PART 1 – PUBLIC DOCUMENT AGENDA ITEM No. 7

TITLE OF REPORT: ( JUNCTION) ORDER – NEW RAILWAY AND ANCILLARY WORKS

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL

1. SUMMARY

1.1 To update the Committee on the progress of the Transport and Works Act 1992 Order for the Hitchin (Cambridge Junction) Order – New Railway and Ancillary Works, to report the submission of further information by Network Rail to the District Council in support of the Order and responses to that information and to decide on the options for the way forward for the District Council in terms of its role as Local Planning Authority.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The Committee will recall its objections and comments made as the Local Planning Authority responding as a consultee to the Network Rail Hitchin (Cambridge Junction) Order at its meeting of 2nd November 2009. The minutes and resolutions of the Committee are attached at Appendix A.

2.2 Following procedural advice from the Department of Transport the resolutions of the Planning Control Committee (PCC) of 2nd November were endorsed by Full Council on 3rd December 2009. The Department of Transport confirmed the receipt of the objections from the District Council on 22nd December including the ratification by Full Council.

2.3 The District Council owns land off Cadwell Lane, Hitchin known as Bury Mead Springs and this includes the Sita metal recycling site located on the west side of the (ECML). The Council’s Senior Estates Surveyor has separately lodged objections to the Draft Order on behalf of the Council as landowner. These objections by the Council as landowner relate firstly to environmental issues and contamination, and secondly to the implications of the proposals on the District Council's rental income from the land it leases to Sita metal recycling.

2.4 The Council’s Senior Estates Surveyor has reported the matter to the Hitchin Committee on 12th January 2010 for information and to Cabinet on 26th January 2010. Cabinet have agreed to the disposal of some of the Council’s land at Bury Mead Springs to Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (NRIL) by private treaty negotiations. However Cabinet have continued to object to the proposals by NRIL for the flood attenuation basin and to the temporary and permanent acquisition of land let by Sita Ltd. The proposals for the Bury Mead Springs area are indicated on Network Rail’s plan submitted with the Draft Order at Appendix B attached to this report.

2.5 This report relates to only the planning issues concerned with the Draft Order including the Deemed Application for Planning Permission and does not raise issues associated with the Council’s position as landowner and the matters concerning compulsory purchase however there is a planning related environmental objection concerning the Council’s land at Bury Mead Springs (refer to Resolution D, Appendix A)

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10)

2.6 Following the resolutions of the Planning Control Committee of 2nd November NRIL have responded to the concerns raised by the Local Planning Authority with the submission of letters dated 4th December 2009, 25th and 26th February 2010 and three other documents as noted below:

 Hitchin Rail Flyover Deemed Planning Application – Green Belt – Inappropriate Development – ‘Very Special Circumstances’ (January 2010)  Hitchin (Cambridge Junction) Road Transport Assessment Report by Steer Davies Gleave (January 2010)  Hitchin Grade Separation – Assessment of Material Delivery By Rail report (Network Rail) (January 2010)

Copies of these documents are in the Members Room and have been sent to Members.

2.7 The Public Inquiry to be held into the proposed Draft Order is scheduled to commence on 11th May 2010 at The Spirella Ballroom, . A Statement of Common Ground is proposed by Network Rail and a Proof of Evidence, setting out the Council’s case in detail is required by the Department of Transport by 13th April 2010. The Council has already submitted two Statement of Case documents setting out its objections to the Draft Order, as landowner and Local Planning Authority, following the resolutions of the Planning Control Committee, Cabinet and Full Council. Counsel has been appointed to advise the District Council on its response to the Draft Order and a summary of their advice and potential costs is set out in section 4 below.

3. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

3.1 To assist the Committee in its deliberations on the additional information submitted by NRIL it is appropriate to go through each objection and the resolutions A – K as set out in the minutes of the Planning Control Committee meeting of 2nd November 2009 and to provide a summary as to whether the concerns raised have been overcome or satisfactorily addressed.

3.2 Objection on Green Belt grounds

3.2.1 The Committee has resolved that it did not consider that ‘…sufficient reasons or justification have been included in the Draft Order to overcome the Green Belt policy presumption against development’ (Resolution B of PCC Minutes 2/11/09). In response to this objection NRIL have submitted a 12 page statement setting out the Green Belt justification for the rail project which acknowledges that the rail project is inappropriate development and therefore addresses the issue of ‘very special circumstances’.

3.2.2 The report sets out the relevant national planning policy framework including the emphasis in PPS 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) to encourage accessibility and sustainable transport needs and the key objective in the Planning and Climate Change Supplement to PPS1 which requires the delivery of :

‘patterns of urban growth and sustainable rural developments that help secure the fullest possible use of sustainable transport for moving freight, public transport, cycling and walking; and which overall, reduce the need to travel, especially by car’

3.2.3 The report sets out the objective in PPG 13 (Transport) that Local Authorities should ‘protect sites and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices for both passenger and freight movements’. Mention is

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) also made of Government White Papers on Delivering a Sustainable Transport System and Delivering a Sustainable Railway and in particular their reference to the importance of key inter-urban corridors and how critical the components of the transport system are to the economic success of the nation. Specific reference is made in Delivering a Sustainable Railway to achieve increased capacity on the ECML through a range of measures including ‘major work to address bottlenecks along the route’.

