House of Commons High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill Select Committee

Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 5 June 2019

HC 2270 Published on 7 June 2019 by authority of the House of Commons High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill Select Committee The Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill provides individuals and bodies directly and specially affected by the Bill with the opportunity to object to the Bill’s specific provisions and to seek its amendment, although not to object to the principle of the Bill.

Current membership James Duddridge MP (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East) (Chair) Sandy Martin MP (Labour, Ipswich) Mrs Sheryll Murray MP (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Martin Whitfield MP (Labour, East Lothian) Bill Wiggin MP (Conservative, North Herefordshire)

Publications © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright/. Committee reports and evidence relating to this report are published on the Committee’s website and in print by Order of the House.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Lis Gerhold (Clerk) and Kutumya Kibedi (Committee Assistant).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill, Private Bill Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3250; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 1

Contents

1 Introduction 5 High Speed 2 5 Parliament and the Committee 5 Additional Provisions 7 The first Additional Provision (AP1) 7 The second Additional Provision (AP2) 7 Governance 8 Independent assessment 8 Compliance with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and House of Lords 8 Next parliamentary stages 9 Acknowledgements 9

2 The Proposed Route 10 The Bill 10 The Committee’s route visits 11

3 Principles 13 Guiding principles and our approach 13 HS2’s Register of undertakings and assurances 13

4 Decisions of the Committee in relation to AP2 14 New Grid Supply Point 14 Power transmission 14 Power grid connection 17 Common Lane and Crawley Lane 19 The Bill Scheme 19 Changes to Common Lane proposed in AP2 19 New Proposal - Crawley Lane 20 Other decisions 22 West Midland Bird Club (No. AP2–59) 22 The Slater family (No. AP2–33) 22 Sian Froggatt (No. AP2–49) 22 Stone Town Council (No. AP2–47) 23 Newcastle Road Residents (No. AP2–75) 23 Mr and Mrs Bloor (No. AP2–51) 23 Ingestre Park Golf Club (No. AP2–25) 23 Ingestre with Tixall Parish Council (No. AP2–21) 24 Graham Ward 2010 Discretionary Will Trust etc. (No. 40) 25 Cheshire Wildlife Trust (No. AP2–58) 25 The Freightliner Group, Freightliner Group Ltd, Freightliner Ltd and Freightliner Heavy Haul Ltd (Nos. 116 and AP2–26 and 139 and AP2–27) 25 SGB World Services (No. AP1–14) 26

5 Mental Health 27 Background 27 Progress 27

6 Compensation 30 Statutory compensation: the compensation code 30 Displaced owners and occupiers 30 Non-displaced owners 31 Blight notices 32 Calculating compensation payments 32 Discretionary compensation schemes 32 Express Purchase scheme 33 Homeowner Payments scheme 34 Need to Sell scheme 34 Rent Back or Voluntary Purchase Scheme 34 Alternative cash offer 34 Special circumstances and future work 34 Rural Support Zone scheme 36 Prolonged Disturbance scheme 36 What happens if there is disagreement between parties? 36

7 Community Engagement 38 Provision of broadband to rural communities 39 Petitioners who appeared before the Committee 39 Members of Parliament appearing before the Committee 40 Sir William Cash MP (Stone) (No. 187) 40 Antoinette Sandbach MP (Eddisbury) (No.42) 40 Jack Brereton MP (Stoke on Trent South) (No. 153) 41 Jeremy Lefroy MP (Stafford) (No. 188) 42 County and Borough Councils 43 Stafford Borough Council (Nos. 152 and AP2–57) 44 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (No. 141) 44 Parish Councils 44

8 Environmental matters 45 A Green Corridor 46 Woodland and trees 46 The Woodland Trust (No. 99 and AP2–63) 46 Wildlife 47 Royal Society Wildlife Trust (No. 180) and Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (No. 91) 47 Cheshire Wildlife Trust (AP 2–58) 48 Farming 48 National Farmers Union (Nos. 107 and AP2–52) and the Country Business and Landowners Association (No. 140) 48 Borrow pits 50 Canals and waterways 52 Traffic 52 Cycling, Footpaths and Bridleways 53

9 Observations of the Committee 54

Annex A: Right to appear challenge - Decision of the Committee 55

Annex B: List of petitioners 56

Formal minutes 65

Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 5

1 Introduction

High Speed 2

1. High Speed 2 is a national high-speed rail network, consisting of a new double- track railway which when finished will directly connect London, Birmingham, the West Midlands, Leeds and Manchester.1 In order to manage such a large infrastructure project the government has divided the necessary legislation into three parts:

a) Phase 1 - London to the West Midlands (enabling works have begun at Euston station and the first HS2 services will begin in 2026);

b) Phase 2a - the West Midlands to Crewe, (construction work will begin in 2020 with the first services to begin in 2027, assuming Royal Assent of the Bill);

c) Phase 2b - which consists of railway lines from Crewe to Manchester, and Birmingham to Leeds.2

The first HS2 services will begin in 2033.

2. The principle of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe Bill) is regarded as having been agreed to on Second Reading. On Second Reading the House agreed to “the provision of a high speed railway between a junction with Phase One of High Speed 2 near Fradley Wood, in Staffordshire, and a junction with the West Coast Mainline near Crewe in Cheshire … .its broad route alignment, and the fact that there are to be no new stations on, or additional spurs from, the railway”.3

3. This report is about Additional Provision 2 to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill and continues some themes from our earlier reports. This is our final report.

4. Phase 1, the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill was introduced in November 2013 and made provision for the building of a high speed railway from London to the West Midlands.4 The High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act came into force in 2017. Archeological ground work and enabling works have begun at Euston with engineering works expected to start in June 2019. The planned opening date for the whole route, assuming the necessary legislation is passed, is 2033. The High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 authorised the Secretary of State to incur expenditure in preparation for the construction of a high speed rail network.5

Parliament and the Committee

5. The building of the railway will be provided under powers granted by Parliament. Parliament is to scrutinise the proposed legislation, and, where appropriate amend the draft legislation before approving it.6

1 Cm 8247 was presented to Parliament in January 2012 “High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future - Decisions and Next Steps”. 2 HS2 Phase 2b 3 https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018–01–30/debates/DFB17084-CBF7–4618-9E12-6252FE0DE218/ HighSpeedRail(WestMidlands-Crewe)Bill 4 HS2 Phase 1 5 High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe Bill) Explanatory Notes, para 4 6 For example, Channel Tunnel Act 1987, Crossrail Act 2008 6 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

6. The Phase 2a High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill is a hybrid bill. A hybrid bill is subject to certain parliamentary proceedings in addition to the usual stages of the passing of a public bill. In the case of a hybrid bill, individuals and businesses who are affected by the changes proposed in the Bill and the Additional Provisions may petition Parliament, and can put their case to the Committee. This particular hybrid bill sets out a route and gives outline permission needed to build the railway. The Committee’s role was limited to hearing petitions against the proposals contained in the Bill and the additional provisions and to aid resolution between parties and make decisions.

7. The proposed route of the railway is set out in the plans, which under the rules (Standing Orders) for both the House of Commons and House of Lords, must be deposited in Parliament with the Bill. Schedule 4 to the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to acquire land compulsorily “so much of the land within the Act limits as may be required for Phase 2a purposes.” Schedule 6 contains provision about the particular purposes for which the land specified within that Schedule and shown on the Bill plans may be acquired, so that it may be used for the purposes of constructing and maintaining works as laid out in Schedule 1.7 In the Bill, the Secretary of State is obliged to list the areas in which major works will be undertaken.

8. The High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill was introduced on 17 July 2017, and received its Second Reading on 30 January 2018. On Second Reading the Bill was committed to a Bill Select Committee.8

9. Petitioning against the Bill opened on 31 January and closed on Monday 26 February 2018. The Committee received 187 petitions.

10. Submitting a petition alerts HS2 to the objections of those who are directly and specially affected by to the proposed Scheme. HS2 may negotiate with the petitioner. Whilst the Bill passes through parliament, HS2 continues to work on the design of the railway. Changes will be made which may remove the concerns of some petitioners. If any proposed changes go beyond what is contained in the Bill, an Additional Provision to the Bill must be submitted. The final design of the railway is likely to be similar to that indicated in the plans at the outset and although the Committee has the power to make changes it may not alter the route of the railway, and has been given instructions for “no new stations on, or additional spurs”.9

11. Some petitioners requested from the Committee a deferral of the petition hearing as they understood from HS2 that the provisions set out in the first Additional Provision (AP1) and second Additional Provision (AP2) may remove the necessity to appear before the Committee. The Committee agreed to 30 deferrals for the Bill and AP1.10

7 Schedule 1 of the Bill: Construction and maintenance of works; description of scheduled works listed by work nos. 1 - 131. 8 See Committal Motion at Second Reading https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018–01–30/debates/ DFB17084-CBF7–4618–9E12–6252FE0DE218/HighSpeedRail(WestMidlands-Crewe)Bill#contribution-902A9218– 3998–4167-A4B8-F14524FB5357 9 Ibid 10 See Annex B Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 7

Additional Provisions

12. The Second Special Report of the HS2 Phase 1 Select Committee gives the following definition: “Additional provisions are amendments to the Bill- powers which go beyond the scope of the original proposals and which may potentially have adverse direct and special effects on particular individuals or bodies, over and above any effects on the general public”.11

13. An Additional Provision is comprised of proposed amendments to the Bill, plans that show the proposed changes, a Book of Reference identifying the owners and occupiers of the affected land and the Additional Provision Environmental Statement.

The first Additional Provision (AP1)

14. AP1 was deposited on 23rd March 2018. Changes related to the design of utility works and minor highway works. AP1 affected community areas12 1 (Fradley to Colton), 2 (Colwich to Yarlett), 3 (Stone to Swynnerton) and 5 (South Cheshire area) and proposed 78 design changes.

15. Proposed changes include the raising of the alignment of the HS2 main line from the B5026 Eccleshall Road to the northern extent of Yarnfield North embankment; raising the viaduct crossing of the Norton Bridge to Stone Railway and Filly Brook; and the horizontal realignment of the HS2 main line from the northern extent of Yarnfield North embankment to the Tittensor Road overbridge; it also includes some diversion works to utilities, construction traffic routes, highways improvements, revised flood mitigation measures around the Stone Infrastructure Maintenance Base and Norton Bridge to Stone Railway; and changes to earthworks.

16. The petitioning period for the Additional Provision opened on Thursday 29 March 2019 and closed on Friday 27 April 2018. The Committee received 33 petitions against AP1. On 24 May 2018 we published our First Special Report and on 23 July 2018 we published our Second Special Report. These reports recorded decisions of the Committee in relation to petitioning against the Bill and AP1.13

The second Additional Provision (AP2)

17. AP2 was deposited on 8 February 2019 and introduces 287 individual changes, 28 of which were as a result of settling with petitioners or directions from the Committee, the rest being further development of the design, principally in relation to utility works. It contains changes to engineering, and minor utility works and amendments to change Schedule 8 to the Bill.14 (Schedule 8 specifies land in respect of the compulsory purchase of land on which the powers of acquisition are limited to acquisition of rights or imposition of restrictive covenants.) We received 82 petitions against AP2.

11 HC 129, Session 2015–16, paragraph 8 12 The Environmental Statement divides the route into five community areas and HS2 deposited five associated map books with the Bill 13 First Special Report, HC 1085, 24 May 2018, and Second Special Report, 23 July 2018, HC 1452 14 The changes proposed relating to Schedule 8 applies to Community Area 4 only 8 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

18. AP2 outlines a new proposal for a replacement traction power supply route from Newlands Lane to “Parkgate” in Staffordshire. This change proposes bringing the electricity supply for the railway through a 7.7km double run of pylons. The Bill Scheme proposes bringing power through the decommissioned Rugeley power station.

19. AP2 also includes provisions for the lowering of the Kings Bromley and Trent viaducts, highway works to improve capacity for HS2 construction traffic and changes to the design at the Crewe interchange, as well as reconfiguration of the junction at Handsacre, and the addition of a tunnel boring machine and permanent power supply route at Whitmore and Madeley.

20. In this report we outline our decisions and conclusions in relation to AP2. The full texts of each petition and the transcripts of each hearing are available on the Committee’s website.15 Some matters were resolved through negotiation between the petitioner and HS2 and before the petitioner was scheduled to appear before the Committee.

Governance

Independent assessment

21. Under Standing Order 224A of the House of Commons and Standing Order 83A of the House of Lords, the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills commissioned an independent assessor to study and summarise the comments received as part of the consultation on the Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill and the Supplementary Environmental Statements relating to the Additional Provisions. The text of those reports can be read on Parliament’s Bill web page.16

Compliance with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and House of Lords

22. The Bill, the Additional Provisions and supplementary Environmental Statements must comply with the Houses’ Private Business Standing Orders. HS2 Ltd appears before the Examiners of Petitioners for Private Bills to prove that all the necessary steps have been taken to publicise the proposed scheme and notify owners, lessees and occupiers, alerting them to the Scheme. Where certain Standing Orders were found not to be complied with, the question of whether the Standing Order requirements would be dispensed with was considered by the Standing Order Committees in the two Houses. In each case, the non- compliance related to deadlines designed for private bills and were dispensed with.

15 https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/high-speed-rail-west- midlands-crewe-bill-select-committee-commons/published-petitions/ 16 https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017–19/highspeedrailwestmidlandscrewe/documents.html Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 9

Examinations and Standing Order Committee meetings

Table 1: Table with date of examinations and Standing Order Committee meetings

Examination HC SOC HL SOC Bill 12 September 2017 20 November 2017 12 September 2017

21 November 2017 AP1 23 April 2018 10 May 2018 23 May 2018 AP2 13 March 2018 27 March 2019 2 April 2019

Petitioning periods HS2 Phase 2a Bill

Date announced Period Newspaper notice (first insertion) Bill Committal motion, 30 January - 26 February 20 July 2017 Votes and Proceedings 30 Jan 2018 AP1 Private Business, 26 29 March - 27 April 29 March 2018 March 2018 AP2 Private Business, 11 15 February - 15 March 13 February 2019 February 2019

Next parliamentary stages

23. Following this final report of the Bill Select Committee, the Committee of Selection will appoint a Public Bill Committee which will examine the Bill as amended in the Bill Select Committee, considering it Clause by Clause using the same procedures as Public Bill Committees on other Government Bills. The Bill will then return to the Floor of the House for report stage and Third Reading before it passes to the House of Lords for scrutiny there.

24. The House of Lords will take the Bill through the same stages as the Commons with people specially and directly affected having their petitions heard by a Bill Select Committee in the House of Lords.

25. Once the legislation introduced by the Government passes through all stages in both Houses it receives Royal Assent. This gives outline planning consent to proceed with the proposed rail link and the detailed design of the proposed railway can begin.17

26. We expect HS2 on behalf of the Secretary of State to respond to this report in time for the Third Reading debate in the House of Commons.

Acknowledgements

27. Particular thanks go to the Clerks to the Committee who have supported our efforts over the last 16 months, namely Lis Gerhold and Rob Cope, and David Walker, Programme Manager. We also thank all those involved in the process.

17 Parliament gave Royal Assent to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill on 23 February 2017. Preparatory work has begun in London at Euston, to enable the building of the first phase of the rail link. 10 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

2 The Proposed Route

The Bill

28. The Bill provides for a new double track railway line from a junction with Phase One of High Speed 2 near Fradley Wood in the West Midlands, to a junction with the West Coast Main Line near Crewe in Cheshire.18 It will be approximately 58 km (36 miles) long. It is proposed that the HS2 Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester high speed line will connect here. A railhead and infrastructure maintenance base will be built in Stone in Staffordshire. HS2 trains may be up to 200 metres long and can be coupled to run as trains 400 metres long. This is a considerable engineering project. HS2 services are expected to operate between 5am and midnight from Mondays to Saturdays and between 8am and midnight on Sundays. We were told by HS2 that engineering works and maintenance will take place outside operational times unless of an urgent nature.19

29. Phase 2a has 27 km of embankments, 28 km of cuttings, 6 km of viaducts and 3 km of tunnels. There will be 980 metre long viaduct at Kings Bromley and a 15 metre high and 1.9 km long viaduct over the River Trent; there will also be viaducts at Great Haywood over the Macclesfield to Colwich railway, the River Trent and the Trent and Mersey canal, a viaduct at Meaford and a viaduct crossing the West Coast Mainline and Madeley Chord and the out of use Stone to Market Drayton railway line.

