to have been ignored.

403. So, in the interests of the Committee’s time, I’m going to defer my locus standi

challenge to the Wendover Parish Council and the Wendover Society who will deal with

the specific issues in more detail. But before I close, Mr Chairman, I do want to express

my deep frustration that we’ve now been here for six months in these hearings and we

still have had very little attempt on the part of HS2 to seriously engage with the

community on the detailed design or the design process. There seems to be no visual

montages for this AP5 / SES4 design. There are no design sections. And we still

receive rebuttal after rebuttal on the issues that we’re raising.

404. So, irrespective of whether the Committee feel able to put in their report, my

public challenge to HS2 is simple. HS2, please go and ask your LOC3 and AB works

contractors to price an option for extending a bore tunnel from Potters Row to north of

Wendover. And, likewise, please ask your LOC4 contractors to give you a price

reduction to avoid the construction of the viaducts, the embankments and the green

tunnel and all the hydrogeology mitigation you’re going to need to undertake. Please

publish this in public. Surely this request is straightforward and simple and at least then

the Wendover residents can understand whether the misery we’re just about to face is

really worth it.

405. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

406. CHAIR: Mr Strachan?

407. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, again, I’m here to respond to the locus standi

challenge rather than the merits of the point. And, as I understand it, the petitioner is

similarly not challenging the locus standi challenge we’re presenting and is content for

the issues to be dealt with by others, if I’ve understood it correctly. In those

circumstances, our locus standi challenge would prevail and we can deal with the issues

of Wendover when I come to address the substantive petitions.

408. MR BAND: Okay, well, Mr Chairman, thank you. I do agree with that. I would

ask whether HS2 consider our request seriously.

409. CHAIR: Okay. Thank you.

66

Wendover Society

410. CHAIR: That brings me to AP5/20: Aylesbury Vale District Council. Not here.

AP5/1: Wendover Society. Graham Watts. Do you want to begin?

411. MR BOB LEWIS: Should we start or Mr Strachan start, sir?

412. CHAIR: Mr Strachan, do you want to briefly introduce?

413. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Yeah. I think you know about the Wendover

Society. Just to relocate you, we’re dealing with Wendover again. By way of recap,

you’ve heard obviously about the Hybrid Bill provisions. The Select Committee made

some recommendations in one of its interim reports about the effects of the proposal on

Wendover and the extension, potentially, to the green tunnel. And in consequence of

that we considered various options and we put extensions to the green tunnels forward,

along with additional noise mitigation proposed at both ends. And that is the proposal

that’s come forward in AP5. Those effects have the benefits of providing some further

noise mitigation for the area and the green tunnel. It appears, clearly, that the proposals

don’t go far enough for some petitioners and that’s clearly the case for Wendover

Society.

414. The case for a longer tunnel, or a tunnel from South Heath further, or even an

extended green tunnel, has already been considered by the Committee but I’ll wait to see

what the petitioners pursue now.

415. CHAIR: Petitioners?

416. MR BOB LEWIS: Good morning. My name is Bob Lewis. My colleague on my

right is Graham Watts. We are treasury and secretary, respectively, of the Wendover

Society. We were here before on 7 September and will follow the same pattern, if you

don’t mind, that Mr Watts will take you through the first half; and at half-time I will

come on as a substitute and take you through from half-way to the end. And we’ll both

be available for any extra time that there might be.

417. CHAIR: Okay. Mr Watts?

418. MR WATTS: Okay. Can we have the next slide, please? Or slide number 2, in

67

fact. Yes, that’s the one. Yes, we are the Wendover Society. We are now in our 50th

year. We represent 500 individual members, plus a further 600 associate members. We

are also representing the further people of Wendover who’ve listened to us when we’ve

canvassed for opinion, and in addition we’re representing both Mr Lewis and Mr Ball

who have a 130-signature petition dated from last September.

419. Overall, we believe that AP5 is merely a token gesture. It’s grudging. It’s a

minimalist attempt to cover up for what was in the Environmental Statement. It’s clear

to us certainly that the promoter does not care about the effect on Wendover. Indeed, at

a meeting with them on 12 January, the said as much: ‘AP5 represents all the mitigation

that we intend to do for Wendover. We don’t have to do anymore and we will not be

doing anymore.’ So all the promoter really wants is Royal Assent on its own terms.