3.2.4 It must be noted that PPS 1 (and Climate Change Supplement) and PPG 13 are national planning policy that are material planning considerations in the consideration of development proposals.

3.2.5 The report refers to the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan 2007 and how this Plan was prepared in consultation with industry partners, the train operating companies, freight operating companies and the Department of Transport and how it proposes to achieve the Governments High Level Output Statement (HLOS) required by the Railways Act 2005 and in particular the expected 15% increase in the annual passenger kilometres on the ECML. The Hitchin Grade Separation project is given particular mention as one of the key HLOS projects. Furthermore the report highlights that within Network Rail’s Route Utilisation Strategy there has been an operational analysis which identifies a number of critical capacity constraints including the Cambridge Junction at Hitchin.

3.2.6 The submitted Green Belt report refers to the policies in the Regional Spatial Strategy (East of Plan) (Policies SS1 , SS2 and SS3) which promote sustainable economic development to meet regional development needs and Policy T1 which gives a clear priority to increasing passenger and freight movement by more sustainable modes which in turn will support existing communities and development proposed in the spatial strategy. Policy T5 is referred to as promoting improvements to rail services to enhance capacity and passenger comfort. Policy T10 says that priority should be given to efficient and sustainable movement of freight and finally Policy T15 is mentioned as highlighting the increasing transport pressure as a result of the growth and development strategy of the RSS. The document states that as the RSS is more up to date it should be given more weight than Local Plan saved policies or the emerging Local Development Framework. The document does however refer to the specific mention in background papers and Core Strategy Preferred Options Paper to the proposal to develop a to eliminate conflict at Hitchin.

3.2.7 In justifying special circumstances NRIL state that the transport network has been established between major conurbations over the years with Green Belt designations containing urban sprawl. The network has to be upgraded and improved where it is found and established in the Green Belt and that population and economic growth must inevitably mean improvements to transport infrastructure that is within the Green Belt. The RSS recognises that to facilitate growth improvements to transport infrastructure will be required (Policies T1 & T5).

3.2.8 NRIL state that the policy of sustainable development as expressed in PPS 1 is also concerned with creating more sustainable transport and that to achieve a modal shift away from the private car or plane the railway system needs to be more attractive in terms of reliability and capacity. Support for achieving this is set out in Government White Papers. In the case of Hitchin the flat junction must be replaced by a grade separated junction if capacity requirements are to be met.

3.2.9 NRIL cover the issue of the two grade separated options not within the Green Belt but reiterate that these options would have significant disruption to residents in Hitchin through demolition of commercial and residential properties and during construction and significant permanent impact in terms of visual intrusion and

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) noise. The five Green Belt options are discussed however the proposed option is considered to be the least intrusive in the Green Belt with the proposed alignment alongside the existing track and industrial estate minimising the impact of the scheme on openness. NRIL point out that the development will secure nature conservation interests as advocated by PPG 2 in that post construction the embankment route, with its restricted access, will become an area of informal nature conservation. NRIL point out that Natural England observed that the habitat created will be a positive enhancement.

3.2.10 In summary NRIL set out the following very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason on inappropriateness:

 The proposal supports national policy for sustainable development and climate change by providing for economic growth in a sustainable manner.

 The proposal supports government policy on sustainable transport by contributing to increased rail capacity to accommodate modal shift from private car to rail.

 The ECML is identified as within one of 14 key national transport corridors and can only be maintained and improved where it is, an established railway corridor in the Green belt.

 The capacity improvement is needed at Hitchin Junction not only to provide for increased capacity but to improve reliability of inter urban services and to provide for a more reliable outer suburban services.

 The RSS specifically provides for six urban areas connected by the ECML and Cambridge lines for further growth based on the improvement of transport links. It is thus fundamental to the regional strategic policy that Hitchin railway junction is improved.

 The emerging North Herts Local Development Framework acknowledges the need to resolve the capacity issue at Hitchin

 The proposed junction improvement accords with the Local Transport plan which provides for the improvement of rail services.

 The two options for a grade separated junction within the urban area of Hitchin would have had significant permanent and temporary adverse impacts involving significant demolition of residential property and construction traffic impacts as to be unacceptable.

 The option with the least intrusion into the open countryside / Green Belt has been selected.

 The railway corridor is likely to form a new informal area for nature conservation within the Green Belt thus mitigating its impact and making positive contribution to one of the purposes of the Green Belt.

3.2.11 Officer summary and assessment of Green Belt issue Although some of the information set out in the supplementary Green Belt justification document by NRIL was contained within the originally submitted Environmental Statement this document now provides a comprehensive policy background to the rail project and also explains how the Network Rail Strategic

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) Business Plan is linked to Government strategies for delivering a sustainable transport system and policies contained within the Development Plan. The document accepts that the rail project is inappropriate development in the Green Belt but demonstrates how the proposed alignment has the least visual and environmental impact when considered against all other options but more importantly it advances a convincing argument as summarised in the above bullet points that, in your officers opinion, cumulatively overrides the normal presumption against inappropriate development and therefore justifies that there are very special circumstances for the rail project in this case.

Conclusion That the Green Belt objection raised by the District Council is withdrawn.