30. The Secretary of State has given an assurance that he will acquire no more land than is needed for the Scheme.20 Clause 4 of the Bill allows for the compulsory purchase of land.21 The Bill contains lists of the parcels of land required for the construction and operation of the railway and these reflect the overall land requirements. The Bill allows for land to be taken temporarily as well as permanently. Where this happens there is a statutory requirement for financial compensation to be paid to the landowners. Land take may be no greater than is provided for in the deposited plans and the Additional Provisions.

31. The Bill includes powers to carry out reinstatement and environmental works which may include noise protection barriers and visual screening to ease the impact on the local landscape. It also contains environmental controls in addition to existing environmental legislation. The Scheme aims to return additional land taken to agricultural use once the works are completed, with the majority of the original land taken by the Scheme handed back for productive agricultural use once the railway has been built.22

32. Land acquired by HS2 will be used for different purposes. Some land will be taken for the railway tracks, and some for worksite and worksite accommodation while building the railway. The plans include land to be taken for “environmental mitigation” (for the

18 Schedule 1 (1)(a) 19 Note from HS2 dated 9 May 2019 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/ written-evidence/105%20HOC%20152%20-%20Select%20Committee%20Ask%20-%20night%20time%20 power%20supply.pdf 20 HS2 Paper C4: Land Acquisition Policy, para 23 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/672195/C4_Land_Acquisition_Policy_v1.6.pdf 21 Along with Schedules 6, 7 and 8 22 P1(8) Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 11

planting of trees and creation of nature habitats) and some for “balancing ponds”.23 Land will also be required for “borrow pits”, to excavate material for creating embankments along the route. Land that is no longer required for construction, worksite or other use, will be offered back to the original owner in line with the Land Disposal Policy.24 Some sites will not materially change and no new railway works will be constructed there. Such sites can often be returned to their original use with the landowners’ consent. The Secretary of State may take such lands temporarily rather than acquiring the freehold interest. Where the nature of the sites will materially change (e.g. through demolition of existing buildings or construction of railway works on the site) or where land or property is planned to be developed, the freehold interest will be acquired.25

The Committee’s route visits

33. The Committee decided that the best way to understand the impact on the local environment and communities was to visit the area. We did so in March 2018. We invited Sarah Mallen, HS2 Project Manager, Staffordshire County Council, and Clive Thomson, Commissioner for the Connected and Sustainable County, from Staffordshire County Council, to accompany us to inform us of the local perspective. We also invited Elisabeth Ellis, Select Committee Manager, Michael Dalton, Project Manager, Tim Smart, Engineering Consultant, and Peter Miller, Environmental Consultant from HS2 to accompany us to outline the plans for Phase 2a.

34. The Committee travelled by minibus from Birmingham International railway station along the proposed route from South to North. Parts of the visit required us to view the route from afar, across fields, as direct access was not available without intruding onto individuals’ land. We visited Fradley Junction, where the HS2 Phase 2a route begins, and the sites of the Kings Bromley, River Trent and Great Haywood viaducts. We also examined the proposed area of the Stone Infrastructure Maintenance Base, saw the disused Stoke to Market Drayton Railway and looked at the alternative Aldersey’s Rough site proposed by petitioners for the infrastructure maintenance base. We also looked at the sites for the Whitmore Heath and Madeley Tunnels and the Crewe interchange. During the visit we were shown highways, ancient woodland, sites for borrow pits and balancing ponds, as well as sites for construction compounds and environmental mitigation planting, on all of which we subsequently heard petitions.

35. Following the publication of AP2, the Chairman and Sandy Martin MP visited Staffordshire and Cheshire in order to view the changes proposed by HS2 and were accompanied by Hayley Kirkham from Cheshire East Council and Clive Thomson from Staffordshire County Council. They looked at Handsacre Junction, Common Lane, the Rugeley Power Station site, the route of the proposed double pylon lines, the proposed site for Newlands Lane substation (the Parkgate connection route), Parkgate connection site, the proposed site for the roundabout outside Yarlet School, and the proposed route changes at Tittensor Road Junction. The visit ended at Crewe Station where they were told about the proposed changes to the platform.

23 Balancing ponds act as a temporary storage facility for watercourses such as streams so that water is not discharged directly into the watercourse, which could cause flooding, instead the water is stored in a balancing pond.. 24 C4: para 4.4 and HS2 Information paper C6: Disposal of Surplus Land and Over-site Development. 25 In considering the question of material change, the Secretary of State will apply the approach set out in the Crichel Down Rules. C4: para 4.3 12 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

36. The Chair reported back to the Committee so that we had a better understanding of the likely impact of AP2 on the area as well as to conduct a review of the decisions that we had made in our Special Reports in May and July of last year. Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 13

3 Principles

Guiding principles and our approach

37. In this chapter, we outline our approach to the petition hearings.

38. We understand that when planning and building a railway, communities will be affected. There will be a change of use of land, either temporarily or permanently and this will impact on the local landscape.

39. We do not intend to comment on all of the petitions that we heard throughout the process. Many were detailed and specific to particular properties. Assurances and undertakings were given by HS2 with which we are content and these are recorded on the HS2 register of undertakings and assurances.26 Some of our decisions were set out in our reports of last year.27 In some cases, we were able, in committee, to ensure that petitioners understood the compensation scheme under which they could secure some recompense. In other cases we concluded that the mitigation was appropriate having considered all the issues and options. We also gave specific directions to HS2.

40. Some petitioners made cases that would have incurred great additional cost to the public purse, and some cases were brought before us that might have provided a local benefit but would have had a detrimental effect on the wider community. Some petitioners did not convince us that a change should be made and it is the role of the petitioner to convince the Committee that the petitioner’s solution is the better one. This is certainly not a criticism of the petitioners but merely an acknowledgement of the complexity of the process, and the unusual proceedings in which the petitioner argues their case against a team of barristers representing the Secretary of State.

41. We would like to thank all petitioners who came before the Committee.

HS2’s Register of undertakings and assurances

42. Throughout the process, undertakings and assurances have been given to petitioners. For those affected by the route, we recommend reading the register in order to understand whether any generic undertakings and assurances may apply to their own circumstances.28

26 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-register-of-undertakings-and-assurances 27 First Special Report, HC 1085, 24 May 2018, and Second Special Report, 23 July 2018, HC 1452 28 See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-register-of-undertakings-and-assurances 14 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

4 Decisions of the Committee in relation to AP2

New Grid Supply Point

43. AP2 introduces a new Grid Supply Point connection at Parkgate in Staffordshire. HS2 told us that that this new proposal would meet the power supply requirements for Phase 2a and would also ensure resilience in National Grid’s overall supply to the local area.

44. Following our hearing on 26 March 2019 we requested further information from HS2 which we have published on our website.29

Power transmission

45. The change in AP2 introduces a new route for power transmission. The new proposal was developed in collaboration with National Grid which will design, build, operate and own both the supply and the infrastructure. This scheme would replace the proposal to use Rugeley Power sub-station as contained in the Bill.

46. Power to the railway will be delivered through an 7.7 km double run of 27 pairs of overhead electricity pylons 250–300 metres apart between Parkgate and the Newlands Auto Transformer Feeder station. This will connect to the National Electricity Transmission System to provide the power on which the HS2 trains will operate.30

47. HS2 Parkgate Steering Group, comprising of representatives from the local community and the local Parish Councils (Abbots Bromley Parish Council, Hoar Cross Parish Council and Newborough Parish Council) petitioned against the provisions contained in AP2 for the double pylon run and called on HS2 to explore alternative routes, or to install electricity transmission cables underground.

48. HS2 told us that it explored five potential core options for supply of power to the railway lines:

i) Option 1: the Bill Scheme, provision through Rugeley Power sub-station;

ii) Option 2: a 11.8 km long connection incorporating Rugeley Power sub- station to Newlands Lane as well as a 7.8 km electrical circuit from the national electricity transmission system near Handsacre;

iii) Option 3: a 4 km connection from Rugeley Power sub-station to Newlands Lane and a 9.7 km long connection from the national electricity transmission system near Kings Bromley;

iv) Option 4: 9.7 km connection taken from the national electricity transmission system near Kings Bromley;

29 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/P1163%20 Grid%20Supply%20Point%20Connection%20at%20Parkgate%20Report.pdf 30 23 April 2019, Q226 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 15 Grid Supply Point Connection at Parkgate

v) Option 5: a 7.7 km connection taken from the national electricity transmission system at Parkgate.31

Figure 6HS2’s Options map considered of options for a resilient 1–5 GSP connection to Newlands Lane ATFS (Option 1 being the deficient connection in the hybrid Bill scheme)

31 Drawings of the options can be viewed at P1175(9), 23 April 2019 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/ commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/P1175%20Grid%20Supply%20Point%20Connection%20 at%20Parkgate%20(1).pdf Page 18 16 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

49. On 23 April 2019 Mr Tim Smart, Chief Engineer, HS2, explained the five options and the challenges that they posed. He told us that Option 5 provides the strongest electrical connection which was the reason that it is HS2’s preferred option.32

50. Petitioners, including the HS2 Parkgate Steering Group and the NFU, argued that electricity cables should be placed underground. This view was supported by the West Midland Bird Club. HS2 argued that cables are at risk of overheating when placed underground and the advantage of over ground cabling is that air acts as a cooling agent. HS2 was also concerned about the effect of tree routes and the future maintenance and repair of cables which were sited underground, arguing that it would be more disruptive to the landowner and more costly to the public purse to provide an underground cabling network. HS2 cited the cost as being an additional £65 million pounds to the project if cables were to be sited underground.33 We asked for further information on these costings.

51. HS2 provided the following breakdown. The costs in the table below are ‘stated at base date Quarter 1 in 2015’.34 Notes accompanying the table below can be found at Annex C at the end of this Special Report.

HS2’s illustrative breakdown of costs35

Item Illustrative Illustrative alternative Parkgate GSP Parkgate GSP connection connection with with overhead underground cables lines (£ million) (£ million) Preliminaries and temporary works (see note 1.76 9.81 2) Towers, foundations, and installation of 9.49 - towers Trenching and containment - 12.82

Purchase and installation of overhead cables 5.58 -

Purchase and installation of underground - 33.70 cables (joint bays inc. undertrenching and containment) Parkgate to Newlands Lane cable connection 16.83 56.33

National Grid Substations (Parkgate and 27.49 27.49 Newlands Lane combined) Newlands Lane ATFS works 18.99 18.99

Environmental mitigation (see note 3) 0.69 0.76

Other associated utility diversions 0.35 0.35

32 23 April 2019, Q62–114 33 23 April 2019, Q179 34 “Quarter” meaning one of the four periods of three months into which the financial year is divided (January until March, April until June, July until September, and October until December). 35 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/Underground%20 Costings.pdf Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 17

Item Illustrative Illustrative alternative Parkgate GSP Parkgate GSP connection connection with with overhead underground cables lines (£ million) (£ million) Additional utility diversions allowance at - 0.50 highways Indirect costs (see note 4) 10.62 17.23

Sub-total costs excluding Contingency: 74.97 121.65

Contingency (40%, see note 5) 29.99 48.66

Total costs including Contingency: 104.96 170.31

Total cost difference from Proposed Scheme - 65.35

52. The NFU argued that if Option 5 with overground cables is selected as the preferred option by the Committee, then the proposed 240 metres wide corridor of land take for the erection of pylons should be narrowed to 60 metres, with limits of deviation of 30 metres on either side.36

53. HS2 told us that that landowners affected by the siting of pylons will be entitled to receive easement payments. These payments are calculated on a per tower (or pylon) basis depending on whether they are grassland or arable land: this is a one-off payment of between £6,000 - £8,000.37 Landowners will also receive compensation when taking possession of land and for loss of crops or loss of profits from crops as appropriate during that construction period. HS2 has confirmed that it will pay those occupiers and landowners affected by easements for the Parkgate proposal the industry standard rates, which will be negotiated between the Energy Network Association and the National Farmers Union and the Country and Business Landowners’ Association. Petitioner Angela Brown also raised this matter on 24 April 2019. HS2 has subsequently confirmed that the one-off capital sum payment is calculated using a multiplier of 20 in accordance with the industry standards. The industry base payment rate varies depending on what is sited and on what type of land and whether there is a single or joint occupier.

Power grid connection

54. AP2 proposes an auto-transformer feeder station near to Newlands Lane to provide traction power. Electricity is sent through the National Grid’s National Electricity Transmission High Voltage Transmission Grid (275/400kV). It is then transmitted to substations (Grid Supply Points) at 132kV per station. The HS2 infrastructure will connect with the grid through two Auto Transformer Feeder Stations of 25kV each, and these will supply the power to the railway line.38 Newlands Lane has been chosen as the best location to have the capacity to supply power for the railway to Crewe.

36 24 April 2019, Q42 37 24 April 2019, Q2 38 24 April 2019, P1175(3) 18 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

55. HS2 told the Committee that this change from using Rugeley Power substation to the proposed new scheme at Parkgate arose because National Grid had raised concerns that the proposals as set out in the Bill would not be sufficiently resilient to provide a reliable power supply from Rugeley power station to the railway and to customers within the area. National Grid need to be able to supply both. This was confirmed by HS2’s Chief Engineer, Mr Tim Smart.39

ATFS - Auto Transformer Feeder Station

56. We understand from HS2 that everything to the left of the dotted line above will be constructed, owned and operated by HS2, everything to the right of the dotted line will be constructed, owned and operated by National Grid.

57. Costs will fall to HS2 to the areas indicated above in blue (that which is required to power the railway) although all items will, at the end of the build, pass to National Grid ownership.

58. On our route visit we saw the proposed site for the Newlands Lane Auto Transformer Feeder station. This station is required whether the power supply is placed either overground or underground. The Auto Transformer Feeder Station will be sited in a valley and surrounded by tree planting in order to provide visual screening.

59. We accept that the proposal in AP2 for the siting of overground pylons between Parkgate and the Newland Auto Transformer Feeder station contained in AP2 is the best option for provision of electricity to the railway. The cost differential is £65m. Although the area is rural in nature, it is an undulating landscape and so the pylons would appear at differing heights and thus not make a huge impact on the landscape. However, we recognise that there will be a particular danger to birds from the nearby Blithfield reservoir and we refer to this matter in paragraph 70.

39 23 April 2019, Q66 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 19

Common Lane and Crawley Lane

60. The development of works around Common Lane demonstrate the complexity of designing the necessary infrastructure support for building the railway. HS2 informed the Committee that the original Bill had proposed one solution, AP2 introduced a better solution, but with further negotiations between parties that another solution had been proposed. We outline this evolution of design below.

The Bill Scheme

61. The Bill Scheme proposes closing a section of the southern part of Common Lane where the Pyford North embankment will be built. An access track for agricultural vehicles would be provided from Common Lane (north-east of the HS2 route) following parallel to the line and to the north side of Pyford North embankment. It would then be routed south and pass beneath the Kings Bromley viaduct.

Map of the Bill Scheme

Changes to Common Lane proposed in AP2

62. AP2 makes provision for a new road to be built to the north-east of the HS2 route. The new road will connect Common Lane to the A515 Lichfield Road and replaces part of the access route and the bridleway around Pyford North embankment (part of the original Bill Scheme, see para 61 above). This new road will replace a short length of the existing A515 and provide a new road.