Then in that case the promoter will be both judge and jury over what is reasonably

practicable and what might be a reasonable worse case. We contend that that is wholly

unreasonable.

420. So our ask remains as it was before – next slide, please – that we would like a

bored or mined tunnel past Wendover.

421. Next slide, please. Here’s an overview of Wendover. On the right hand side, the

London Road Group. We will defer to them concerning the specifics for the area south

of Wendover up to Durham Farm. We’re sure that they will have told you their views

yesterday. They’re still very badly affected. AP4 made things worse. AP5 did nothing

and does nothing to improve matters. Then, in the middle group, we will equally defer

to St Mary’s Church Group concerning matters in the area near to the church and to the

school. They will speak to you probably later this afternoon.

422. At this point it’s efficient for us to say that we totally support additional mitigation

for St Mary’s Church. We also support Buckinghamshire County Council’s position,

namely that without a mined or bored tunnel at Wendover the promoter will have to pay

to relocate the Wendover House School. We will speak for North Wendover over

specifics and we’ll speak generally for all of Wendover.

423. Our central issues with AP5, and indeed with HS2 generally, are with noise and

disruption. Noise uncertainty is a particular concern, and the various anomalies and the

noise figures that we’ve been presented with do nothing to engender confidence in the

68

promoter’s evidence. For example, in P8161, they got north and south the wrong way

round, which is a fairly elementary mistake, one would have thought. In SES4 they put

the noise cloud over the pylons instead of over the noise barriers. There are differences

in the noise tables when they compare one scheme with another. Our simple point is

that if they can make mistakes over matters that are so easy to see, what else have they

done over matters that we can’t see and they won’t discuss with us?

424. Next slide, please. These are the noise policy aims for England which I think we

all accept and would quite happily go along with, were we to be allowed to.

425. Can we go on to slide 6, please? Thank you, yes. These are the so called LAmax

adverse impact. Noting that LAmax isn’t actually a maximum; it’s sort of an average of

maximums. So it’s not a peak; it’s an average of the peaks. So it’s not what normal

people would regard as a maximum.

426. Just to pick out one line there; the second line down which has got two red rings

around it. It is quite clear that the figure in the left-hand ring is quite high, and yet in the

further column with the red ring round it it’s labelled ‘not adverse’. On the numbers

presented there, clearly it’s adverse. On our quick count out, there’s be another 120

examples like that where the impacts would have to be notified within the CFA10,

which I think is where those figures are from.

427. All these figures are free-field; that is before the effect of adding any façade

adjustment that could be up to 3 dB onto the LAmax levels. And in this situation, the

second of the noise policy aims – that is to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts –

need to be applied. But it’s clear that that is not what the promoter is doing. And,

further, if any upward variation of the LAmax levels is experienced when the trains are

operating, then the threshold will be breached by a substantial margin. And it’s our

great concern that the opportunity to do the right thing and mitigate at source would

prove impossible, or impossibly intrusive, post-construction. And, indeed, the promoter

has said it won’t be doing anything about it anyway. So now is the time to have a

proper tunnel, not to regret it at a later date when it would be too late to do that.

428. At that meeting in the London offices, HS2 Limited were of the opinion that they

didn’t need to do anymore mitigation than is described in SES4. In the event that train

operations proved to generate higher levels of noise than they’ve estimated, they smugly

69

told us that as long as the LAmax level did not exceed the SOAEL then we’d have to put

up with it. This is completely contrary to the noise policy statements for England,

especially that aim to mitigate and minimise.

429. We’ve twice requested in writing that the noise tables for the draft surface

enclosure and the draft mined tunnel be released to us. There’s been no response, as

usual. We wonder if they’ve actually modelled these situations. If they have, as I hope

they would have done – they seem to have done a lot of other modellings that get

released at a very late stage – why are they so coy and shy about releasing the

information?