3.3 Objection on highways grounds (construction route strategy)

3.3.1 The Committee has resolved that it was concerned at the impact at construction traffic on highway safety and the amenity of local residents and felt that not sufficient justification had been given for it to support the construction strategy. It also resolved concern that a number of issues raised by officers to NRIL had not been satisfactorily addressed (Resolutions C and F and points (i) – (xiv) of PCC Minutes, 2/11/09). In response to this objection NRIL have submitted two documents comprising a Road Transport Assessment and an Assessment of Materials Delivery by Rail. NRIL also respond to the concerns set out in points (i) – (xiv) in their letter dated 4th December 2009.

3.3.2 Road Transport Assessment Report – Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) The Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) report includes sections on construction vehicle calculations, route appraisals, traffic management and mitigation measures, route comparison and assessment and construction traffic code of practice. The report is supported by a large amount of data including swept path diagrams, construction vehicle flows, traffic counts and modelling outputs and speed survey results. The report has been assessed by Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority, Hertfordshire Police as Highway enforcement authority and the Council’s Transport Policy officer.

3.3.3 The SDG report states that there will be a steady increase and decrease in traffic flows over the 27 month construction period (September 2011 – December 2013) and that construction traffic volumes levels are split into two categories comprising ‘steady state’ traffic flow (relatively low traffic volumes during the majority of the time associated with any given activity) and ‘exceptional’ flows (higher occasional levels of traffic associated with activities such as concrete pours. The report states that over the 118 week construction period peak flows are only expected to occur for two weeks and that flows within 20% of this peak occurring for approximately 9 weeks (2.25 months) or 8% of the anticipated construction period. The report does state that a detailed and accurate construction plan will be developed by the construction contractor at a future stage but that the figures for construction vehicle flows given in the report are a robust worst case and generally are a reliable estimate for temporary construction traffic and resultant impacts.

3.3.4 The SDG report gives an overview of the two main route options for construction vehicles accessing the site – these are site access from Junction 10 A1 (M) (Route Option 1) and site access from Junction 9 A1 (M) (Route 2). Each option is assessed in terms of its restrictions (speed), physical ability including road condition, junction/highway capacity, safety (accidents) and sensitivity receptors (proximity to residential properties, schools, shops). The report then looks at a third option (i.e. one way construction traffic from Junction 9 A1 (M) to Junction 10 A1 (M) via the A505, C109 and A507. In the route comparison and assessment section the report sets out the benefits and problems of each route option.

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10)

3.3.5 Traffic Management and Mitigation Measures are also assessed in the SDG report. It suggests that, for the preferred construction route, speed restrictions in the form of signs, markings and enforcement cameras are appropriate. It states that a temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) would be put in place to prohibit waiting on the highway along the length of Wilbury Hills Road during the construction period between 8.00am and 6pm Monday to Friday. With regard to width restrictions on Wilbury Hills Road it advise that ‘exceptional flow’ two way HGV traffic is only anticipated to occur for two weeks during the 118 week construction programme and that the peak HGV flows will be far less. Mitigation measures, it is suggested could include a 0.4m widening of a 50 m section of the Wilbury Hills carriageway however the widening option would lead to longer delays and inconvenience to local motorists and villages for a greater period of time than any inconvenience that will potentially be caused by temporary increases in construction vehicle flows.

3.3.6 The SDG report also advises that a Construction Traffic Code of Practice (CTCoP) will be developed for the rail project to mitigate the predicted impacts from construction vehicles. The details of the CTCoP will be developed in association with the Police and Highway Authority before works commence. The construction contractor and Network Rail will be required to adhere to and enforce good working practices and the key elements of the CTCoP will be maintaining the use of construction traffic routes, giving appropriate notification of abnormal loads, setting up public information and liaison measures (including the willingness of NR to participate in a Community Liaison Group for the residents of the Wilbury Hills Road area) setting up an approved enforcement system (including driver briefing and recording), maintenance of operational hours, highway condition survey, highway and sign cleaning and vehicle access and security.

3.3.7 Having assessed all the route options, the SDG report concludes that Route Option 1 (i.e. two-way movements to and from Junction 10 A1 (M) ) is the preferred route for construction traffic in that it passes the least number of sensitivity receptors, utilises a road network that is largely able to accommodate additional construction traffic flows and has a limited existing accident history. This route would however be subject to mitigation measures involving speed reductions on the C109 Stotfold Road, new dropped kerb pedestrian crossing point on Wilbury Hills Road at the access to Hillcrest Park and a daytime waiting restriction on Wilbury Hills Road.

3.3.8 Assessment of Materials Delivery by Rail report This report has been submitted in response to the District Council’s concerns as expressed in resolutions C and F of the PCC meeting of 2nd November 2009. The report investigates the feasibility of delivering bulk fill materials for the proposed rail embankment by rail and it looks at seven potential rail delivery site options.

3.3.9 The assessment sets out the key constraints of material delivery by rail options which are:  The need to avoid HGV movement through Hitchin and Letchworth  Availability of suitable engineering train paths including movement across the ECML and  Availability of suitable possessions on the railway infrastructure  Need to avoid simultaneous closure of ECML and Cambridge line  Material supply  Programme timescales

The objectives contained in the report also include the need to ensure that external stakeholder concerns are not jeopardised in particular the concerns of the Train and Freight Operating Companies.