63. A new junction will be built from the Common Lane diversion. This will join the access track around the Pyford North embankment and link up to a bridleway along the south-east side of the Pyford North embankment providing access to the stopped up sections of Common Lane (south) as proposed in the Bill Scheme and is reproduced below.40

40 P1257(8) 20 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Map of the changes proposed in AP2

New Proposal - Crawley Lane

64. HS2 told us that it had undertaken further work on the design and now proposed a different solution which is to create a route from the A515 to Crawley Lane and removes the need for Common Lane to be closed. This proposal falls outside the Bill limits and so would involves the purchase of additional land with the agreement of the affected landowner. On 9 May 2019 we heard a statement on behalf of the owners of the land (June Baskerville, Barbara Baskerville, Gordon Baskerville & Company41 and Richard Peter Boulton42) that “the petitioners support HS2’s “potential alternative to AP2” and that “June Baskerville, Barbara Baskerville and Gordon Baskerville and Company are willing to consider permitting the use of some of their land (between Crawley Lane and the A515) outside current Bill limits to facilitate a solution, subject to agreeing reasonable terms.”43

41 Petition Nos P2A-094 and AP2–082 42 Petition No. AP2–068 43 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/AP2-00082_ June%20Baskerville_Statement-2.pdf Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 21

Map provided to Staffordshire County Council outlining the new proposal

65. The NFU had argued that the closure of Common Lane would adversely affect its members, and that the temporary closure for 18 months raised issues of traffic road safety as the construction traffic would be using Common Lane as well as local businesses and residents.

66. The new proposal would ensure that the local residents could continue to use Common Lane and that this proposal would avoid any additional heavy goods vehicle traffic being directed past the Richard Crosse Primary School. Staffordshire County Council and Lichfield District Council both support this option.44 HS2 argued that this new option was dependent on acquiring the necessary land in agreement with the landowner as well as the necessary approvals under highways legislation. HS2 admitted that there was a risk that should the land not be obtained by agreement that the Council would need to use its powers of compulsory purchase to enable the proposal. Staffordshire County Council argued that the Council must be indemnified by the Nominated Undertaker for all reasonable costs if it exercises its compulsory purchase order powers and that the Promoter should be responsible for obtaining and implementing such powers through the mechanism of an Additional Provision to the Bill or a Transport and General Works Order.

67. HS2 offered to meet “reasonable costs of the County Council pursuing the compulsory purchase procedure, if they consider it necessary”.45 HS2 had given a subsequent assurance to the County Council that the funding would be “up to £250,000”. The Council argued that this amount should not be capped.

44 29 April 2019, Q35 45 29 April 2019, Q77 22 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

68. We support the view of Staffordshire County Council that the Council must be indemnified by the Nominated Undertaker for all reasonable costs if the Council needs to exercise its compulsory purchase order powers so that the financial burden will not fall on local council tax payers.

69. We support HS2’s proposal for the new revised route, building a spur from Crawley Lane up to the A515 to avoid King’s Bromley village prior to the main construction work commencing, as this will provide an alternative solution for Common Lane while avoiding construction traffic passing in front of Kings Bromley school. This will accommodate many petitioners and local residents’ concerns.

Other decisions

West Midland Bird Club (No. AP2–59)

70. The West Midland Bird Club, which has 1,800 members, supported the underground option for provision of power at Parkgate. They argued that should the underground proposal not be possible, bird diverters should be installed on a 5km section of the pylon wires, ‘from Newlands Lane National Grid sub-station at least to Bentillee Cottage’46 in order that both migrating and non-migratory birds do not fly into the wires and are killed. The Club demonstrated that the proposed section of the pylons would run across a valley that was part of the birds who nested at the Blithfield Reservoir’s flight paths.

71. Counsel for HS2 estimated the cost of installation of bird protectors for the whole route at “approximately half a million pounds” and for the area suggested by the West Midlands Bird Club, “about £300,000 for that particular stretch of pylon wires.”47

72. We instruct HS2 to install bird protectors on the pylon wires across the valley sections between Newlands Lane National Grid sub-station and the Parkgate substation. HS2 should act on advice from the West Midland Bird Club on the most appropriate sections on which to install the protectors.

The Slater family (No. AP2–33)

73. HS2 must ensure that the height of the underbridge is 5.7 metres and the width 4–4.5 metres so as at to allow access for delivery vehicles to the farms.

Sian Froggatt (No. AP2–49)

74. HS2 should buy Norman’s Bungalow from Mr and Mrs Froggatt at the bungalow’s full unblighted market value. HS2 should ensure that the water supply pipe is installed in a way in which does not impact on the existing bluebell beds. HS2 must give an undertaking to Mr and Mrs Froggatt that no part of their land becomes a dumping area for soil. Local placement must be managed in a manner that does not affect Mr and Mrs Froggatt’s farm adversely.

46 24 April 2019, Q355 and Q392 47 24 April 2019, Q392 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 23

Stone Town Council (No. AP2–47)

75. Stone Town Council pointed out the number of cyclists using the A34/A51 Stone Bypass and the additional danger presented by construction traffic on that junction. The main crossing point over the A51 is uncontrolled and will become significantly more dangerous when additional lanes are added. The Town Council said “the only designated pedestrian route is across the roundabout on the A51 arm, and this really provides access to and from the Cherryfields Stone Estate, a housing estate, on the north of the junction to gain access to Aston Village Hall, which is located about 200 metres to the south of the island”.48 We heard that this was the only crossing facility provided across the four arms of the roundabout. HS2 argued that there were two possible outcomes, to remove the crossing as it is little used, or provide a new crossing with traffic signals towards the east on the A51. We questioned whether the reason that the crossing was not greatly used at present was because it was so dangerous.49 We recommend that HS2 work with the Highways Authority and Stone Town Council to ensure that a safe, accessible and convenient means of crossing the A51 is provided at its junction with the A34.

Newcastle Road Residents (No. AP2–75)

76. A short length of Newcastle Road (A519) will be changed from a two lane road to a four lane road which will impact on the residents of Newcastle Road. We recognise the concerns of those living along this road and instruct HS2 to engage with the Highways Authority to propose a suitable crossing point which is acceptable to the local residents and as close as is safely possible to the existing junction and provide improvements to the existing pathway so that the community benefit.

Mr and Mrs Bloor (No. AP2–51)

77. HS2 should provide an access road to the construction compounds taking the site traffic50 as far away as possible from the petitioner’s property.

78. Mr and Mrs Bloor had applied for HS2 to purchase their property as they understood their property to be blighted by the proposals. Plans for the areas beside their properties were subsequently changed by HS2 and as a consequence HS2 rejected their claim. HS2 must revisit this application and make a reasonable proposal for Mr and Mrs Bloor to consider.

Ingestre Park Golf Club (No. AP2–25)

79. In our Second Special Report we directed HS2 to “come to a solution that allows the golf club to continue as a community asset.” This was supported by Ingestre and Tixall Parish Council who petitioned on AP2 and told us that they were concerned that the loss of golf playing facilities (the temporary reduction of holes) could result in the financial collapse of the golf club as members may choose to play golf elsewhere.

48 7 May 2019, Q20 49 7 May 2019, Q156 50 There are two types of construction compounds, main construction compounds which act as strategic hubs for core project staff, and satellite compounds, which will generally be smaller and will be used as the base to manage specific works along a section of the route (Environmental Statement, p. 28). 24 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

80. When hearing the original petition we heard challenges from both parties regarding the other’s estimates of costs. Ingestre Park Golf Club returned to petition against the proposal contained in AP2 (to purchase land adjacent to the existing golf course as a replacement for the land being taken by the Scheme and thus build a new course adjacent to the existing golf club). Ingestre Golf Club petitioned, once again, for a replacement course, clubhouse and carpark and demonstrated that they had found an alternative site in Tixall which would be suitable. The Parish Council was not in favour of the proposal from the Golf Club as the Golf Club’s proposed new site would impact on other residents within the Parish who were not supportive of this change. The Golf Club’s proposal raised a level of risk as it would depend upon the Club obtaining the land and obtaining planning permission. Ingestre with Tixall Parish Council were content with the proposal contained in AP2.

81. HS2 told us that the proposal contained in AP2 would cost £4.9m.51 The Golf Club said that HS2’s proposals in AP2 would cost £13m52 but that their option was cheaper. Ingestre Golf Club argued that it would cost £10.9million for their option but the net cost would be “£7.8 million on the new proposed course because the £3 million compensation would have to be deducted” from the overall compensation figure which they would receive. The figures provided by HS2 and Ingestre were not comparing like with like. Having evaluated the costings and taking into account the view of the Parish Council we agree that the proposals set out in AP2 will ensure that the golf course can continue as a community asset.

82. We understand that there will be a reduced number of holes for golfers to play for a 6 month period and we are also aware that the Golf Club is a source of local employment. Employees of the golf club, those working both full and part-time, must not be disadvantaged by the proposals contained in AP2. We therefore emphasise that the golf club is entitled to apply for compensation as part of the existing compensation packages, which would enable the golf club to continue to employ or pay compensation to all staff who are employed at present.

83. The Club could operate with nine holes for six months and with 18 holes before and after this period53 and perhaps offer attractive subsidised and reduced fees to golfers whilst the new course is created. The club was concerned that the realignment would reduce the visibility at the first Tee. Security cameras for this area could also form part of the Golf Club’s claim for compensation.

84. HS2 told us that the Secretary of State would be happy to support this way forward. We expect Ingestre Golf Club to work with HS2 to ensure that the proposals set out in AP2 are delivered for the local community and that the Golf Club maintain current levels of employment for all their staff.

Ingestre with Tixall Parish Council (No. AP2–21)

85. Residents of Ingestre will see an increase in construction traffic during the building of the railway as construction compounds will be sited at Trent North, Hanyards Lane and Ingestre Park. The Parish Council petitioned, on the grounds of road safety, for a

51 8 May 2019, Q84 and P1475(6) 52 8 May 2019, Q73 53 8 May 2019, QQ253–254 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 25

new footpath alongside Ingestre Road54 so that pedestrians, those with pushchairs and wheelchair users would be safe travelling along this section of road. HS2 has given an assurance that a footpath will be provided and in Committee, gave a further assurance that the footpath could be extended westwards.55 We welcome this.

86. The Parish Council expressed concern about the proposal for the new site found by the Golf Club and as we have stated above we support the view of the Parish Council.

Graham Ward 2010 Discretionary Will Trust etc. (No. 40)

87. HS2 should take the land for the borrow pit on a temporary basis and not a permanent basis as is currently proposed. This should minimise the length of time that excavated material will be transported by road.

Cheshire Wildlife Trust (No. AP2–58)

88. We understand the Trust’s concern that the water vole habitat on Swill Brook and Half Moon Drain will be destroyed by the Scheme. There will be a permanent severance of the link between the two brooks as an inverted siphon will be placed in the Half Moon Drain blocking the existing link between two brooks. The Trust told us that this will impact on the breeding population of water voles. We direct HS2 to work with Cheshire Wildlife Trust and Natural England in order to ensure that there is no diminution of the water vole communities currently residing to the west of the West Coast Main Line and the East of the proposed HS2 line. If this should mean relocation of the water voles to a more suitable habitat then we have been assured by both parties that this will be done under licence from Natural England.

The Freightliner Group, Freightliner Group Ltd, Freightliner Ltd and Freightliner Heavy Haul Ltd (Nos. 116 and AP2–26 and 139 and AP2–27)

89. The proposed Scheme includes two spurs so that trains can transfer between the HS2 mainline and the existing West Coast Main Line. One will be towards Crewe and the other towards London.

90. These petitioners had two main requests: certainty that freight trains presently operating on the rail network would be able to continue to operate at the same capacity after 2026 (when HS2 trains on Phase 2a will begin to operate), and “a seat at the table when developing how the West Coast Main Line will be used in future after HS2”. The latter request would involve consultation on timetables in order that their industry could continue to operate, keeping current levels of goods and products moving across the country on the rail network and not be forced to lose business to road haulage.

91. The Committee understands and supports the better design of Handsacre Junction at AP2. But HS2 must be mindful to ensure that as detailed design progresses it includes plans to ensure, and gives an absolute commitment to the industry, that the capacity for freight train size and capability is maintained and improved.

54 Petitioner Evidence A472(5) 55 8 May 2019, Q226 26 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

SGB World Services (No. AP1–14)

92. We agree with HS2 that compensation payments should be no higher than the figures provided in the note to the Committee.56

56 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/HS2%20-%20%20 SGB%20World%20Services%20Ltd.pdf Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 27

5 Mental Health

Background

93. When building a railway we instinctively think about engineering matters and not about the psychological impact of such a project on communities. We heard from petitioners throughout this process about the impact of long-term uncertainty on both individuals and their communities. We heard from Jeremy Lefroy MP that such a Scheme puts greater pressure on GP practices. Mr Lefroy requested that there should be additional provision for the local health service through the local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).57 He said that some petitioners felt that they had been bullied by HS2. We understand that Mr Lefroy has been privately raising individual cases with HS2 as personal information must remain confidential. The key to prevent petitioners from experiencing mental health issues is effective community engagement and communication.

94. Whilst hearing the petitions, the Committee became increasingly concerned about the impact of major infrastructure projects on the mental health of individuals and their communities. In our Second Special Report we directed HS2 to commission an epidemiological report to address community health and wellbeing with the intention of establishing a baseline from which quantitative analysis could be conducted.58 The Government told us that “monitoring changes to the epidemiological mental health and well-being baseline along the HS2 Phase 2a route during construction would be relatively straightforward, but the challenge would be in assessing whether any changes observed– positive or negative–were specifically attributable to HS2”.59 As a result of our instruction an epidemiological quantitative analysis of the impact on mental health and well-being and the construction and operation of Phase 2a was to be scoped.

95. HS2’s Scope and Methodology Report Addendum to the Environmental Statement noted “there is an acknowledgement that there is limited published evidence of the impact of large-scale infrastructure projects on human health”.60 That this is acknowledged by HS2 at such an early stage indicated an awareness of the issue. We noted at the time of the Government’s response to our Second Special Report that a procurement exercise was under way to provide HS2 staff with expert advice and assistance in supporting vulnerable people.61 Whilst we welcome this and look forward to seeing its impact we are unable to understand why such support for the community had not been put in place before the process began. It can only benefit the project to get this right. We hope that the procurement and operation of the new advice service for staff proves successful and is taken through into Phase 2b so that both staff and communities’ benefit.

Progress

96. We welcome the increased efforts by HS2 to help those affected by the Scheme. Individuals and communities need support to understand this unusual process with which they need to engage. The process is complex for the lay person: legal notices,

57 14 May 2018, Q 28 58 Second Special Report of the Committee, HC 1452 paras 72–75 59 Government response to the Committee’s Second Special Report, para 126 60 Promoter’s response to the Select Committee’s Second Special Report of Session 2017–19, para 130 https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-promoters-response-to-select-committees-second-special-report 61 November 2018 28 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

differing property compensation schemes and the process of understanding and applying for entitlements seems muddled and unnecessarily bureaucratic. Support is required for individuals who may not be able to advocate on their own behalf, who are frail and who have deteriorating health. We look forward to Parliament receiving an update on the progress of this new initiative. Parliament will also be interested in the study commissioned through Public Health England and Imperial College London on the “health impacts experienced by Euston residents that are submitted to noise from the construction of HS2”.62 This valuable research will help to inform the approach for future large scale infrastructure projects.

97. The Government told us that “HS2 will conduct a qualitative assessment of written responses collected during community consultation to identify stress and anxiety, impacts” and conduct a similar exercise for the consultation on the HS2 Phase 2b Working Draft Environmental Statement”.63

98. We welcome the review and broadening of the criteria for eligibility of projects to improve mental health and wellbeing for funding from the HS2 Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund64 and encourage communities to apply to these funds for community initiatives. This is a good opportunity for communities to identify their own local requirements, link up and obtain funding for improved local facilities.