430. These issues have all been caused because the promoter chose to route HS2 so

close to around 9,000 people living in Wendover with no effective mitigation. There

were plenty of alternatives but the promoter’s choice of route caused the maximum

possible damage to Wendover. And the HS2 route is very different to the HS1 route, on

which a lot of the apparent mitigation and so on is apparently modelled. Unlike the HS1

route, there is no equivalent of the M20 motorway present in the Chilterns. There is

likewise no comparable concentration of population like Wendover so close to the open

HS1 route.

431. At the consultation stage, before the Bill was published, the promoter even tried to

tell us that in Wendover we wouldn’t hear the trains because the birds were singing so

loudly. When they actually published the Bill, it gave a table of indicated noise well

above acceptable limits in many areas of Wendover. The fundamental laws of physics

do apply to HS2 trains as to everything else. It’s an inescapable fact, given their weight

and size, travelling at 360 and then up to 400 kilometres per hour, with steel runs

running on a steel track and a pantograph at such a height, that HS2 trains will be

exceedingly noisy. At trackside, in fact about 25 metres from the source, the noise level

will be approaching 100 decibels. It could even be worse than this. And that’s the risk

to which the people of Wendover are being uniquely exposed.

432. Indeed – the next slide please – the Select Committee did recognise that, and in the

middle of last year set the promoter the task of producing very convincing mitigation

proposals, failing which one is minded to direct alternative and better mitigation. The

proposals in AP5 and SES4 would be a welcome attempt to reduce noise levels if that is

70

what was achieved. The net result, however, is no better than what was published in the

original Bill; namely that many areas of Wendover will still suffer unacceptable levels

of noise. So either the original noise predictions were grossly underestimated or AP5 /

SES4 proposals have no beneficial effect.

433. Next slide, please, which is a summary table for Wendover, only disclosed to us at

our meeting on the 12 January. It does state at the top, Wendover. We rather think that

it should be the whole of the CFA10.

434. Note that in Row 4, where the circled figures are presented, AP5 effects are worse

than before AP5, more households effects. But note the row above that – the

remarkable benefits in Row 3, going from the right hand side. We now earth is a good

absorber of sound energy, so we can understand the mine tunnel would achieve a very

good result, no houses affected. It’s even possible to believe in the penultimate column

that the concrete enclosures will do well. But the claims for the middle column, AP5,

just look too good to be true.

435. MR BOB LEWIS: It’s me again, Chairman. We asked the promoter for a

breakdown of those cost figures quoted in Slide 8. Can I have Slide 9, please? This is

what we got as a reply for a cost breakdown. Please note that this slide gives different

information to the promoter’s Petition Response document.

436. We’ve highlighted, in red, up here, they say, ‘Six metres’, but in the Petition

Response document, they say, ‘Six metres’, but here it’s, ‘Up to six metres’. So, we

wonder whether we can trust what they say. They masquerade as a government

department, but they’re more devious than the worst type of commercial developer.

437. The promoter issues two earlier papers as it worked towards publishing AP5. The

DfT sent their second proposal to our MP and it was he who sent this proposal, called

P8161 to us, and also to others for comment.

438. The Wendover Society canvassed opinion very widely on this proposal, and on the

final AP5 proposal, so we held meetings. We consulted a lot of other people in the area.

We showed the DFAT slides at these meetings, and we emailed the entire package to all

of our membership. The way in which HS2 will be built is of huge importance to the

people of Wendover, probably the most important challenge to Wendover during the

71

entire existence of the Wendover site in 50 years. The unanimous view of our

membership, Chairman, and all the other interested parties is that we do not find the

promoter’s proposals to be very convincing, which is the threshold that your Committee

has set. In fact, we don’t think they’re convincing at all. It will be for the select

Committee to reach a decision, but the message from the people of Wendover,

Chairman, is crystal clear: not one person – all these people we consulted – not one

person found the promoter’s proposal to be very convincing.