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10)

3.3.10 The seven options include 5 local sites off the ECML and Cambridge line and two further afield at Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City Sidings. They are identified as follows:

A – Spur off the Cambridge branch utilising the new alignment B – Delivery off the Cambridge line C – Delivery off the East Coast Main line D - Hitchin Up Yard (east of station) E – Hitchin Down Yard (north west of station) F – Stevenage Lafarge sidings G – Welwyn Garden City sidings

3.3.11 The assessment appraises the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The executive summary and conclusions discounts all of the options for a variety of operational and safety reasons (particularly with options A,B & C). In all cases the report states that rail delivery options will extend the construction schedule particularly with the use of a conveyor train which could off-load direct from the Cambridge lines or ECML. The report also advises that four of the options (D, E, F, & G) are discounted because they will not avoid the local transportation of fill materials on the road networks local to Hitchin and Letchworth. The report emphasises that whilst cost has not been a key consideration in deciding on the materials by rail options, there would be significant ‘extra-over’ costs for delivery by rail, which include possessions, isolations and enhanced rates for night time working in addition to any compensation that Network Rail must pay to the train and freight operating companies for reductions in their agreed network access.

3.3.12 NRIL response to points (i) – (xiv) of Resolution C of PCC minutes 2/11/09 The PCC raised a number of matters that required clarification. A summary of how these have been addressed has been provided in NRIL’s response dated 4th December 2009 and through the submission of the additional reports referred to above. Set out below are the various responses:

(i) Use of rail to import materials - NRIL has provided the materials by rail report (ii) Local source of materials – NRIL advise that they are not aware of any practical local source for materials and none has been suggested by NHDC. It is NRIL’s view that the sourcing of materials is a matter for contractors. Advise that they have received adverse legal advice regarding the inclusion of borrow pits located adjacent to the site within the Order application. Consider that the principle is not defensible to create a permanent landscape effect in order to mitigate a temporary traffic effect. (iii) Travel Plan – NRIL say the travel plan will be a requirement on the contractor and its preparation will be when the contractor can assess matters such as numbers of staff and where the workforce might be drawn from. (iv) Assessment of alternative construction routes – NRIL refer to the SDG report. (v) Transport Assessment (speeds etc) – NRIL refer to the SDG report. (vi) Consultation between contractor and Local Authorities – NRIL respond that consultation between Network Rail and the local authorities will continue up until the Public Inquiry and beyond; on the assumption that the Order is made, consultation will take place on the further development of the scheme to detailed design and into the construction phase. This consultation will include the contractor once appointed. NRIL envisage regular monthly liaison meetings between NRIL, NHDC (and HCC as appropriate); representatives of residents groups might also be invited to these. Details of such future consultation can be agreed between the parties.

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) (vii) HGV access matters – NRIL refer to the SDG report. (viii) Junction capacity – NRIL refer to the SDG report. (ix) Cadwell Lane/Grove Road junction – NRIL state that there is no intention of using Grove Road-Cadwell Lane as an access route and do not propose to undertake any studies of this junction. (x) Mitigation measures on Wilbury Hills Road – NRIL refer to the SDG study. (xi) On-street parking: Wilbury Hills Road – NRIL refer to the SDG study. (xii) Clarification regarding presentation of information on HGV movements – NRIL agree that it would be helpful to illustrate frequency of HGV flows and refer to clause 11.4.1 of the Transport Assessment which states that the ‘steady state’ flow of HGV will consist primarily (i.e. between 80% and 95%) of 20 tonne payload lorries (32 tonnes glw) carrying material for the embankment with an estimate of 180 such vehicles (two-way) per day. Assuming a 10 hour day, this means one loaded lorry southbound every 6 minutes or so and one empty lorry northbound every 6 minutes. NRIL state that clause 11.4.1 also identifies that in isolated occasional circumstances ‘exceptional HGV movements of up to about 70 vehicles per day ‘two-way’ will occur (this being in addition to the ‘steady state’ described above. NRIL will seek to ensure that wherever reasonably practicable advance notice is given of such ‘exceptional’ flows. (xiii) Clarification on night working – NRIL state that they will prepare a possession strategy (which largely determines the requirements for night time working) for the information of NHDC. Following a suggestion by Herts Police, NRIL do not rule out extending HGV movements into the evening but will only adopt this method in consultation with the relevant authorities. (xiv) Consultation with Central Bedfordshire – NRIL state that they await confirmation of the oral advice from Central Bedfordshire that they have no objection to the current proposals.

3.3.13 NRIL’s response to Resolution F of PCC Minutes of 2/11/09 Resolution F requires NRIL to consider materials delivery by rail (see summary of that report above) but if the delivery of materials by rail is impractical then NRIL are required to fund measures to reduce traffic impact on residents and submit and fund a scheme of management.