99. In the March update report from HS2 Ltd we heard that HS2 had commissioned consultant health experts to undertake the initial scoping for an epidemiological study to address community health and wellbeing. HS2 was shortly to approach “expert academic institutions” to obtain their views on the scope and scale of the proposed study, which was to involve:

Ȥ A qualitative interview and focus group study in order to understand the different ways in which individuals and communities in affected areas perceive and experience the health and wellbeing affects of the HS2 scheme (both adverse and beneficial effects);

Ȥ A quantitative study of existing health data. This work strand will involve a “before” and “after” study comparing health and wellbeing of areas affected by the Scheme. This will collate and evaluate data drawn from sources such as Public Health England, the Office for National Statistics, the Department of Health and Social Care, Clinical Commissioning Groups and local authorities.

62 Government response to the Committee’s Second Special Report, paragraph 131 63 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-phase-2a-promoters-response-to-select-committees-second- special-report, para 132 64 HS2 March 2019, HS2 Update Report - https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase- 2a/written-evidence/083%20Promoter’s%20response%20to%20the%20Committee’s%202nd%20Special%20 Report1027–19%20Update%20March%202019.pdf Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 29

Ȥ A longitudinal epidemiological study on the effect of HS2 on health and wellbeing. This study will use surveys to collect data from residents affected by the Scheme, examining their perceptions of the Scheme and their health and wellbeing over time.65

100. These strands will focus on the construction and operation of HS2 for the HS2 Phase 2a route, but also involve data collection relating to HS2 Phase 1 and Phase 2b.

101. We appreciate the cross-departmental work that has taken place on this issue and instruct the Government to incorporate and build on this work. The committee instructs HS2 to report to the HS2 Phase 2b hybrid Bill Select Committee on how the government is taking forward this issue.

65 HS2 March 2019, HS2 Update Report - https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase- 2a/written-evidence/083%20Promoter’s%20response%20to%20the%20Committee’s%202nd%20Special%20 Report1027–19%20Update%20March%202019.pdf 30 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

6 Compensation 102. The principles of compensation as laid out for HS2 Phase 1 will continue for Phase 2a. In this chapter we look at the schemes under which those affected by the building of the railway may be compensated. HS2’s paper Paper Compensation Code for Compulsory Purchase,66 describes the compensation code under which the HS2 Phase 2a Scheme operates.

Statutory compensation: the compensation code

103. Property owners, freeholders and leaseholders who are affected by public works projects are entitled to compensation under the compensation code. Compensation is based upon the principle of fair compensation, that is the principle of equivalence. The principle is that a person whose land is subject to compulsory acquisition gets monetary compensation that is not less but not more than the loss that he or she has suffered as a result of compulsory purchase.

104. The compensation code is not one single document, but a collective term used for the principles set out in statute and case law. It is based on Acts of Parliament, principally the Land Compensation Act 1961, the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 1991 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Statute Laws are supplemented by case law.67 The application of the Compensation Code to a particular case depends on the individual circumstances and, in the case of a short-term residential tenancy, it is dependent on the type and terms of a tenancy.68

105. Compensation is specifically applies to businesses, homeowners and other property owners, such as those leasing out their properties to tenants. The sections below detail the circumstances under which statutory compensation is payable.

Displaced owners and occupiers

106. Displaced owners such as those that are living in properties in the middle of the proposed route are entitled to the open market unblighted value of the property, as well as removal expenses and related costs and fees. This includes stamp duty.

107. Owner occupiers subject to compulsory purchase may request an advance payment for the land purchased. This may be either 90% of the acquiring authority’s estimate of the compensation due or, if the amount of compensation has been agreed, 90% of that figure.69

108. In addition to compensation payable for acquired land, owners and occupiers can apply for the following loss payments:

a) Home loss payment: this payment compensates a person for the distress and inconvenience of being required to leave their home when it is compulsorily purchased. The principle is that people are compensated for the emotional

66 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/672200/C8_- Compensation_Code_for_Compulsory_Purchase_v1.5.pdf 67 HS2 Information Paper C8, para 2.1. 68 HS2 Information Paper C15, para 3.3 69 HS2 Information Paper C8, para 4.1 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 31

impact caused by the loss of their home.70 The Government has told us that “the open market value of a dwelling may not always equate to its value to the home owner”. Certain conditions apply in order to qualify for this payment: a person must be the lawful residential occupier and have been displaced from his or her dwelling in consequence of compulsory purchase, and have occupied the dwelling as his or her main residence for at least one year ending with the date of displacement.71 Should a person not meet the second requirement the Secretary of State may make a discretionary payment to the same value as the home loss payment. The Home Loss Payment is 10% of market value.72

The Home Loss Payments (Prescribed Amounts) (England) Regulations 2018 came into force on 1st October 2018. These regulations enabled the Secretary of State to allocate a minimum of £6,300 and a maximum of £63,000 compensation to anyone who is displaced.

b) Basic loss payment: this payment may be available to freehold owners of land and business property of up to £75,000 or 7.5% of the open market value of the property.

c) Occupiers’ loss payment: these payments may be available to occupiers of land and business properties of up to £25,000 or 2.5% of the open market value of the property.

109. HS2 does not want businesses to close unnecessarily but should a business need to be wound up because of the railway then the value of the business as a going concern will be paid in compensation.

Non-displaced owners

110. Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 enables anyone whose property value is diminished because of the proposed scheme to claim compensation for up to one year after the operation of the railway begins.

111. Compensation is also payable should land be severed. We have heard HS2 speak on many occasions of mitigation measures for cases of land severance such as redirecting access routes. Should severed land become unworkable, for example, in the case of agricultural land, the Promoter may need to purchase that severed land.

112. Compensation is payable should there be any actual damage caused by construction e.g. damage caused by vibration from contractors machinery.73 Owners may seek compensation where the Secretary of State does not need to purchase land but the works interfere with the owner’s enjoyment of the land or diminish its value either permanently or temporarily. Compensation may be claimed in respect of properties which depreciate in value due to physical factors resulting from the public works e.g. noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and artificial lighting, and the discharge on to the land of solid or liquid substance. In some cases this may only be claimed after 12 months of the operation of railway.74

70 Government response to the Committee’s Second Special Report of 2017–19, paragraph 143 71 Government response to the Committee’s Second Special Report of 2017–19, paragraph 143 72 4 June 2018, Q48 73 Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 74 C8: 5.1–3 32 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

113. Businesses may claim for disturbance compensation if there is an impact from works or the operation of the railway, causing either temporary or permanent loss of profits. This also applies to loss of agricultural crops.

Blight notices

114. Blight is the reduction in the value of a property which is under threat of compulsory purchase. Under planning law blight notices may be served by either an owner or occupier of a freehold house or the occupier of a leasehold house or flat which has more than three years of its term to run.

Calculating compensation payments

115. Counsel for HS2 explained that the principle of equivalence was used when calculating compensation payments under section 20 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. If there is disagreement between the parties about the amount of compensation payable to the claimant then a dispute is referred to the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal which will determine the level of compensation.

116. When HS2 calculates payments for temporary possession and use of land several factors are taken into account

a) The length of time for which the land is required;

b) Likely cost of restoration;

c) Safeguards required to secure maintenance of mitigation measures, for example for earthworks or planting, and future access to the railway infrastructure, for example, balancing ponds.

HS2 evaluates these criteria against comparative overall cost of temporary use versus permanent acquisition.

117. The Bill contains provisions to protect the required land from any conflicting proposed developments. This has been a source of concern to some petitioners who have requested that planning restrictions be lifted before the Bill receives Royal Assent. It has not been possible for the Committee to grant such requests as the Secretary of State needs to safeguard the land for the Scheme. Discussions need to take place between HS2 and the petitioners on such matters.

Discretionary compensation schemes

118. In addition to this there are schemes that apply specifically to HS2, such as, the Express Purchase Scheme, the Home Owner Payments Scheme, the Rural Support Zone and the Need to Sell Scheme.

Measuring distances for compensation

119. The centre between the two railway lines is the starting point when understanding compensation calculations. Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 33

Non Statutory Property Package diagram HS2 Non Statutory Property Package: Summary

Source: HS2 - P7(37) HOC/10001/0038

Express Purchase scheme

120. This scheme applies to those who hold property in the surface safeguarded area or if P725% (37) of the total area of the property falls within the area marked “surface safeguarding” HOC/10001/0038 on the safeguarding maps.75 The scheme aims to assist owner occupiers in applications to HS2 under the statutory blight regime.76 There is no requirement for the owner to attempt to sell the property. Owners can sell their property to the Government through this scheme, at the full, unblighted market value, and receive in addition a 10% home- loss compensation payment up to a maximum of £49,000, as well as receiving reasonable moving costs including stamp duty, legal and surveyor’s fees and removal costs.

121. The HS2 Residents Commissioner has said that “Express Purchase is a misleading term–there are a significant number of stages to go through before HS2 Ltd can acquire a property, and the process can be very drawn out, leading to frustration on the part of applicants.”77 We support the view of the Residents’ Commissioner and expect HS2 to make faster decisions, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and deliver a faster service to customers.

122. We are grateful to the Residents Commissioner for briefing us on her role confirming that she did not act on behalf of individual residents but residents as a whole. However we understand that her title gives rise to confusion and suggest that HS2 provide a simpler, clearer definition of that role on the website.

75 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/safeguarding-information-and-maps-for-hs2 76 HS2 (London - West Midlands) Bill: Second Special Report of Session 2015–16, para 262 77 HS2 Residents’ Commissioner, 9th Report, May 2018 34 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Homeowner Payments scheme

123. The Homeowner Payments scheme applies to owner-occupiers of rural properties within 300 metres of the centreline of the Phase One railway. There is a differing scale of compensation payments from £7,500 to £22,500 and is intended for those who will be affected by the route and associated works to receive “an early share of the benefits”.78 This scheme may apply to petitioners whose properties fall within both HS2 Phase 1 and HS2 Phase 2a.

124. Following the Department for Transport’s Review of Non-Statutory Schemes Property Schemes for HS279 published November 2018 the Home Owner payments have been increased. This change will apply to Phase 2a once the Bill has received Royal Assent. The increases will be: Band 1: £8,000 Band 2: £16,000 Band 3: £24,000.80

Need to Sell scheme

125. This scheme is a discretionary purchase scheme and applies to owner-occupiers who have a compelling reason to sell their property, but have not been able to do so (other than at a substantially reduced price) as a direct result of the announcement of the HS2 route.81 This scheme applies where the property is likely to be substantially affected by HS2’s construction or operation. The owner-occupier must provide evidence of an attempt to sell the property by seeking a market valuation from three different estate agents; put the property on the market for at least 3 months with a recognised estate agency; and demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to sell at different market prices and ways of marketing their property.82 This scheme replaced the exceptional hardship scheme which operated under HS2 Phase 1.

Rent Back or Voluntary Purchase Scheme

126. All homes purchased by the Promoter can be considered for ‘rent back’. Owner occupiers may choose to ‘rent back’ their own properties and continue to live in them. This is a voluntary scheme and the property must comply with the relevant standards for residential occupation.

Alternative cash offer

127. Alternatively, owners may choose to receive a cash sum of 10% of the unblighted value of their property of between £30,000 and £100,000.

Special circumstances and future work

128. A tenant who occupies a dwelling, business premises or agricultural premises on a short tenancy is entitled to claim a disturbance payment covering any reasonable losses if their dwelling is compulsory purchased.83 This does not however, apply to those

78 HS2 Property Schemes, guide to HS2 property schemes Phase 2a CS858/08–17, p.27 79 Published November 2018 80 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/755558/hs2- review-non-statutory-comp-schemes.pdf 81 HS2 Residents’ Commissioner 8th Report, January 2018 82 Residents’ Commissioner 8th Report, January 2018 83 Government response to the Committee’s Second Special Report of 2017–19, Paragraph 141 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 35

tenants with shorthold assured periodic tenancies and some agricultural tenancies and to permanent narrow boat dwellers under tenancy. We heard that there are individuals in this position under Phase 2a proposals. These are vulnerable tenants and we have expressed our concern to the Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP.84

129. The Secretary of State told us that he understood and shared the Committee’s concerns that vulnerable individuals be properly supported and compensated. Although we recognise that the matter of vulnerable tenants raised by Antoinette Sandbach MP to this Committee apply to the HS2 Phase 2b route, this should not prevent the Secretary of State from promoting cross departmental working in order to rectify this situation before the HS2 Phase 2b Bill is introduced into Parliament, so that there is a dedicated compensation scheme in place to which vulnerable individuals and group of tenants may apply.

130. The Government confirmed in its response to our special report that the compensation schemes do not extend to a person who lives on a narrow boat.85 The Secretary of State in his letter of 11 March said that his officials had written to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government asking officials to consider reviewing the issue of home loss payments for houseboat owners within the wider land compensation regime.86 We welcome recognition by the Government that this is an unresolved issue.87

131. We are acutely aware that that despite the variety of compensation schemes some people remain disadvantaged by the existing schemes and suggest to the Secretary of State that the definitions and classifications of ‘atypical’ properties must be broadened to cover tenants not covered by existing schemes. This needs to include compensation payments to those unable to secure a similar property of a similar type at a similar rent. There may be tenants who for personal reasons are wedded to their community and cannot tolerate the thought of leaving. If they are forced to do so they would not have anywhere else to go. An identifiable fund should made available for houseboat occupiers who currently rent a mooring space from which they can claim compensation as if they were in the same position as a leaseholder with 24 months to run on the lease. We heard that under Phase 2a there are nine people who are affected this way.88 We direct HS2 Community Engagement Officers to publicise this change to those occupiers so that they are made aware of the instruction of the Committee.

132. We expect the Government to take this initiative forward and introduce a more permanent and inclusive compensation scheme for this and other vulnerable groups before the publication of the Phase 2b (Crewe - Manchester and Birmingham - Leeds) Bill. We instruct HS2 to specifically look at the compensation package offered relating to mobile homes before HS2 Phase 2b commences.

133. We understand that such tenants will not have access to legal resources under which to make their case and that as a result of the Scheme will be disadvantaged. No one should become homeless because of HS2. The Residents’ Commissioner told us that she had previously had discussions with the Citizens Advice Bureau in 2016 whereby HS2

84 Letter from the Chair to the Secretary of State for Transport dated 11 February 2019 85 Para 146, Government response to the Committee’s Second Special Report of 2017–19 86 Letter from the Secretary of State to the Chair, 11 March 2019, para 5 87 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/HOC%20168%20 -%20Select%20Committee%20Ask%20-%20house%20boat%20owners.pdf 88 12 June 2018, Qq328–338 36 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

explored the possibilities for the Citizens Advice Bureau to provide some form of support service to those seeking to apply for property schemes. But that this was not an area with which the Citizens Advice Bureau was familiar and the Citizens Advice Bureau would be unable to guarantee that each office in every area would be able to provide an appropriate level of support to potential applicants.

134. We note that HS2 are currently procuring a service to provide help for people with special needs to give them additional support in applying for compensation.89 HS2 should maintain records of numbers of applicants in order to monitor progress of this new scheme and ensure that the data is shared with the Residents Commissioner in order for her to evaluate the success of the schemes and the support provided to vulnerable applicants.

Rural Support Zone scheme

135. Most of the HS2 Phase 2a line will run through rural areas. This scheme applies to those properties in rural areas, which lie between the outer border of the safeguarding area and within 120 metres of the centreline of the new railway.90 Successful applicants can require the Promoter to purchase their properties at the full unblighted value. Owners may receive a cash offer from HS2 of either between £30,000 and £100,000 or request that HS2 voluntarily purchase the property. The Department for Transport as part of its review in 2018 looked at Rural Support Zone payment levels but agreed to make no change. We believe that this fund should not be capped.