439. Slide 10, please. Here’s an example of the kind of thing that’s gone on. You can

see that here, in the interim proposal, they promised huge improvements in green to the

effect of noise and at minimal cost. But this was reversed under AP5, as you see over

here, where the noise has gone back up again. Indeed, in those four bottom rows, it’s

gone back above the threshold. Now, in his letter to your committee, Chairman, on 29

of the 10th, Mr Hargreaves, and I quote, said, ‘That improved noise results will be

brought forward in AP5. Everything will be below 60 decibels LAmax low is what he

promised, but as usual, they’ve not delivered.

440. Slide 11, please. This shows item 11 of the Petition Response document. We’re

not convinced that the AP5 proposals mitigate and minimise noise levels as required by

the Noise Policy Statement for England, and they don’t do much to reduce noise to a

level that will be acceptable to the people at Wendover. For example, we’d still like to

enjoy our gardens after HS2 trains start running, and to be able to bury our dead in

peace and tranquillity. Churchyards available for the internment of anyone who dies,

whether they’re a church attender, or not, and that is why the community, as a whole,

donates money every year to maintain the churchyard, and many citizens volunteer

physical help to help with that – keeping the churchyard in good order.

441. We don’t see any intention by the promoter to tackle the huge risk of much higher

noise levels due to inherent uncertainty of relying on mathematical modelling. Both Mr

Watts and I, during our careers, have done a lot of mathematical modelling, so we

understand precisely what the risks are. In addition, there’s no said claim to

technological improvements to noise will be achieved. This has been illustrated several

times in the past, but can we just show you Slide 12 again?

442. These are the figures produced by the promoter which show what happened in

72

HS1 and from HS1, they derive the model for HS2. The calculated noise is on the

vertical axis here, and the actual results are on the horizontal axis below. At these

higher speeds and higher noises, you will see, Chairman, quite clearly that there’s a

deviation of six, or seven decibels increase from the mean blue line at higher speeds.

That was HS1.

443. HS2 will travel at much higher speeds than HS1, so the risk is that HS2 trains will

be significantly noisier than the promoter’s management cares to admit. Here’s a quote;

‘Persistent over optimism and underestimation of technical challenges. That quote

could be about HS2, but is in fact from the Commons Defence Committee, or colleagues

on that Committee about the MoD, concerning type 45 destroyers. Another government

department, but with a very similar mind set. It’s worth repeating that quote, ‘Persistent

over optimism and underestimation of technical challenges’ – that’s what we think HS2

management are doing. We therefore invite, Chairman, your Committee to add 5

decibels to all the promoter’s predictions to allow for this inherent uncertainty, and as a

precedent, it was agreed at the House of Lords stage of Crossrail 19 February 2008,

paragraph 216, 5 decibels was added, again, because of uncertainty.

444. We ask that you insist on better mitigation for Wendover, to include a line for this

requested 5 decibel increase. We also would ask you to require HS2 to abide by the

noise policy statement for England – second aim; and third aim: to minimise and

mitigate all adverse impacts on health and quality of life that arise from LAeq, or

LAmax levels exceeding the LOAEL level.

445. Chairman, we no more believe the promoter’s noise predictions than we believe

their cost estimates. We believe that the select Committee should base its conclusions

on independently verified estimates of both noise and cost. In our view, the promoter

has lost all credibility. The promoter makes categorical statements. We point out

obvious errors, but there’s no dialogue. There’s no transparency. They just ignore us.

They hide behind a veneer of confidentiality and they consistently refuse to consider any

change to their design. The minimum that we ask is that the Select Committee orders an

extension of the cut and cover tunnel for the full distance to divide that going south; an

extension to the north of several hundred meters. Slightly more mitigation than the

Select Committee was minded to grant in July 2015, but we believe it to be necessary in

order to address the noise issue in the north, which you’ve seen examples of.

73

446. Whilst this option is not perfect, it does address the noise issue, which is of

fundamental importance to us. The appearance will not look good in an AONB, but the

promoter has done its best to make its visualisation of such an extension look unsightly.

We’re confident that their design panel can do a much better job. They can start by

taking advice from the Royal Air Force. The RAF have quite a few reinforced concrete

structures, which they very effectively camouflage with acid etching, which is applied to

the surface of the concrete. That’s how they hide aircraft from the enemy.