3.3.14 NRIL’s response to Resolution F is to refer officers and members to its response to Resolution C (see above). NRIL also state that they are happy to discuss with NHDC and with the Highway Authority a scheme by which traffic effects upon residents might be mitigated and that recommendations for this are in the SDG report. If appropriate NRIL will enter into a S106 or S278 agreement regarding the funding of such measures which they assume will be enacted by means of one or more temporary traffic regulation orders. NRIL state that the Planning and Environmental Management Strategy requires their contractors to produce and implement an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). This plan will address numerous topics including traffic and pedestrian effects. The local authority and highway authority will be consulted during the preparation of this plan. Additionally, SDG, as part of their study, will produce a Construction Traffic Code of Practice. NRIL will monitor and enforce compliance with the EMP and the Construction Code of Practice.

3.3.15 NRIL’s response to Resolution H of PCC Minutes of 2/11/09 Resolution H concerned information regarding construction traffic routes after the appointment of a contractor, that they should be made available and sufficient time given for consultation with the Council and local residents and that consideration be given to any comments arising.

3.3.16 NRIL’s response to Resolution H is that the Traffic Management Plan, which the contractor will be obliged to prepare and implement as part of the Environmental

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) Management Plan (see response to F above) will be developed in consultation with the local authority, the highway authority and the police.

3.3.17 Officer summary and assessment of highway objections

In providing this assessment it is necessary to go through each of the concerns raised by the Committee as minuted at points (i) – (xiv) as responded to by NRIL through the information set out in NRIL’s letter of 4th December 2009 and the Assessment of Materials Delivery by Rail report and the SDG Road Transport Assessment.

(i) Material Delivery by rail One of the key questions raised by the Committee, Council officers and members of public and other organisations with regard to the Hitchin rail curve was whether materials for the construction of the project (in particular the estimated 300,000 tonnes required to construct the embankment) could be transported to the site by rail rather than by road. This information has been required for many months even before the submission of the Draft Order and the formal consultation period. The assumption of many, as referred to in the Assessment of Material Delivery by Rail report, was that rail delivery of materials would be quicker and cheaper than importing material through the local road network and the argument has been made that this method would be better in environmental terms. In analysing the assessment however it is clear that there are major drawbacks to rail delivery of materials. The assessment of suitable sites has not been limited to the obvious sidings at Hitchin but five locations alongside the ECML and the Cambridge line in the vicinity of the construction site and two other potential sites in Hertfordshire at Welwyn and Stevenage.

3.3.18 It is probably beyond dispute that the ECML and Cambridge to London branch line are major inter-urban transport routes where possession of the line for materials delivery by rail is going to be severely constrained by the network access requirements of the train and freight operating companies. NRIL has evidenced this fact in their report by reference to Rules of the Route Standard Possession Opportunities data. It is probably also not in dispute that fill materials will be doubled handled for all of the rail delivery site options. It is also the case that in all of the options material will still need to be moved by road whether it is direct from the existing sidings at Hitchin, Welwyn or Stevenage or to construct new sidings and aprons to facilitate off-loading of material by train. In the case of options D and E (Hitchin Yards) this HGV movement would be through heavily congested residential areas. Options F & G will not make any difference to the local road impact in Letchworth and will add in additional local impacts at Stevenage or Welwyn. As a result of these issues and all of the other associated issues outlined in the report concerning isolations and night time rates, it is probably true that costs as opposed to the preferred construction route strategy will be significantly higher and that the construction period will be much longer. Finally, it could be argued that the rail delivery option is not any better in environmental terms when the double handling of materials, combination of rail and road movement, more extensive use of night time working and a prolonged construction period is taken into account.

3.3.19 The Assessment has been considered by the Council’s transport policy officer who concludes that the report presents a robust case against the delivery of material by rail to the proposed construction site.

3.3.20 (ii) Sourcing materials locally The comments relating to the local sourcing of materials by NRLI are noted and there is a landscaped impact issue with this matter (the land north and south of the curve forms part of the Arlesey- Great Wymondley Landscape Character Area)

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) however ultimately the sourcing of materials is a matter for the construction contractor and will be subject to the requirements of the Environmental Management Plan which Network Rail have said will be prepared in consultation with the highway authority and local authority.

3.3.21 (iii) Full details of a travel plan As yet NHDC has no draft or outline Travel Plan but it is understood this will be developed in detail when a contractor is appointed. It is suggested that this requirement is conditioned.

3.3.22 (iv) Transport Assessment The assessment considers the 2012 'base case' (i.e. no construction traffic), 'exceptional' and 'steady state' flows for the NR preferred route (all via J10) and two alternatives 1. all via J9 and 2. split from J9 to site and to J10 from site.

Table 1 of Appendix G identifies the peak time 'steady state' and 'exceptional' traffic flows. This confirms that the 'exceptional' HGV flows will be 34 vehicles in peak hours (17 each way) and the TA report advises that this 'exceptional' flow will be an 'absolute peak' for 2 weeks of the overall 118 week construction period. It is assumed that the 34 vehicles per hour is consistent throughout the 10 hour working day. The 'steady state' flows are identified as 3 HGV movements in both directions per hour including peak hours.

It is understood that the 'absolute peak' will result in 17 HGV two way movements per hour, for 10 hours a day over a two week period. This equates to 1 HGV every 3.5 minutes (in both directions on top of other non-HGV flows).

The next level of intensity is 9 weeks of HGV traffic 'within 20% of the absolute peak' which equates to 13 two way HGVs per hour, over 10 hours for 9 weeks. This means approximately 1 HGV every 4.5 minutes (in both directions).