Prolonged Disturbance scheme

136. We note that HS2 has been developing its Prolonged Disturbance Compensation Scheme and the House of Lords may wish to seek information about how and whether this new scheme may become available to Phase 2a residents.

What happens if there is disagreement between parties?

137. Applications to the various schemes are not always straightforward: parties will disagree with valuations or the degree of disturbance that they might experience. This can lead to a breakdown of relationships. Rather than issues being immediately escalated to the Lands Tribunal, there are three options that parties may use:

a) Early Neutral Evaluation: An independent person or panel is appointed by those in dispute to provide a reasoned, written Opinion setting out its view of the likely outcome of the case after hearing all parties’ evidence. The Opinion is not a judgement nor a decision but can be used by the parties as a basis for further negotiations.

b) Mediation: A structured negotiation in which a trained mediator works with the parties to help them agree a mutually acceptable solution. Mediation can take place face to face or the mediator can go between the parties identifying issues and possible solutions.

89 Letter from the HS2 Residents Commissioner to the Chair dated 25 April 2019 90 HS2 Residents’ Commissioner – 8th Report– January 2018 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 37

c) Independent Expert Determination: The expert considers the material or evidence put forward by the parties to the dispute, either orally or in writing, and makes a determination based on that evidence. The expert’s determination or award is binding on the parties.91

138. One Member of Parliament raised issues about the impact of the Scheme on constituents’ lives, telling us that a number of his constituents had complained to him that they had suffered considerable financial loss to the extent of £100,000 in some cases and others tens of thousands of pounds. They had told him that this was because of the proposed Scheme and the ways in which the compensation scheme was operating.92 The Committee does not have the power to investigate such matters. Those people and businesses affected by the Scheme should not be financially disadvantaged, but neither should anyone make a profit from this scheme.

91 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721047/ Alternative_Dispute_Resolution.pdf paras 3.1–3.3 92 14 May 2018, Q 27 38 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

7 Community Engagement 139. We were grateful for the frank contributions of Whitmore and Madeley Parish Councils who, early in the petitioning hearings, complained about the issue of poor community engagement by HS2. We were concerned to hear this. Alerted by Mr Smith, witness for Whitmore and Madeley Parish Councils, on 24 April 201893 we kept a watching brief on community engagement: we repeatedly raised this matter with HS2 during petition hearings and then in our first Special Report.94 We continued throughout our hearings to press for better engagement.95 The response from HS2 to our First Special Report we found lacking. We pursued the matter in our Second Special Report.96 We are pleased that the Secretary of State has listened and acted on our recommendations. Nusrat Ghani MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, told the House of Commons on 29 April 2019 that there has been an increase in the number of Community Engagement Managers and that they should be working effectively in a timely fashion.97

140. The Residents’ Commissioner, who is employed under contract by HS2, has the role of holding HS2 to account for delivering the commitments made by HS2 in their Residents’ Charter.98 The aim of the commitments “is to build respectful long-term relationships with communities and actively encourage (our) workforce to listen to local concerns and be considerate and accountable for their actions at all times.” We expect everyone employed by HS2 to abide by these commitments. Should the Bill receive a Third Reading in this House and be sent to the House of Lords for further scrutiny we hope that a House of Lords Select Committee will press HS2 for continuous improvement in this area. The success and timely delivery of major projects can be aided by better community engagement. This could include, for example, as part of the procurement process, HS2 requesting that prospective contractors suggest new and innovative ideas for added value to local communities, such as offering apprenticeships to local people, with those successful tenderers implementing suggestions and opportunities and the nominated undertaker monitoring this scheme.

141. HS2’s Community Engagement Fund and its Business and Local Economy Funds are schemes whereby communities affected by the railway may apply for funding for their local areas. This may be to improve access to the countryside and conserve the natural environment alongside the railway or to support local economies where businesses collectively may experience disruption from the works and construction activities. For Phase 2a a sum of £5m was allocated: this figure was based on the population density along the routes.99 The Government’s response to our First Special Report stated the total amount allocated for communities is £15.7m. In addition to the £5m allocated to the Community Engagement Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund an additional £6.5m had been allocated to the Road Safety Fund as well as £7.6m committed to deliver

93 HC 927, 24 April 2018 94 HC 1085, First Special Report of the Committee, Session 2017–19, para 66–69 (community engagement) 95 HC 1085, First Special Report of the Committee, Session 2017–19, para 27 96 HC 1452, Second Special Report of the Committee, Session 2017–19, paras 55–63 (accessibility) 65 - 66 (communication) 97 HC Deb, 29 April 2019 98 The Residents’ Charter was announced in April 2014 and launched in January 2015 and subsequently amended to include 10 specific commitments made by the project to the residents. Q38 25 March 2019. The charter may be viewed at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/704895/CS959_Community_Engagement_Residents_Charter_26_4.pdf 99 R124(1) Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 39

the highways improvements agreed with Staffordshire County Council; up to £700,000 for a Cheshire East environment and landscape enhancement fund; £2m for the Woodland Fund; £1.5m for funding additional environmental enhancement measures within the remit of the Trent-Sow Parkland and Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Group.100

142. Although the National Trust did not appear before us on this petition, we can report that the National Trust and HS2 have drawn up terms of reference for “a Trent– Sow Parklands and Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty HS2 Group”. This group will comprise the National Trust, the Landmark Trust, Staffordshire County Council, Stafford Borough Council, Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Unit (or any successor body), Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Historic England, and The Canal & River Trust. A budget of £150,000 per year has been allocated to support its work.

143. We heard about plans for the Crewe Hub and the importance of links between the upgrade of Crewe Station and Phase 2a and Phase 2b at Crewe. This is a town with a railway history and through active community engagement and creating an innovative culture HS2 may enhance local opportunities for regeneration not only at Crewe but its surrounding areas and those along the route. We hope that ideas flow from these communities and are looked upon favourably by HS2 when evaluating their merits.

Provision of broadband to rural communities

144. The Government made a commitment that superfast broadband will be provided to 95% of the UK by December 2017. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s website tells us that “coverage of superfast and ultrafast broadband has continued to develop further beyond 2017 with the programme pivoting towards Gigabit capable delivery with speeds of up to 1,000Mbps becoming more widely available through full fibre infrastructure.”101 The Government has also made a commitment to provide every home and business in the UK with access to a basic broadband service and has extended its Better Broadband Scheme to 31st December 2019.

145. We heard from petitioners that there were opportunities to carry out the necessary infrastructure works whilst excavations were taking place on their land. We would like to see a joined-up approach to the Government’s commitments. At detailed design stage, planners should incorporate the necessary infrastructure to support super-fast broadband in rural areas. We do not expect HS2 to provide super-fast broadband but we do expect the Government not to miss this opportunity to install the necessary infrastructure to rural areas where such opportunities arise. This could be HS2’s 21st Century contribution to improved communications.

Petitioners who appeared before the Committee

146. We are grateful to all petitioners who appeared before the Committee. We recognise that appearing before Parliament can be a daunting experience to those unfamiliar with the processes and conventions.

100 Promoter’s response to the Select Committee’s First Special Report of Session 2017–19, para 56 101 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-led-broadband-schemes/introduction-to-community- led-schemes 40 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

147. Many petitioners continued to maintain dialogue with Counsel for HS2 up until the moment before their appearance before the Committee. Some matters were settled in the corridor outside the committee room before the petitioner was to appear that day. Sometimes matters were settled in the room in front of the Committee as Counsel gave undertakings and assurances to the satisfaction of the committee and the petitioner. We urge HS2 to work faster so that deals on the day of the hearing are done sooner.

Members of Parliament appearing before the Committee

148. In November 2017 the House of Commons agreed to changes to the Private Business Standing Orders which included allowing Members of Parliament to petition on behalf of their constituents.102 This is the first time that Members of Parliament have been allowed to petition against a hybrid bill on behalf of their constituents. A Member of Parliament has a useful overview of his or her constituency and we found this local knowledge helpful.

Sir William Cash MP (Stone) (No. 187)

149. At Second Reading of the Bill on the Floor of the House, Sir William Cash MP proposed a tunnel between Whitmore Heath and Madeley. HS2 explored this option and presented a report to the Committee.103 Sir William petitioned the Committee on 23 April 2018 and explained that the proposed railway was causing great anxiety to his constituents.

150. We did not see the “long tunnel” proposal to be value for money and rejected the idea in principle in the First Special Report. We then confirmed our decision in our Second Special Report having heard additional petitions on this matter. The HS2’s Whitmore Heath to Madeley Tunnel Report demonstrated that the single tunnel option would have added an extra sum of £177m to the overall cost of the Scheme.104

Antoinette Sandbach MP (Eddisbury) (No.42)

151. Antoinette Sandbach MP petitioned the Committee on 4 June 2018 and had two main concerns: the impact of construction traffic on local roads, and the issue of compensation to tenants.105 The impact of Phase 2b on Ms Sandbach’s constituency will be greater. Phase 2a does not directly fall within the Eddisbury constituency but the works to enable construction of the line will impact on those using the A51, A530 and A500.

152. Ms Sandbach told us that these issues had “consistently failed to be addressed by HS2 and the Department for Transport.” Ms Sandbach will have a further opportunity to petition against the proposals in Phase 2b when that Bill is committed to a Bill Select Committee.

153. Ms Sandbach highlighted inconsistencies in compensation. She told us that both the statutory compensation code and the discretionary compensation schemes only apply to certain types of tenancies. Tenants who hold shorthold or periodic, or some agricultural tenancies were not eligible for compensation. Those tenants of properties which are

102 7 November 2017 103 HS2 Whitmore Heath to Madeley Tunnel Report 104 Page 93 105 4 June 2018, Q153 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 41

compulsorily purchased by HS2 are not eligible for compensation (although the owners of the property are).106 Ms Sandbach had explored this matter with HS2, and the Head of Property Services, HS2, replied on 24 February 2017 that “as you rightly highlight, the discretionary compensation schemes are aimed at owner occupiers, i.e. freeholders or leaseholders with more than three years unexpired on the lease. They are not directly aimed at residential tenants on assured shorthold tenancies. I am sure that if this concern were raised as part of the current consultation exercise on the discretionary schemes, it would be considered alongside the other responses”.107 Ms Sandbach told us that she had contributed both to this consultation and to the review of the non-statutory compensation scheme, but that the Government’s response was that the existing provisions should remain.

154. Ms Sandbach told us that Eddisbury is a rural constituency with a number of elderly tenants who live under “a mixture of tenancies [and] through no fault of their own, are not eligible for compensation”.108 With a shortage of local properties at similar rents, it is likely that these tenants would incur significant moving costs and increases in rents.

Jack Brereton MP (Stoke on Trent South) (No. 153)

155. Jack Brereton MP petitioned the Committee for HS2 to be fully integrated with the conventional rail network. Mr Brereton supported HS2 and believed that it had the potential to provide a considerable economic boost to Stoke on Trent, and north Staffordshire, bringing opportunities for highly skilled and highly valued jobs.109 He said it was vital to improve rail services, in both capacity and connectivity, and that this should be planned now as the five-year spending round for Network Rail was due to begin in 2019. HS2 should undertake further work in partnership with Network Rail to ensure that the conventional network was to an acceptable standard to facilitate HS2 compatible services.

156. HS2 has looked at serving Stoke on Trent either via Handsacre Junction from Phase One or by building an 8km new spur as proposed by Stoke on Trent Council (the “Stoke connector” proposal) from Phase 2a to Stone. HS2 estimated the cost of this as in the region of £450m110 and rejected it on the grounds of affordability and value for money. We understand the importance of Mr Brereton’s vision for Stoke and his wish to have a dedicated HS2 service serving Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield. As a result of the Crewe Hub consultation, the Secretary of State has said that there may be a case to extend the Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield service to Manchester Piccadilly,111 and we welcome this. Plans for HS2 Phase 2a will also be modified to include 400 metre platform at Crewe to allow for the splitting and joining of HS2 services: this change should open up opportunities to serve Stoke on Trent and Macclesfield with either HS2 services or new direct West Coast Mainline Services to London.112 It is clear to us that the Scheme should enhance local and regional rail services.

106 4 June 2018, Q177 107 4 June 2018, Q178 108 4 June 2018, Q184 109 4 June 2018, Q2 110 4 June 2018, R126(10) para 5 111 4 June 2018, P343(2) 112 4 June 2018, R126(9) paras 2–3 42 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

157. Mr Brereton was also concerned about the impact on traffic at Stoke on Trent. He challenged the methodology used by HS2 for predicting Stoke railway station footfall and that of the traffic modelling used to understand the likely impacts of traffic utilising arterial roads, specifically on queue lengths at the M6 Junction 15 slip roads,113 A500 Queensway/ A519 Newcastle Road,114 and A5182 Trentham Road.115 He said that the Junction 15 data had been taken from a 2012 study and was out of date and the tables in relation to the Environmental Statement at Junction 15, were incorrectly referenced. HS2 said that the modelling approach that was used by Highways England and had been used and provided a good basis for the development of the local junction models. Data for 2016 had been presented in the Environmental Statement.116 HS2 continues to liaise with Highways England under whose remit this responsibility for highways modelling falls.117

158. HS2 made a commitment to environmental sustainability and has made a commitment to reuse excavated material in the construction process. Mr Brereton requested that data from HS2’s model to reuse 90% excavated material in the construction should be published. Geotechnical ground investigations began in autumn 2017 for Phase One, and this data could inform Phase 2a.118 Jeremy Lefroy MP also raised this issue. HS2 responded that it was too early to say how the Phase One Project was performing against the 90% objective. We urge HS2 to give an undertaking to publish the evidence found.119

Jeremy Lefroy MP (Stafford) (No. 188)

159. Mr Lefroy petitioned the Committee on 14 May 2018 and 8 May 2019, on both occasions covering a range of his constituents’ concerns as well as the wider and longer- term issues associated with the Scheme. He recognised that the impact of the Scheme would vary over time, from the current substantial reductions in house prices, leaving home owners unable to sell their properties without incurring large financial losses, to the huge disruption during the construction phase and to the final operation of the route. He requested mitigation measures and compensation for the effects on his constituents.120

160. He said that constituents had told him that negotiations with HS2 were too lengthy and that such delays impacted on the viability of local businesses. He asked that HS2 be required to pay reasonable compensation for time taken and out of pocket expenses for such occurrences and stated that an expenses reimbursement scheme would not result in large amounts of money being paid out.121

161. We are not convinced that HS2 fully understand the extent of time and money that is spent by petitioners and those affected by the Scheme in understanding the process and liaising with HS2 staff. This is a matter that needs to be kept under review and we recommend that the next High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester and Birmingham - Leeds) Bill Select Committee look at this matter early in the process.

113 Tables 274 and 300 of the hybrid Bill Transport Assessment, Volume 5, Environmental Statement 114 Table 262, & 287 Volume 5, Environmental Statement 115 Table 296, Volume 5 Environmental Statement. Mr Brereton petitioned the committee on this on 4 June 2018 Q 11 116 4 June 2018, R126(15) 117 4 June 2017, Q24 118 4 June 2018, Q11–12 119 15 May 2018, Q245 120 Petition No. 188 121 15 May 2018, Q10 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 43

162. The initial documentation from HS2 indicated that Stafford would have an HS2 Classic Compatible Service from London to Liverpool using the Armitage-Handsacre link.122 Yet, subsequently, this has been downgraded to a link via Stoke-on-Trent terminating at Macclesfield. Mr Lefroy requested that:

Ȥ the Bill be amended to state that the HS2 Classic Compatible services will always serve both Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent with a (minimum) hourly service using the Handsacre Link to and from London; and that

Ȥ the original proposal for an HS2 Classic Compatible service to one of the major cities of the North West (Liverpool or Manchester) be restored.