447. However, it is interesting to note the extraordinary length that the promoter has

gone to in an attempt to hide the six-metre high noise barriers in their photo montages of

AP5. This is a wholly unequal portrayal, unashamedly slanted to the promoter’s wishes,

as always. Another big drawback of extending the cut and cover tunnel, Chairman, is it

does nothing for the people living between Wendover and Durham Farm. We put on the

early slide – it does nothing to help the hydro geological issues. In addition, it retains

the two exceedingly ugly and unnecessary viaducts that we would like to see removed.

We believe there is only one two effective way of dealing with noise, and all the other

issues raised by the people of Wendover, and that one way has been put to you several

times already. We need a proper tunnel. Either, Chairman, 3.95 km plus around 500

metres to the north. This would simply be the northern element to all the proper tunnel

propositions. In effect, it would be the northern part of the CRAG T23I proposal. This

tunnel could be mined, or bored, whatever is the best value for money.

448. There is no argument about the design, or about the benefits that will be achieved.

It’s simply an argument about perceived cost of creating holes in the ground. They say

the extra costs – net costs – would be £275 million. We say that is probably grossly

exaggerated, and that you should put the HS2 line in a tunnel anyway. We need HS2 to

be in a tunnel to save our community from the inevitable misery that a surface route

would bring.

449. Alternatively, Chairman, you could have a fully bored tunnel through Chilterns

bored one way, as presented to you on 24 November. The technical expert, Colin

McKenzie, who gave evidence for the petition, has estimated and built tunnels on time

and within budget over the world. One wonders how many tunnels the promoter’s staff

have actually built. The evidence given show that it could be bored much faster than 80

metres a week, which is what the promoter assumes, and within programme, and so

74

without any cost penalty. On cost, the evidence shows that the promoter’s cost for a

bored tunnel were twice what has been achieved in practice – twice. These false

assumptions by promoter totally eschews a rational determination on what is the best

choice for Wendover. We believe that the promoter is conversely underestimating the

true cost of a cut and cover tunnel. As we understand it, from the petition hearing, any

effects that may be on the programme, entirely of the promoter’s own making. They

could and should have listened to affected parties at an earlier stage. So, we invite the

Select Committee to tell the promoter to find a way of accommodating any programme

effects, and to revisit the unit costs of tunnelling, to bring them into line with the

infrastructure of UK work, which is done by the British Tunnelling Society.

450. It is response to the final submission by the Right Honourable Cheryl Gillan MP

to you, on the 28 January, Mr [Tim] Mould, of all people, was incorrect in all of the

points he raised about tunnels. His attempt to cast tunnel supporters like us as being –

and I quote – ‘Constant denial of inescapable facts’ was frankly nonsense. Perhaps Mr

Mould was thinking of another tunnel. If the tunnel is bored one way, there will not be,

as he quote, ‘Enduring and large construction sites at the northern border of the AONB’.

All of the spoil ends up at the other end – near the M2 and 25, which is precisely where

his client, the promoter, has always proposed for the spoil. All of the proper tunnel

options can remove the two viaducts, and the intervention gap is only half a kilometre.

451. MR HENDRICK: Sorry for the intervention. You are repeating a great deal of

what has been…

452. MR BOB LEWIS: I’m sorry?

453. MR HENDRICK: You are repeating a great deal of what we’ve been over in the

past. I thought you were particularly addressing your remarks to AP5.

454. MR BOB LEWIS: Mr Hendrick, it’s inevitable that we’re going to duplicate

some of what’s been said in the past in order to get our point over. We’ve been to

enormous trouble to not have overlaps between different petitioners who are here today.

We’ve done our very best to avoid that.

455. MR HENDRICK: That’s by petitioners today, but then you’re overlapping with

what’s been discussed at great length previously.

75

456. MR BOB LEWIS: You interrupted, if I may say, at the point when I’m pointing

out that Mr Mould made these remarks unchallenged. I am now challenging what he

said. I think that it’s unfair that he can get away with these remarks, which are just

untrue. So if I may, I’ll conclude. The intervention gap – it’s half a kilometre, not one

kilometre as he says. And it’s got two portals, one at each end.