The average 'steady state' HGV flows will equate to 3 HGVs every hour for 10 hours over a 60 week period at a rate of 1 HGV every 20 minutes in both directions).

In addition the TA advises that there will be 16 weeks where HGV movements will be '+ or -' 20% of the steady state average. This could equate to a worst case scenario of 18 HGV movements in each direction for 10 hours over 16 weeks, equating to 1 HGV every 17 minutes in both directions.

The remaining 31 weeks have mixed volumes of HGV flows, peaking at 13 in each direction, but all with lower non-HGV flows. This amounts to 1 HGV every 4.5 minutes in each direction worst case.

For the purposes of capacity assessment the above flows plus worst case 'other traffic' (i.e. site management, other materials delivery) have been accumulated and applied to the 3 route options at AM and PM peak periods. No inter-peak period is assessed but it is expected the main capacity issues to arise during the 8-9am and 5-6pm peak periods.

For the route to and from J10 the main capacity constraint is the Stotfold Road/Bedford Road roundabout which has 'base case' capacity problems on the Bedford Road arm of this junction. Consequently the 'all via J10' and 'split between J9/J10' construction scenarios worsen the capacity issues at this junction, albeit the split access not as severely, especially in the AM peak.

For the route to and from J9, the TA identifies capacity problems at the roundabout junction of the A505 and Stotfold Road in Hitchin, in Letchworth at the A505/Norton

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) Way/Willian Way signals, at the A505/Pixmore Way/Letchworth Gate roundabout, Letchworth Gate ('longabout') and for the actual J9 junction.

The data outputs for the above junctions show substantial queue lengths that are hard to believe. The nature of the modelling, however, is such that only individual junction analysis is possible rather than area wide modelling. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the junction queues shown are unlikely to occur as many drivers will re-route or change their journey habits. This will include 'rat running' so the J9 route is likely to result in increased amounts of peak time traffic on alternative routes because of the congestion that occurs at key junctions. Quantification of any re-routing has not been undertaken, however (see (viii) below).

Officers consider that it would have been helpful to have the base case validated against some current queue length observations to help explain this point.

Purely in terms of highway capacity, access via J10 to and from the site has a much lower impact than via J9, including when compared to split access. There are serious concerns however about some congestion identified in the modelling outputs.

3.3.23 (v) Traffic speeds and information on safety

Taking safety first, there is consideration of collision data from the last 5 years. Purely in terms of numbers, the J9 route has had 35 collisions (1 fatal on the A507), and 65 collisions (2 fatal, 1 on Stotfold Road, 1 on A505 just west of Letchworth). Detailed analysis of collision and casualty data isn't available (NB this data is confidential) but there is evidence of clustering at some junctions.

In summary the J10 route is 6.5km with 30 less casualties than the J9 route which is 6km with a larger number of houses, crossings and junctions. The route to J10 offers evidence of less safety issues, especially in the vicinity of built up areas and/or junctions and crossings.

With regard to speed analysis, survey work was undertaken on Stotfold Road close to the proposed site access only. The speed limit at this location is 60mph and HCC have been advising NR on the required speed limit in order to enable the site access visibility.

There is no analysis of speeds on any other part of the routes considered. This is disappointing as transport officers would prefer to see a 30 mph limit proposed for the Wilbury Hills Road option given its limited width.

3.3.24 (vi) Further details required on the scope for consultation between contractor and Local Authorities

The TA sets out how this should be achieved via the Construction Industry Code of Practice. Officers would support this approach and recommend that it be secured via condition and should be in place before construction commences.

3.3.25 (vii) Clarification for the arrangements for accommodating HGV’s before the site opening hours.

If access via J10 is confirmed there are lay-bys on the A507 that can be used. Access via J9 has no such facilities. In both cases it is recommended that the site access is designed to accommodate up to three waiting HGVs with site access gates closed. This is subject to the Highway Authority and Police agreeing this approach. This does not remove the need for the contractor to work within the

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) construction hours, however.

3.3.26 (viii) The District Council would like to be re-assured that junctions and highways generally on routes are 'fit for purpose' and that excessive re-routing of traffic will not result from construction traffic routes.

The junction modelling referred to under (iv), above refers to the 're-routing' issue.

As far as the 'fit for purpose'/highway geometry issue is concerned, many of the figures attached to the TA identify that there will be wing mirror overlaps and kerb overruns on the J10 route. In particular this affects Wilbury Hills Road and Stotfold Road north of Letchworth.

This is a serious concern and the arguments that HGVs already use this route without seemingly any problem and that the Ordnance Survey mapping may not be accurate are not sufficient in officer’s view. NRIL have been requested to provide greater certainty that this issue can be mitigated against or avoided. It does, however, add more weight to the argument for a 30mph limit on this route.

The issue is not so acute if the access is split but, as the TA identifies, construction traffic leaving via J10 will potentially come into conflict with HGVs travelling south along Wilbury Hills Road for other purposes.

There does not appear to be any major physical constraint associated with the J9 route other than some concerns about kerb overrun at the Letchworth Gate/A505 roundabout.