163. Mr Lefroy and Mr Brereton both stressed the importance for Stafford and Stoke-on- Trent of being served by this link and were curious as to why the existing plan was for the service to terminate at Macclesfield.123 They argued that Crewe would be a better terminus as would Manchester Piccadilly and/or Liverpool, thereby supporting proposals for the “northern powerhouse”124 and regeneration.

164. It is not open to the Committee to propose additional stations, as the committal motion at Second Reading gave an instruction that there are to be no new stations, or additional spurs but we note that this is a continuing concern of certain Members of Parliament. We urge the Secretary of State to speak to the constituency MPs about local rail services.

County and Borough Councils

165. Staffordshire County Council, Lichfield District Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council petitioned the Committee about building a tunnel between Whitmore and Madeley Heath, as well as proposing the lowering the Kings Bromley viaduct. The Councils questioned the type of tunnel boring machine that HS2 proposed to use but the Committee was told by the Chief Engineer from HS2 that this was the most suitable type of equipment for boring at the geological fault at Madeley.125 We looked at this matter in our First and Second Special Reports.

166. The Councils also raised concerns about land take and loss of agricultural land both temporarily and permanently, the loss of ancient woodland, and impact on wildlife. The effects of noise for the communities around Hill Chorlton, Whitmore Heath and Bar Hill, and Madeley during the construction phase cannot be denied and it is likely that there will be increased levels of noise at certain points of the building work, but these will be managed through the Code of Construction practice.126 On 8 May HS2 read a statement of assurance agreed between HS2 and Staffordshire County Council and Lichfield District Council.127

122 P153(1) 123 15 May 2019, Q 47 124 https://northernpowerhouse.gov.uk/ 125 The Madeley Fault, 23 April (evening), Q 191 126 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-code-of-construction-practice-for-hs2-phase-2a 127 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/00130_Staffordshire%20County%20Council_Statement.pdf 44 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Stafford Borough Council (Nos. 152 and AP2–57)

167. The Constellation Partnership is a collaboration between two Local Enterprise Partnerships and seven Local Authorities. Staffordshire Borough Council is a partner of the Constellation Partnership. The Borough Council’s aim is to maximise the opportunities for economic growth to the region and sees HS2 as playing a key role in achieving this.

168. Councillor Patrick Farrington represented Staffordshire Borough Council and petitioned for a new motorway junction and motorway slips to support any future local housing schemes proposed. HS2 said that this would delay the project for 7 to 10 years.

169. HS2 recognised that there would be pressure on Yarnfield Lane but the Chief Engineer said that it would be for a short time. The Committee understood that those working on the Infrastructure Rail Maintenance Base would use Yarnfield Lane to access their workplace.

170. We commend Councillor Farrington for presenting an interesting proposal which the Highways Authority may wish to look at in the future. It could improve traffic flow should there be proposals for additional local housing and facilities within this area. If HS2 had engaged sooner with the Borough Council it could have used recommendations from the Atkins report on road connectivity on which the Councillor spoke.

Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (No. 141)

171. HS2 and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council held discussions before attending the committee and this resulted in a commitment to consultation on design and the lowering of the viaduct and embankments in the River Lea Valley. Other concerns from the council will be met through the Code of Construction practice and the borrow pit review, as regarding which HS2 has a commitment to minimise land take.

Parish Councils

172. We regret that on many occasions we heard from the Parish Councils that the County and Borough Councils had not engaged sufficiently with the local Parish Councils to seek their views. We hope that as the legislation progresses and the preparation work for the railway continues this will be remedied locally. HS2 when sending correspondence to the primary authorities should copy the correspondence to the relevant subsidiary authorities. Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 45

8 Environmental matters 173. Standing Order 27A of the House of Commons requires that any organisation depositing a Bill must deposit an accompanying Environmental Statement in both the Houses which should be available for inspection by the public. The Environmental Statement must contain details on the likely significant effects on the environment of the proposed scheme. Standing Order No. 224A allows for a 56 day period, after the first publication of the notice, for comments to be made to the Secretary of State about the contents of the Environmental Statement. As mentioned above the independent assessor prepares a report on these comments for Parliament.128

174. The Environmental Statement should include measures to avoid, prevent, reduce and monitor the effects that the building of the railway will have on the environment which it will disturb. Environmental impacts will be monitored by the nominated undertaker or the relevant planning authorities or regulatory authorities.

175. The Secretary of State established a set of Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMR) which will apply, through contracts, to the nominated undertaker and its contractors who carry out the work both during the construction and operation of the Scheme. Environmental Minimum Requirements include general principles, the Code of Construction Practice, an Environmental Memorandum, a Planning Memorandum and a Heritage Memorandum.

176. In order to comply with the relevant Standing Order HS2 undertook the following process to inform the Environmental Statement. Firstly, an Environmental Impact Assessment process was developed. This involved several stages:

a) A scoping and methodology report;129

b) Collection and collation of data to construct a baseline measurement of current environmental conditions close to the proposed Scheme;

c) Collection and collation of data to construct a future baseline of assumptions about the future environmental conditions;

d) Incorporation of environmental data to be included in the design (and any suitable alternatives) as the design develops;

e) An assessment of environmental benefits and environmental concerns, development and assessment of mitigation proposals and residual effects of the works;

f) The approach to engagement and consultation with the public (individuals, businesses and communities) affected by the proposed scheme to aid the development of the design;

g) Refinement of the proposed scheme design based on the evidence collated;

h) Finalisation of the Environmental Statement (which is submitted with the hybrid Bill).

128 https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017–19/highspeedrailwestmidlandscrewe.html 129 Published September 2016 46 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

A Green Corridor

177. HS2 will create a “green corridor” along the route to not only screen the railway and reduce the visual effect on the local landscape but also to create new habitats for existing and relocated wildlife. HS2 will move protected species to new locations. The Scheme will include underpasses and green bridges for access routes.

Woodland and trees

178. Throughout our hearings we have heard from HS2 that the underlying principles of ecological compensation and mitigation have been adopted. This means that where it is proposed to remove woodland and trees that there will be new planting at another place in order to create a new landscape. The Scheme’s aim is to join up small fragmented habitats and reconnect existing areas that may have been temporarily severed. Landscape design and tree planting will be used for visual screening and to reduce the effect of noise on local communities. We have been told that existing trees which are to remain in situ will be protected during construction.

The Woodland Trust (No. 99 and AP2–63)

179. The Woodland Trust petitioned for the single long tunnel option between Whitmore Heath and Madeley in order to protect the ancient semi-natural woodland at Whitmore Wood. The Committee reported on this in its First Special Report.130

180. Since that Report we have been made aware that HS2 has stated that in some areas along the route some of the soils proposed for translocation are subject to the Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005 No. 2517. This Order prohibits all imports of ash seeds, plants and trees to prevent the spread of dieback of ash (Chalara) to regions where the disease is not present. Ash is common in lowland England. We welcome the fact that HS2 is in dialogue with the Forestry Commission about this issue for HS2 Phase 1 and understand that the Forestry Commission will issue HS2 with a single Statutory Plant Notice to authorise soil translocation activity subject to certain conditions being met. We urge HS2 to ensure that all conditions are fully met so to ensure that the risk of the spread of Chalara is minimised.131

181. We expect HS2 to ensure that the lessons learned from soil translocation in HS2 Phase 1 are embedded in any work for HS2 Phase 2a and beyond, and shared more widely so that other infrastructure projects may benefit from the studies.

182. The Woodland Trust appeared again before the Committee on 11 July 2018.132 It did not think it appropriate for HS2 to source seeds and trees for planting along the route from the continent. HS2 has given the Woodland Trust an assurance that all trees for the proposed Scheme will be grown in the United Kingdom.133 We support this view.

130 HC 1085, First Special Report of Session 2017–19, paras 52–58 131 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/059%20HS2%20 -%20Note-AncientWoodlandSoilTranslocation-WoodlandTrust(99).pdf 132 11 July 2018, (morning) QQ 11 -146 133 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/hs2-phase-2a/written-evidence/060%20HS2%20 -Note-TreeSourcing-WoodlandTrust(99).pdf Para 3 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 47

183. The Trust’s position is that no irreplaceable habitat including individual trees should be removed for temporary works;134 HS2 has assured us that it will continue dialogue with the Woodland Trust to ensure that the risks to such trees are raised at an early stage of detailed design and we welcomed the assurance by Counsel for the Secretary of State that, as many as possible of the veteran trees identified as being at risk under temporary works which lie at the very edge of these areas would be preserved. Where this is not possible we expect mitigation measures to be incorporated into the detailed design where appropriate. The Trust further petitioned that where ancient woodland is lost that there should be compensation in the form of a planting ratio of 30 trees for each tree lost as recommended by Natural England at the end of Phase 1. Like our colleagues in the House of Lords, under Phase 1, we do not understand the rationale behind Natural England’s recommended planting ratio of 30:1 and therefore cannot endorse this. Nor would we wish to instruct HS2 to extend its land take. The farming community, who we have praised because of their flexible approach to this Scheme, would have to surrender more agricultural land to enable such a planting ratio. We are content with the existing planting ratio.135 We ask HS2 to ensure that mechanisms to control invasive and extraneous species are used in order to protect all new planting and translocated soils from disease and to promote further growth.

184. The Woodland Trust petitioned against AP2 and were due to return to petition the Committee but following negotiations with HS2 reached an agreement and withdrew their petition.

Wildlife

185. Several Wildlife Trusts petitioned us to secure the best possible outcomes for displaced wildlife and their habitats.

Royal Society Wildlife Trust (No. 180) and Staffordshire Wildlife Trust (No. 91)

186. Both the Royal Society Wildlife Trust and the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust raised concerns about the impact of the Scheme on the ecology of the area. The Royal Society Wildlife Trust questioned the accuracy of the information in the Environmental Statement and the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust petitioned for funding to complete environmental surveys of Staffordshire. Both petitioners argued that there ought to be a net biodiversity gain from the Scheme and that by the establishment of an independent ecology review group the impact of the Scheme could be monitored. They raised a concern about the saltmarsh habitat close to Lionlodge Court.

187. HS2 gave undertakings to consult Natural England, and to liaise with members of the Ecological Review Group. It will be the responsibility of the Nominated Undertaker to monitor and report against the no net loss calculation during the construction of the railway and to mitigate and provide suitable alternative habitats where possible.

134 11 July 2018, (morning), Q54 135 The Woodland Trust estimated this at 7:1, Minutes of Evidence, 11 July (morning), Q114 48 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Cheshire Wildlife Trust (AP 2–58)

188. The Trust was concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat and broadleaf woodland and wildflower grassland, as well as a site primarily designated for farmland birds. The Trust also raised concerns about maintaining the water vole population of Cheshire on which we have made our decision (in paragraph 88 above).

189. HS2 stated that the Environmental Statement did not include all breeds of birds, but had identified the most significant species that need to be taken into account, and this did not mean that HS2 would ignore other species of birds.136

Farming

190. HS2 have stated that its aim, during the design of the Scheme, has been to avoid taking the highest quality agricultural land.137 Soil that is to be displaced will be removed and stored before any construction begins. This soil will be reinstated after any construction so that the land may recover.

National Farmers Union (Nos. 107 and AP2–52) and the Country Business and Landowners Association (No. 140)

191. We understand the importance of forward planning because of the seasonal nature of agricultural planting and work. It is for this reason that we have already directed HS2 to free farmers from the requirement to pay for maintenance costs of access tracks across land that has been compulsorily purchased by HS2.138

192. The Country Land and Business Association was due to appear before the Committee on 30 April but before their appearance accepted an assurance from Counsel for the Secretary of State that the Nominated Undertaker will establish an agricultural liaison service staffed by individuals experienced in agricultural matters who will be in place and contactable by telephone 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, during the construction of HS2 works on agricultural land. Names and contact details of the agricultural liaison service provider or providers will be supplied to the CLBA before he or she takes up the post, so that the CLBA can communicate contact details to its members. Furthermore the agricultural liaison service provider will meet the CBLA at least once every three months to discuss the activities of this new body. We hope that this service works well.

193. The NFU did petition that day and returned on 24 April 2019. It was concerned the Bill allowed the Nominated Undertaker to exercise powers of temporary land take under Schedules 15 and 16 during the lengthy construction period and then to use provisions in Clause 4 for that land to be permanently taken for permanent works. This would result in delays to full compensation payments for the capital value of the land which could present farmers with cash flow problems. It argued that the Nominated Undertakers should be required to provide interim payments for losses suffered as a result of the exercise of powers under Schedules 15 and 16. HS2 said that it would do this in certain cases.

194. The NFU argued that notice periods given by HS2 for accessing land were too short. Preliminary work on a railway requires multiple visits to conduct surveys. The NFU 136 14 May 2019, Q210 137 HS2 Environmental Statement Non-technical summary, p.46 138 Para 54, Second Special Report Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 49

requested a period of three months notice for access to land to be taken for both permanent and temporary purposes. We raised this with the Government and the Secretary of State told us that he would “offer a further assurance to the National Farmers Union (NFU) that for temporary possessions under Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Bill, the Nominated Undertaker (NU) will provide at least 3 months notice to landowners of possession, save for where it has been agreed with the landowner that a shorter notice period is acceptable.”139

195. On 25 June 2018 we heard from Counsel for HS2 that the NFU Assurances were divided into two parts:

a) Part A - are of general applicability, for example the setting up of an agricultural liaison service (q4)

b) Part B - are specific assurances given to particular farmers on a case by case basis.

The Farmers and Growers guide was developed following representations in Committee from the NFU in November 2014 on the HS2 Phase 1 Bill. The guide covers a range of matters which at that time were captured as a single entry on the Register of Assurances and Undertakings.140 At that time it was suggested that this formed the basis for a guide for farmers and growers produced by HS2 in non-technical/non-legal language.141

196. The NFU were concerned that farmers who had not petitioned against the Bill would not be entitled to the same protection regarding the part B assurances as those farmers who had petitioned. HS2 told us that it had reflected on these concerns and had now written to all farmers affected by the proposed scheme, including those who had not petitioned against the Bill. HS2 invited those farmers who had not petitioned to consider whether there were any assurances contained in Part B which might affect their own holding and should be offered to them. They asked farmers to respond by 31 January 2019.142 We would like the Government to include in its response to this report an update on the outcome of this process, and how many farmers requested assurances.

197. We became concerned about farmers being asked to pay for maintenance costs of access tracks across land that had been compulsorily purchased by HS2. We thought this unfair.143 The Government said in its response to our Second Special Report HS2 that

“where an access track would pass over land in more than one ownership currently, the Promoter proposes, at least in the first instance to retain ownership/control, and to grant rights of access to affected landowners. The Promoter will not in general include an obligation for the landowner to contribute to the cost of maintenance of the track. Instead, in the event of any damage being caused to the track or land by the landowner, it would

139 https://www.parliament.uk/documents/Response%20from%20the%20Secretary%20of%20State%20to%20 the%20Chair%20(23%20March%202019).pdf 140 30 April 2018 (afternoon) Q 71 141 30 April (afternoon) Q 77 142 An example of the letter sent to farmers can be found at Annex B to the Government’s response to the Second Special Report, page 35 143 HC 1452, Second Special Report of Session 2017–19, para 54 50 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

be for the Promoter to rely on such rights and remedies as it may have at common law for damage caused as a result of unreasonable or excessive use. “144

198. Government departments, under certain circumstances, are required to offer back surplus land to the former owner or the former owner’s successors at the current market value (under what are known as the Crichel Down rules).145 HS2 will operate under these rules. Land that is surplus to the Scheme’s requirement will be offered to the previous owner for purchase in the first instance at full market value. If the previous owner does not wish to purchase the land then it will be offered on the open market for sale.146

199. We asked for agricultural and land specialists to be made available to those affected by the route. The NFU told us that there had been agricultural specialists’ consultation on Phase 1 but that this had not successfully carried over to Phase 2a where there had been ‘a complete breakdown’ of this valuable relationship. This is worrying as the HS2 Phase 2a route covers a large rural community and we recommend a relaunch and promotion of the Phase 1 arrangements for Phase 2a and beyond.