457. His point about diminishing returns is the wrong way around. The expert witness

pointed out the unit cost of tunnelling reduces with distance an operator expense,

making…

458. MR HENDRICK: Again, we’ve been at this at great length. Could you confine

your remarks, if you can, to AP5?

459. MR BOB LEWIS: Slide 13.

460. CHAIR: I’m thinking about suspending about 1 o’clock, Mr Lewis. How much

longer have you got?

461. MR HENDRICK: He’s got 40 slides. Sorry, one more.

462. MR BOB LEWIS: We’re just one and a quarter pages through…

463. MR HENDRICK: Sorry, not 40 – 14.

464. CHAIR: Alright.

465. MR BOB LEWIS: The point of this slide and, yes, you’ve seen it before, is that –

but it’s highly relevant to what we’re trying to say, professors stated that for distances

above 1.6 to 2.4 kilometres, a bored tunnel comes cheaper than a cut and cover tunnel.

The tunnel we’re asking for is greater than that. But the promoter still claims that such a

tunnel would be vastly more expensive than a cut and cover tunnel. And if they assume

tunnelling costs twice of what can be achieved, that’s the answer you’re going to get.

On the promoter’s figures, a bored, or mined tunnel never comes out cheaper than a cut

and cover tunnel. It’s only when one factors in the lower fully bored tunnelling costs,

and higher costs for cut and cover tunnels that Professor [Andrew] McNaughton’s

evidence make sense. What the Professor has stated is surely the truth because it

accords with industry norms and it makes so much sense intuitively. It has to be right.

76

466. So, we come to the conclusion that – number 14, please – that only a proper tunnel

would give Wendover the mitigation it needs. HS2 first estimated the next extra cost of

a mined tunnel to be £150 million. We thought that was high enough. We pointed out a

lot of offsetting savings. We don’t need to have this extended cut and cover tunnel

between £60 and £80 million. No hydrological issues - £20/25 million. Some people

say, £80 million. No need to move the school - £20 million. No need to move

electricity columns - £20 million, and so on. So, after we pointed that out, what does the

promoter do but increase their estimate to £225 million, and then £275 million?

They’ve increased the cost so much that a simple mined tunnel would now cost more

than a bored tunnel. But of course, they’re careful in that comparison you saw to make

the comparison against a mined tunnel priced at the highest figure.

467. Mr Avery, of the church group, will expand on this cost issue later. Mr Avery is a

very experienced surveyor and project manager. Without independent verification, we

simply do not believe the promoter. Their track record has always been to oppose any

other proposition, but their own, and they refuse to have any meaningful discussions

about cost. Any amount of expenditure on the train and its rail system – the best that

money can buy. No expense spared, as we see, on lawyers and staff. No expense

spared on the public relations department who spin every aspect. It also appears, from

an article in the Telegraph on 28 January that lots of money is going to be spent on the

pattern for this, so that they – the article, which was undoubtedly brief by the PR

department, waxed lyrical about the comfort and convenience to be afforded to that

relatively small number of people who will travel on HS2 trains. But when it comes to

the promoter spending money to reduce the misery affected on people like us, they want

to spend nothing. They are simply not willing to volunteer, or spend the money

required.

468. Now, Chairman, your Select Committee have approved the promoter’s estimate of

£47 million to save a relatively small number of houses in South Heath from the misery

of HS2. Surely the 9,000 people of Wendover the not much greater net expenditure, as

we see it, required to minimise the living hell of construction, and to be spared the very

intrusive noise of the trains every one and a half minutes thereafter forever more.

469. CHAIR: Mr Strachan, how long will you need? Have you any idea?

77

470. MR STRACHAN QC (DfT): Well, I hope I could do it by 1 o’clock if…

471. CHAIR: Then we have a petitioner who will need to come back. How long will

you need to respond when you come back?

472. MR BOB LEWIS: We don’t know. Depends on what he says.

473. CHAIR: Okay. I think the best thing then – if Mr Bellingham’s going to have to

be away in five minutes, then we won’t record it anyway. So, I think the best thing then

is I suspend the Committee until 2 o’clock. Order, order.