In officers opinion Network Rail need to do more to convince the Council that the J10 route along Wilbury Hills Road will not give rise to problems associated with wing mirror or kerb overruns. The potential for wing mirror overhang onto the existing footway needs to be considered and addressed.

3.3.27 (ix)Details of Cadwell Lane/Grove Road junction operation. Officers acknowledge that NRIL have confirmed that there will be no construction access through the Cadwell Lane/Grove junction.

3.3.28 (x) More precise details of the mitigation measures on Wilbury Hills Road are required. See comments under (viii) and (v) re: 30mph speed limit. With regard to the pedestrian crossing improvements at Hillcrest Park, these are welcomed albeit not considered to be especially helpful with regard to keeping vehicle speeds down or assisting pedestrians.

3.3.29 (xi) On street parking in Wilbury HilIs Road Officers have observed 2 to 3 vehicles parked on-street in this location and, in the officer’s view, there is sufficient kerb space in adjacent side roads to accommodate parking for residents without off-street parking.

It is worth re-emphasising the importance of a 30mph limit with regard to enabling residents to access driveways/hardstandings in a safe and convenient manner.

3.3.30 (xii) Information on HGV’s should be presented in a clearer manner Please refer to estimates under (iv) above. Officers have discussed the estimated 'HGVs per minute' figures with the TA author who did not challenge them or provide any alternatives. These figures are purely for construction HGVs and do not take into account any other non-Hitchin curve related traffic. They also do not take into account existing HGV flows.

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) 3.3.31 (xiii) Information on night working As far as officers are aware there is no information on night working and this would be expected to be covered by the agreement under (vi) above. Other than exceptional circumstances (i.e. possessing of either existing rail line to carry out bridging and/or essential track connection works) it is considered that there is not a case for night working.

3.3.32 (xiv) Consultation with Central Bedfordshire NHDC has no information on this consultation but have requested from Network Rail the results of any consultation.

3.3.33 Conclusion on highway issues

In officers opinion the rail delivery option will extend the construction period and, in all cases, will still result in a local road impact for HGV deliveries. As such it is not considered in the best interests of the district to pursue any of these options.

With regards to road access it seems clear to officers that whilst this solution isn't ideal it is for just over two years in total. Any option must be considered in this context.

The J9 route is the most congested and adding significant numbers of HGVs/other traffic will worsen this situation and probably result in significant re-routing. The J10 route does not have the same congestion problems.

With regard to safety, it is clear that the J9 route has a higher rate of collisions and resultant casualties. It is worth noting that much of the J9 route is within a 30mph limit which will contribute towards helping avoid collisions.

The biggest issue to be considered regarding the J10 route is the potential for problems associated with the limited carriageway width of Wilbury Hills Road and Stotfold Road. Network Rail have not demonstrated sufficient mitigation measures to address these concerns. On balance this route still offers the least impact on residents and road users for the area as a whole but we should consider requiring at least a 30mph limit at Wilbury Hills Road and localised widening to address concerns about wing mirror overlaps and kerb overruns in the vicinity of the residential area. It is noted that the County Council and Police also require a speed reduction to 40 mph on the Stotfold Road section of the route south of Wilbury Hills Road.

It is recommended therefore that the Local Planning Authority accept in principle the preferred construction access route (Route Option 1 of the Steer Davies Gleave report, Two-Way Construction Traffic to A1 (M) Junction 10) but that its objection on highway grounds is maintained due to the lack of appropriate mitigation measures.

3.4 Objection raised on environmental grounds (Bury Mead Springs/Cadwell Marsh)

3.4.1 The Committee has resolved that it is objects to the environmental impact of the proposals for the flood attenuation basin and exchange land on Council owned land adjacent to the Sita metal works in the Bury Mead Springs/Cadwell Marsh area (Resolution D of PCC minutes 2/11/09).

3.4.2 The site of the attenuation basin and the surrounding area overlies a permeable principle aquifer with groundwater less than one metre below ground level and the site is in an extremely sensitive location from a controlled waters protection perspective (controlled waters include groundwater and surface water).

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10)

3.4.3 In addition to the concerns raised by the District Council, the Environment Agency (EA) have raised an objection to the proposals on the basis that the information submitted with the Draft Order did not demonstrate that the risk of pollution to controlled waters is acceptable. The EA have stated that the applicant has failed to give adequate assurance that the risks of pollution are understood and that measures for dealing with them have been devised and that the application should not be determined until satisfactory information has been provided that shows the risk to controlled waters has been fully understood and can be addressed through appropriate measures. The EA have therefore lodged an objection with the Department of Transport (Dft) and submitted a Statement of Case to the Dft in order to protect its position.

3.4.4 The EA have however held a meeting with NRIL on 21st January 2010 at which it is understood that the concerns of the EA could be dealt with via ‘Protective Provisions’ and the EA are working closely with NRIL to agree these before the Public Inquiry. It is understood that NRIL have submitted a set of Draft Protective Provisions to the EA and a response from the EA to this draft is expected shortly. From officer discussions with the EA it is understood that agreement on the Protective Provisions is likely which will in turn lead to the withdrawal of their objection. The Committee will be advised further on this matter at the meeting.