200. The Secretary of State informed us that before a visit to an affected landowner is undertaken, the HS2 stakeholder manager would liaise with technical experts within HS2 Ltd (eg engineers, environmental specialists and land and property surveyors) to understand the issue that the landowner is raising, identifying potential solutions and agreeing which technical experts should accompany them. HS2 acknowledged that there was a shortage of experts and if the needs of the stakeholder were not being met then the stakeholder could raise the issues through the complaints process.147

201. We remain concerned about insufficient notice periods for temporary possession of land. HS2 has offered two assurances in respect of notification and notice periods for temporary possession and has given an undertaking to provide a minimum notice period of three months. We remain concerned. HS2 should give three clear months’ notice of the quarter in which the land will be taken.148 Farming is a seasonal business and farmers need to plan before they plant crops.

Borrow pits

202. A borrow pit is an area of land from which aggregates needed for the construction of the railway will be excavated. Quarried materials will be used to create railway embankments as to provide materials for tracks; to provide high quality fill for bridges, viaducts and culverts; and fill for ground treatment areas under embankments and railway foundations and associated works. HS2’s objective is to limit the use of materials and generation of waste.

203. Design of borrow pits must be developed in accordance with the relevant HS2 technical standards, and planning applications for borrow pits need to address flood risk, ecological, hydrogeological and public access issues alongside the impact on the local communities as a consequence of noise, dust, and visual and traffic impacts. Operation and restoration

144 Government Response to the Committee’s Second Special Report 2017–19, HC 1452, para 87 145 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/crichel-down-rules-on-land-ownership 146 30 April 2018 (afternoon) Q 266 147 Letter from the Secretary of State to the Chair, 11 March 2019 148 A quarter being Jan-March, April-June, July-September, or October-December. Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 51

of borrow pits are covered by the commitments given by HS2 in the Environmental Minimum Standards149 and the draft Code of Construction practice. These documents outline the management and restoration principles to be used during and following the works.150 Temporary hoardings and security fences will be erected around the area of land to be used for the borrow pit, and in some cases may include acoustic screening and screening to reduce the visual impact. Schedule 17 to the Bill outlines the conditions of deemed planning permission and the grounds under which a local authority may refuse or approve plans. Manner and type of screening will be subject to planning approval by the relevant local authority.

204. The National Farmers Union raised concerns about the amount of land take for borrow pits at:

a) Crawley Land, Kings Bromley (up to 35 hectares)

b) Land adjacent to the A515 Lichfield Road, Kings Bromley (up to 12 hectares)

c) Land adjacent to Shaw Lane (up to 19 hectares)

d) Land adjacent to the proposed River Trent viaduct (up to 20 hectares)

e) Land west of Netherset Hey farm (up to 28 hectares)

f) Land to the North of Checkley Lane (up to 40 hectares)

205. The NFU argued that valuable farming land was to be used in this way, referring to a report that it had commissioned from the Mineral Surveying Associates. It said that there were four major mineral operators controlling in excess of 40Mt of proven sand and gravel reserves within the Kings Bromley area, all within reasonable haulage distance (6–9 miles). All the sites proposed by the Mineral Surveying Associates study have direct access onto the A38 and could supply HS2 without the need for significant disruption to local communities.

206. We found this an interesting proposal although we must bring into the balance the needs of the local communities who would be affected by additional road haulage traffic. The HS2 Phase 2a Borrow Pit Review published by HS2 in April 2019 has concluded that size of three of the six borrow pits can be reduced.151

207. In our Second Special Report we said that we would expect to see any changes to borrow pits set out in AP2. The borrow pit review indicates that that HS2 has reviewed its baseline assumptions for the AP2 revised scheme earthworks design and has made a commitment to “continue to investigate opportunities for reducing the environmental effects arising from the earthworks and materials”.152

208. The Borrow Pit review uses data contained in the January 2019 draft preliminary ground investigations report. Further geotechnical investigations will be undertaken during the development of the detailed design and “further ground investigations be undertaken between approximately 2020 and 2022 as the design is progressed through to

149 HS2 Paper E1: Control of Environmental Impacts 150 Information paper D12: Borrow Pits 151 Phase 2a Borrow Pit Review - Final, April 2019, Paras 3.312–3.3.16 152 Phase 2a Borrow Pit Review - Final, April 2019, para 3.5.2 52 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

the final design”. We have heard from Mr William Murray concerns about the geological data used for the area of Whitmore and HS2 should take this opportunity to ensure that Mr Murray’s concerns are addressed during this further work.

209. The Borrow Pit Review has been published on our website. This review is the first stage of intrusive geotechnical investigations and therefore not a definitive and final report. HS2 should continue to work with those affected by the locations of borrow pits and be mindful of the Committee’s desire for noise and visual screening to protect the local communities from noise and dust as so far as is possible.

Canals and waterways

210. The Inland Waterways Association represents 15,000 members. The Association works to protect the canals and waterways for the benefit of the public. The Association said that there was an assumption moorers will sail away to another location but that those living permanently on a narrow boat find it difficult to do this as moorings are not readily available: many are now taken by pleasure craft with restrictions to moor for only up to 14 days. Residents may be static over winter months. HS2 had argued that temporary and static moorings have transitory use. We have already commented on vulnerable occupants who may be disadvantaged in this way but reiterate here the necessity for a new scheme to protect such occupants.

211. In our Second Special Report we recommended that the Secretary of State made provision for the construction of a 5-metre high noise and visual barrier at the Great Haywood Marina in order to protect narrow boat owners living there. The Government told us that this would not be possible as HS2 had already given assurances to the National Trust about the viaduct in that the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of Cannock Chase. The Government’s response says “while HS2 Ltd gave an indication of the engineering complexity of delivering higher barriers here, this did not cover the trade-off between barrier heights and their visual impacts” and that the 5-metre high noise barriers would impact on the view. We ask why this was not raised by Counsel for HS2 in Committee at the time of petitioning. In order for the process to work well for both petitioners and HS2 the Committee requires such evidence so that an informed and fair decision can be made. We expect the Trent and Sow Parklands and Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Group, (of which the Canal and River Trust is a member) to work with HS2 to find a suitable solution which will allay the concerns of the Inland Waterways Association about noise.

Traffic

212. Many petitioners raised concerns about the increase in local traffic created by the Scheme and the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders. There is no doubt that Heavy Goods Vehicles and site traffic will increase on roads close to the enabling works for the Scheme. Traffic will peak at certain points. We saw many histograms throughout our hearings, which demonstrated anticipated patterns of traffic flows and peak volumes and dates. HS2 has been in discussion with County, Borough and Parish Councils about the increased traffic and undertakings and assurances have been given which are recorded in the register. Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 53

213. This is still of course of concern to communities. HS2 stated that traffic management is bound by the Code of Construction Practice. HS2 further stated that the HS2 Construction Commissioner will hold HS2 to account to ensure the safety of both users and contractors. It will be the role of the Commissioner to ensure that contractors abide by the undertakings and assurances given by HS2 to those affected. Issues should be raised through the HS2 helpdesk for investigation.

214. The Construction Commissioner also has a role to mediate in unresolved disputes between the project and individuals or bodies. The Commissioner makes reports and recommendations to HS2 on how to minimise or reduce the numbers of complaints. He will also act as an arbitrator for the Small Claims Scheme in the event that a dispute cannot be resolved through the normal process.153

215. We have heard throughout the process that traffic will increase in volume at certain peaks of construction works: this will be managed through the draft Code of Construction Practice.

Cycling, Footpaths and Bridleways

216. HS2 will inevitably create a degree of severance. Diversions have been agreed for several footpaths and bridleways, but a diversion of a few 100 metres, which would have no noticeable effect on a motor vehicle, might be a significant additional journey for pedestrians, cyclists and riders. We do not believe HS2 has been sufficiently proactive in finding ways to ameliorate the impact of severance for pedestrians, cyclists and horse- riders and would like to see some additional provision to compensate for the inevitable inconvenience. In addition, we believe it is in the best interests of HS2 as well as of the local population, for HS2 to enhance alternative routes for non-motorised transport where that will encourage non-motorised transport away from construction traffic roads.

217. The Staffordshire Bridleways Association told us that there was a risk that some roads which local people currently use as crossings would be stopped up. We heard also from Cyclists UK that they too use minor roads as do horse riders and pedestrians and parents with pushchairs and prams.

218. Furthermore there was a danger that verges, which are used as an escape route in an emergency, could be lost. The Bridleways Association said that the verge in the Hopton area on the A262 was a good example of a horse riding verge being sufficiently wide at 10–12 metres and being used by pedestrians too. HS2 now plans to upgrade the footpaths. We were told by HS2 that where roads already have characteristics which support horse- riding then that will form part of that objective in the detailed design.

219. Colwich Parish Council petitioned the Committee on 1 May 2019 arguing for an upgrade of the towpath of the Trent and Mersey Canal and work to expose the footpath within the highway verge of the A51 for the benefit of walkers. HS2 are now in discussions about using the Community Fund to upgrade the towpath and we were told that HS2 would be agreeing with the Parish Council an assurance on the upgrade of this footpath.

153 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hs2-independent-construction-commissioner 54 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

9 Observations of the Committee 220. We thought it might be helpful to pass on some of our observations so that successor committees may draw on our experience.

221. We found the route site visits incredibly helpful. We would recommend that anyone undertaking this task visits the areas to be affected, disembarks from the bus and walks parts of the route so that the impact can be truly understood. We walked along public footpaths, tracks and bridleways in order to view the impact of the proposed railway from different angles and lines of sight. We recommend that site visits are conducted for each part of the process. We conducted our visits with representatives from the County Councils present who could guide us through the issues around each area and answer our questions.

222. There is a large volume of documents in committee. Members are provided with a new set each day containing all the evidence. We recommend that HS2 (who co-ordinate the evidence for the petitioner and their Counsel) provide a map at the beginning of each section so that it is immediately clear exactly which farm or village the committee is being asked to look at.

223. We also think that it would have been helpful to have two screens in front of each member in the Committee Room so that comparative maps could be brought up rather than flicking between large paper files. Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 55

Annex A: Right to appear challenge - Decision of the Committee HS2 Phase 2a (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill Select Committee House of Commons London SW1A OAA

DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE

PETITION NO. HS2-AP2–075 NEWCASTLE ROAD RESIDENTS, SWYNNERTON

Following the right to appear challenge hearing on 3 April 2019 the Committee has agreed that the Newcastle Road Residents, Swynnerton should be able to petition the Committee.

James Duddridge MP Chair

3 April 2019 56 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Annex B: List of petitioners

Right to appear challenges upheld by the Committee No. Petitioner 036 Woore Parish Action Group (WPAG) 088 Celia M Gollins, John Gollins 084 Mr Andrew and Mrs K Morris, Woore Country Store and Post Office

115 Mrs Amanda Jones and Mr Alan Melvin 126 Michael Anthony, Karen Mary and Thomas Michael Carter 146 Ingrestre and Tixall Against HS2 Action Group 127 Steven, Diana, Sophie and Oliver Lomas 144 Brian, Pamela and Nicci Vaughan 183 BS Marson and Sons Ltd 129 Andrew Jolley 023 Nicholas James Morrison 122 Mr Alwyn Ralphs and Mrs Sharon Ralphs 172 Peter A Hall and Diane Hall 121 Mr D J Lilley and Ms J A Griffiths 167 Mr G and Mrs K L Shaw 189 Julia Mitchell 143 Paul Holdcroft 007 Mr Robert Mark Eades, Mrs Afsaneh Eades, Mrs Margaret U. Eades 112 Tim Waye and Jean Colduck 137 Stephen and Jayne Lewis 138 Charles Angus Dunbar Irvine 109 Whitmore2Madeley HS2 Action Group 159 Baldwins Gate Action Group, Number 2 029 Kevin Hardy 071 The Madeley Independent Residents STOP HS2 Action Group AP2: 10 Bernard and Janet Wheeler AP2: 38 Mr Mohammed Khuram AP2: 78 Philip & Janet Berrisford AP2: 71 J R Davies & David Hollinshead

Petitioners who appeared before the Committee No. Petitioner Date 130 Staffordshire County Council (tunnel and viaduct) 23/04/2018 108 Lichfield District Council (viaduct) 23/04/2018 141 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (tunnel) 23/04/2018 187 Sir William Cash MP (tunnel and Stone IMBR) 23/04/2018 090 Whitmore Parish Council in Whitmore, Staffordshire (tunnel) 24/04/2018 104 Madeley Parish Council (tunnel) 24/04/2018 044 Joanna & Graham Hutton and 238 Others (tunnel) 24/04/2018 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 57

Petitioners who appeared before the Committee 099 The Woodland Trust (ancient woodland impact only) 24/04/2018 128 Stone Town Council, Chebsey Parish Council (Stone IMBR) 25/04/2018 107 The National Farmers Union 30/04/2018 182 Mr Wayne Bull (Bull Plant Ltd), Miss Julia Allsopp (Bromley 09/05/2018 Hayes Cattery) AP1: 25 Mr Wayne Bull (Bull Plant Ltd), Miss Julia Allsopp 09/05/2018 006 Kings Bromley Parish Council 10/05/2018 AP1: 15 Kings Bromley Parish Council 10/05/2018

184 The Small Schools Multi Academy Trust, The Richard Crosse 10/05/2018 Church of England Primary School 047 Colton Parish Council 14/05/2018 188 Jeremy Lefroy MP 15/05/2018 068 Mr Frank Simmons and Mrs Angela Simmons 15/05/2018 079 Stone Rural Parish Council 15/05/2018 110 Ingestre with Tixall Parish Council, St Mary’s Ingestre Parochial 15/05/2018 Church Council, Friends of Ingestre Orangery 035 David Cook 15/05/2018 054 William Peter Murray 21/05/2018 134 Woore Parish Council 21/05/2018 190 Woore Primary and Nursery School 21/05/2018 152 Stafford Borough Council 22/05/2018 117 Malcolm Ronald Jennings 22/05/2018 118 Ms Sharon Mulcahy 22/05/2018 123 Lily Catherine Irwin 22/05/2018 125 Gaynor Irwin 22/05/2018 086 Swynnerton Parish Council 23/05/2018 097 The Reverend Prebendary Richard Grigson, Mrs Gail Wray 23/05/2018 153 Jack Brereton MP 04/06/2018 042 Antoinette Sandbach MP 04/06/2018 082 David and Hazel Cliffe 04/06/2018 AP1: 13 David and Hazel Cliffe 04/06/2018 032 Dr Paul Carter and Mrs Elizabeth Carter 05/06/2018 157 Mr Andrew Rushton 05/06/2018 AP1: 16 Mr Andrew Rushton, Black Flatts Farm 05/06/2018 058 Trevor, Rebecca and Brian Mycock 06/06/2018 020 Toby and Bonnie Williams 06/06/2018 059 Messrs Richard and Colin Smith 06/06/2018 AP1: 02 Messrs Richard and Colin Smith 06/06/2018 018 Mr Robert, Mrs Helen and Mr Richard Parkinson 06/06/2018 178 Michael James and Mavis Elizabeth Daw, Michael James, Mavis 12/06/2018 Elizabeth, Eleanor Rosemary Madelaine and Samuel Thomas James Daw AP1: 26 Michael James and Mavis Elizabeth Daw 12/06/2018 AP1: 27 Michael James and Mavis Elizabeth Daw 12/06/2018 58 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Petitioners who appeared before the Committee 192 Sharon Jayne Mawbey 12/06/2018 AP1: 28 Sharon Jayne and Martin John Mawbey 12/06/2018 072 J A Fielding, J A Fielding Farms, 12/06/2018 AP1: 12 J A Fielding, J A Fielding Farms, 12/06/2018 001 Mr Jonathan Andrew and Mrs Elaine Loescher 13/06/2018 105 Sarah and Michael Elsom 13/06/2018 043 Elizabeth Margaret Baskeyfield 13/06/2018 Neville Baskeyfield Timothy Neil Baskeyfield t/a EM, N & TN Baskeyfield

174 The Yarlet Trust 18/06/2018 AP1: 18 The Yarlet Trust 18/06/2018 170 Andrew and William Dangerfield, Alan and Diane Dangerfield 19/06/2018 155 Luke Mellor and Son 19/06/2018 165 H R and F J Hooley 19/06/2018 162 Messrs Eric and Paul Ridley 19/06/2018 166 George and Brenda Astley 19/06/2018 062 Richard Ivor Clarke, Ivor and Elizabeth Clarke 20/06/2018 028 Andrew, Pauline and Mark Collier 20/06/2018 049 Executors of the late Peter Kenny (Deceased) and Mrs Val 20/06/2018 Kenny AP1: 29 Executors of the late Peter Kenny (Deceased) and Mrs Val 20/06/2018 Kenny 073 Mr David Proudlove 25/06/2018 074 J M & S Moss Mr John Mosley Moss, Mrs Susan Moss, Mr 25/06/2018 Simon Moss 075 David, Sarah, Edward, Paul and John Sutton 25/06/2018 076 Miss E A Thompson 25/06/2018 077 Mr Charles Williams and Mrs Christina Williams 25/06/2018 089 Mr John Furnival and Mrs Jane Furnival 25/06/2018 050 T A Fenton and Partners, Mr Richard Fenton 26/06/2018 055 Christopher, Brenda and John Slater 26/06/2018 041 Mr Christopher and Mrs Carol Carney, Upper Moreton Farm 26/06/2018 Community Interest Company and ‘Care Farm’ 025 Mr Leslie Bannister and George Bannister 26/06/2018 142 Christopher, Wendy and Geoffrey Barton 26/06/2018 AP1: 01 Christopher, Wendy and Geoffrey Barton 26/06/2018 060 Mr and Mrs J Tavernor 26/06/2018 080 Mr Peter James Bailey, Mrs Lorraine Ann Bailey 27/06/2018 179 Trevor Percy and Jean Elizabeth Tabernor 27/06/2018

AP1: 19 Trevor Percy and Jean Elizabeth Tabernor 27/06/2018 111 Keith John & Gillian June Ralls 27/06/2018 AP1: 06 Keith John & Gillian June Ralls 27/06/2018 046 Robert Anthony Birchill 27/06/2018 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 59

Petitioners who appeared before the Committee 095 Alan James Wilkinson, Gillian Mary Wilkinson 02/07/2018

148 Ingestre Park Golf Club 02/07/2018 119 Mr Frederick Ewart Smith 02/07/2018 017 Mr George Dyke & Mrs Helen Dyke and Ms Sarah Dyke 04/07/2018 026 Mr Edward Nield 04/07/2018 053 Mr Richard and Mrs Alison Williams, Jeffrey and Mrs Sheila 04/07/2018 Thornhill 015 The Executors of J S Sampson (Deceased) 04/07/2018 024 David, Fiona, Monty and Gwen Wright t/a H G Wright 04/07/2018 027 Mr Philip and Mrs Sue Proudlove 04/07/2018 AP1: 33 Mr J R Davies, Miss M J Davis and Mr David Hollinshead 04/07/2018 180 Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts 09/07/2018 091 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust 09/07/2018 136 Cheshire Wildlife Trust 09/07/2018 AP1: 32 Cheshire Wildlife Trust 09/07/2018 002 The Inland Waterways Association 09/07/2018 161 Staffordshire and Birmingham Agricultural Society, Stafford 10/07/2018 Showground Limited AP1: 08 Staffordshire and Birmingham Agricultural Society and 10/07/2018 Stafford Showground Limited 065 Mr Richard and Mrs Julie Williams 10/07/2018 063 Matthew Weaver and Matthew Weaver Ltd 10/07/2018 067 R P & A Green 10/07/2018 051 Richard Weaver and Richard Weaver Farms Ltd 10/07/2018 014 Mr Richard and Mrs Hana Plant, Mr & Mrs E Anderson, Mrs 10/07/2018 Susan Marginson 016 Mr Roy Garrett 10/07/2018 039 E W H Moore Partnership 10/07/2018 AP1: 30 E W H Moore Partnership 10/07/2018 099 The Woodland Trust (remaining issues) 11/07/2018 175 David and Sian Froggatt 11/07/2018 AP1: 20 David and Sian Froggatt 11/07/2018 151 J & B Berrisford 11/07/2018 145 J & B Berrisford 11/07/2018 AP1: 22 Stone Town Council, Chebsey Parish Council 16/07/2018

168 Stephen, Lesley Brandon, H Brandon and Sons and 12 others 17/07/2018 169 Maximus Strategic Stafford LLP 17/07/2018 131 North Staffordshire Bridleways Association 17/07/2018 103 Cycling UK 17/07/2018 AP1: 24 Little Ingestre Care Ltd 17/07/2018 AP2: 39 HS2 Parkgate Steering Group 23/04/2019 098 National Grid Electricity Transmissions PLC (“NGET”) 23/04/2019 AP2: 42 National Grid Electricity Transmissions PLC (“NGET”) 23/04/2019 60 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Petitioners who appeared before the Committee AP2: 72 Angela Brown 23/04/2019 AP2: 52 The National Farmers’ Union 24/04/2019 AP2: 08 Mr Robert and Mr Joseph Hopley and Family 24/04/2019 AP2: 59 West Midland Bird Club 24/04/2019 AP2: 33 Christopher, Brenda and John Slater 24/04/2019 AP2: 67 Richard & Hana Plant 24/04/2019 AP2: 70 Staffordshire County Council 29/04/2019 AP2: 69 Lichfield District Council 29/04/2019 AP2: 32 Kings Bromley Parish Council 29/04/2019 AP2: 49 David and Sian Froggatt 30/04/2019 AP2: 61 Colwich Parish Council 01/05/2019 AP2: 47 Stone Town Council 07/05/2019 AP2: 75 Newcastle Road residents 07/05/2019 AP2: 51 Mr R J & Mrs M A Bloor 07/05/2019 AP2: 25 Ingestre Park Golf Club 08/05/2019 AP2: 21 Ingestre with Tixall Parish Council 08/05/2019 AP2: 81 Jeremy Lefroy MP 08/05/2019 040 Graham Ward 2010 Discretionary Will Trust, Graham Ward 13/05/2019 1998 Children’s Life Interest Settlement, Graham Ward Will Trust Graham Ward Farms Ltd AP2: 58 Cheshire Wildlife Trust 14/05/2019 116 The Rail Freight Group 14/05/2019 AP2: 26 The Rail Freight Group 14/05/2019 139 Freightliner Group Limited, Freightliner Limited, Freightliner 14/05/2019 heavy Haul Limited AP2: 27 Freightliner Group Limited, Freightliner Limited, Freightliner 14/05/2019 Heavy Haul Limited AP2:64 The Yarlet Trust 15/05/2019 AP1:14 SGB World Services

Petitioners who withdrew their petitions or did not appear No. Petitioner 030 Mr Keith Beale 031 Alex Turner 034 Mr and Mrs Peter V Cooling 187 Sir William Cash MP (Remaining Issues) 044 Joanna & Graham Hutton and 238 Others (Remaining Issues) 092 Michael and Judith Bird 120 James, Yvonne Barcroft, Graham Steele and Hannah Barcroft 078 William and Edith Coddington 156 The Borough Council of Sandwell 130 Staffordshire County Council (remaining issues) 108 Lichfield District Council (remaining issues) 102 Staffordshire Chambers of Commerce Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 61

Petitioners who withdrew their petitions or did not appear 114 John and Pamela Porter 164 The National Trust 140 Country Land and Business Association Limited 048 The Governing Board, Henry Chadwick Community Primary School, Mrs G M Stockdale 005 Mavesyn Ridware Parish Council 113 John Marson 085 The Landmark Trust 008 Robert John Lowries, Christine Evelyn Lowries 171 Andrew Phillips 056 Mr Graham and Mrs Rachel Roobottom 177 Timothy and Anthony Ellis 083 The Wybunbury Combined Parishes Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, Doddington & District Parish Council, Hough & Chorlton Parish Council, Hatherton & Walgherton Parish Council, Wybunbury Parish Council, Weston & Basford Parish Council 141 Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (Remaining Issues) 066 Mark and Wendy Jolliffe 037 Mr and Mrs A Hampton 061 Mr D F Willbond (C.Eng. MIEE. MIMech.E) 163 Cheshire East Council AP1: 21 Cheshire East Council 101 Roxane UK Limited 106 Mr Ken and Mrs Catherine Lea 021 H R J Gould Properties Ltd 135 Mr J D Leavesley 003 Mr W Cox, Mrs S L Cox - Wayne Contracts 191 Leonard Ernest Shenton AP1: 10 Mr Peter John Watts and Mrs Denise Anne Watts 100 Mr Brian & Mrs Judith Williams 069 Lord Stafford’s Estates, Rt Hon The Lord Stafford, Lord Stafford’s Estates (Will) No. 1 Company Ltd, Lord Stafford’s Estates (Will) No. 2 Company Ltd, Trustees of the Swynnerton Settled Estate, Fitzherbert Farms, Hon Benjamin Fitzherbert

AP1: 09 Mr Alan George Sheldon and Mrs Ann Sandra Sheldon 132 Gillan John Paris and Mrs Suzan Violet Paris AP1: 07 Manor Park Sailing Club AP1: 23 Lakeland Leisure Estates Ltd AP1: 05 Dr Raymond Doig & Mrs Suzanne Doig 004 Mr I G and Mrs H M Wise 185 Alice Witter, Angela Joy Witter, Willaim Thomas Witter, Emily Witter, Lucy Witter 033 Joseph Guy and Dianne Mary Allsop 133 Canal and River Trust AP1: 17 Canal and River Trust 62 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Petitioners who withdrew their petitions or did not appear 154 Mr A A Treherne 158 Mrs R A Treherne 013 David Pearce AP1: 31 David Pearce 186 Michael Brian and Lesley Jayne Washburn 057 Raymond John and Gill Marree Hollinshead 093 United Kingdom Oil Pipelines Limited, (Joint Venture), BP Oil UK Limited, Shell UK Limited, Total UK Limited, Valero Energy Limited 052 John Stanley Prince AP2: 01 Anthony, Dawn, Joanne Brandon AP2: 54 North Staffordshire Bridleways Association AP2: 20 Marion Kathryn, John Allan, Hannah Kathryn Sadler 081 Mr Robert Brittle, Mr Richard Brittle, Mrs Kay Brittle AP2: 11 Mr Brian & Mrs Rachel Goodwin and Family AP2: 53 Marina Collyer, Richard Potts and Doris Potts AP2: 36 Options Autism (4) Limited AP2: 35 Mr Henry J Hill AP2: 06 Mr Thomas Hough AP2: 80 The Landmark Trust 009 Rugeley Power Limited AP1: 03 Rugeley Power Limited AP2: 03 Mr Robert & Mrs Helen and Mr Richard Parkinson AP2: 13 Michael James , Mavis Elizabeth , Eleanor Rosemary Madelaine and Samuel Thomas James Daw AP2: 34 David and Hazel Cliffe AP2: 48 SP Robinson and Son, Dorothy Robinson and Richard Robinson 181 Mr Stephen John Swinnerton AP2: 12 Walton Homes Limited AP2: 66 EWH Moore Partnership AP2: 56 Richard and Colin Smith AP2: 09 Hopton and Coton Parish Council 173 Gillian Grundy, Helen Fowell, Patricia Rothery AP2: 74 Little Ingestre Care Ltd 176 Priory Education Services Limited , Priory Finance Property LLP AP1: 04 Priory Education Services Limited , Priory Finance Property LLP AP2: 22 Priory Education Services Limited , Priory Finance Property LLP AP2: 23 J A Fielding, B Stoney AP2: 57 Stafford Borough Council AP2: 46 Hamstall Ridware Parish Council AP2: 15 David Bowers, Julian Bowers, Robert Bowers 094 June Baskerville and Barbara Baskerville, Farming Partnership AP2: 82 June Baskerville and Barbara Baskerville, Farming Partnership AP2: 68 Richard Peter Boulton AP2: 02 Mr Ian and Mrs Fay Walker Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 63

Petitioners who withdrew their petitions or did not appear AP2: 50 Wayne Bull and Julia Allsopp AP2: 77 Brandon, Muir and Williams Families AP2: 04 Lord Stafford’s Estates, Rt Hon The Lord Stafford, Lord Stafford’s Estates (Will) No. 1 Company Ltd, Lord Stafford’s Estates (Will) No. 2 Company Ltd, Trustees of the Swynnerton Settled Estate, Fitzherbert Farms, Hon Benjamin Fitzherbert 070 The Whitmore Estate, Trustees of Whitmore Maintenance Fund, Trustees of Whitmore Estate, G & C Cavenagh-Mainwaring, Edward R Cavenagh- Mainwaring, Christine Cavenagh-Mainwaring

AP2: 05 The Whitmore Estate, Trustees of Whitmore Maintenance Fund, Trustees of Whitmore Estate, G & C Cavenagh-Mainwaring, Edward R Cavenagh- Mainwaring, Christine Cavenagh-Mainwaring AP2: 40 Maximus Strategic Stafford LLP AP2: 16 St Modwen Developments Limited AP2: 65 Richard Weaver AP2: 73 Sharon Mawbey 087 Mr Ivor Beavis AP2: 24 Mr Ivor Beavis 147 Robert Jack and Sophie Mary Craddock AP2: 18 Mrs Susan Moss, Mrs Janet Thompson AP2: 79 Philip & Janet Berrisford 010 B & R Deane AP2: 60 B & R Deane 149 Royal Mail Group Limited AP2: 14 Keith & Gillian Ralls AP2: 07 Mr Philip and Mrs Sue Proudlove AP2: 45 Swynnerton Parish Council AP2: 44 David and Susan Sant 011 Mr John, Mrs Dorothy and Mr John Moss t/a JE DM and JE Moss AP2: 37 Mr John, Mrs Dorothy and Mr John Moss t/a JE DM and JE Moss 160 South Staffordshire Water plc AP2: 63 The Woodland Trust AP2: 76 New Farm Produce Ltd AP2: 17 Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance AP2: 41 Canal & River Trust 012 R G Parrott Exors of G Parrott (Deceased) AP2: 62 Cheshire East Council 045 Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) AP2: 31 Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) 098 National Grid Electricity Transmissions PLC (“NGET”) (remaining issues) AP2: 42 National Grid Electricity Transmissions PLC (“NGET”) (remaining issues) 096 National Grid Gas PLC (NGG) AP1: 11 National Grid Gas PLC (NGG) 64 Third Special Report of Session 2017–19

Petitioners who withdrew their petitions or did not appear AP2: 43 National Grid Gas PLC (NGG) 150 Severn Trent Water Limited

Second House Undertakings 124 William Phillips Field Esq FICE AP2: 19 William Phillips Field Esq FICE 064 Mr Mark Madders, Mr James Madders, Mr Robert Madders, Mrs Mary Madders

AP2: 30 Mr Mark Madders, Mr James Madders, Mr Robert Madders, Mrs Mary Madders 038 Anthony, Jane, Sam and Sarah Parrott AP2: 28 Anthony, Jane, Sam and Sarah Parrott AP2: 29 Mrs Julie Williams & Exors of Mr Richard Williams (Deceased) AP2: 55 Alice Witter and others Third Special Report of Session 2017–19 65

Formal minutes

Wednesday 4 June 2016

Members present:

James Duddridge, in the Chair

Sandy Martin Martin Whitfield Mrs Sheryl Murray Bill Wiggin Draft Report, High( Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill Select Committee: Third Special Report), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 223 read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be Third Special Report to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

[The Committee adjourned.