3.4.5 Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre, as ecological advisors to the Council, have provided further advice in respect of Bury Mead Springs. HBRC say that the area concerning the proposed water attenuation basin although part of a wildlife site (non-statutory designation) has been previously disturbed and comprises made up ground and therefore is not of particular significant ecological value. HBRC advise that the wildlife site is important because of its wetland components i.e open water, reedbed, carr woodland and location adjacent to the River Hiz and therefore by creating the basin, this part of the wildlife site could be enhanced by planting the basin with native aquatic plants with appropriate management. The new basin would compliment the existing wetland and prevent any pollutants from the railway viaduct from entering the wetland and river.

3.4.6 Resolution D required NRIL to present options for the flood attenuation scheme on land to the north of Bury Mead Springs in land under private ownership. NRIL have responded in a letter dated 26th February 2010 (attached at Appendix D). The letter covers agreement in principle reached between the Council and NRIL on the procedure to deal with the possible transfer of the Public Open Space land by private treaty rather than by Compulsory Purchase Order as originally proposed in the Draft Order. In addition the letter sets out the case for the location of the attenuation basin and the alternative locations. Briefly, NRIL’s reasons for the location of the basin are given as follows:

 The location is the optimum for the basin’s drainage/attenuation purpose and hydraulic function i.e at the southern end of the viaduct structure  The EA have made it clear that they do not wish the basin to intrude into the flood risk area which is directly to the north (see Flood Risk Plan at Appendix C)  Locating the basin further north onto third party land would attract an objection that would be difficult to rebut; namely that the optimum location for the basin in terms of its purpose and function is as shown on the Order plans and that any concerns regarding possible contamination had been dismissed by the EA.

The letter from NRIL states that a relocation of the basin would require alteration of the present draft Order and deemed application for planning permission thus

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) incurring further delay and risk to the project that is not justified in engineering or other reasons.

NRIL acknowledge the concern of the Local Planning Authority with regard to the potential risk of contamination from the adjacent Sita site however NRIL have discussed this concern with the EA who have agreed that an engineering solution can be found to address this concern and that the basin will not become operational until it has been approved by the EA through protective provisions. As such NRIL believe that there are no grounds which can be substantiated to show that the basin would have any adverse effects with regard to contamination. NRIL advise that an alternative drainage solution of providing tanks directly underneath the viaduct was considered but that this has been ruled out due to complex engineering, extending the period of construction and disruption, cost, that the option was not favoured by the EA and that it would remove the opportunity of enhancing the environment and providing and ecological amenity.

3.4.7 NRIL also address the issue raised that the Council would be liable to significant costs in terms of on-going maintenance of the attenuation basin. NRIL say that this matter can be dealt with through the Section 106 Agreement but that ‘there is no question of NR attempting to burden improperly the Council with any responsibility or cost for its own apparatus’.

3.4.8 The letter of 26th February from NRIL has been copied to the Council’s Grounds Service Manager who is of the opinion that in the light of the apparent view of the EA regarding the location of the drainage facilities and the stated aim of Network Rail to line the flood scheme, maintain the engineering aspects and finance the on- going maintenance costs, it would be difficult for the Council to put a case at the Public Inquiry.

3.4.9 Officer summary and assessment of environmental issues In accordance with the request from the Council NRIL have looked at alternative locations for the water attenuation basin and provided information as to why other locations are not appropriate on several grounds. The concerns with regard to contamination have been discussed with the Environment Agency and it appears possible that an engineering solution can be found to overcome any potential contamination. The Council has been assured that it will not have to bear the cost of maintenance of Network Rail’s infrastructure and have stated that this matter and appropriate planting, will be subject to a legal agreement.

3.4.10 The Council has raised a concern with regard to the loss of public open space and its access to it. In fact, only a small strip of land immediately adjacent the existing embankment will be permanently required by NRIL and the public footpath, although slightly diverted, will be maintained. The water basin feature itself will be connected at either end by underground pipes and the land reinstated and the Council and members of the public will still have access to Bury mead Springs post construction of the initial phase of the viaduct. The Sita site will be required for a temporary period only.

3.4.11 It is likely that the Environment Agency will withdraw its objections and no objection is raised by Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre. The Council’s Grounds Service Manager, having previously raised the environmental objection, now considers that there is not a case for appearing at the Public Inquiry in view of the position of the EA.

3.4.12 Conclusion on environmental issue That the environmental objection raised by the Council is withdrawn

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) 3.5 Other areas of concern raised by NHDC Planning Control Committee (Resolutions G, I and K of PCC meeting minutes 2/11/09)

3.5.1 A copy of the response from NRIL on the issues raised under G and I is attached at Appendix E. NRIL refer to the additional works which has been carried out to justify the preferred construction route strategy and their intention to continue consultation throughout the duration of the scheme.

3.5.2 No specific response has been received from NRIL in respect of resolution K however NRIL have forwarded a copy of comments submitted to the Department of Transport by the Ramblers Association where they comment that they do not wish to make any formal objections to the proposals. They do comment however that NRIL should give some further consideration to the diversion of footpath 89 which at presently proposed takes a circuitous and difficult to follow route.

4. LEGAL ADVICE AND COSTS

4.1 Any objection to the Draft Order to be presented at the Inquiry must be supported by expert evidence. Members will note the conclusions drawn on the three main objections raised by the Local Planning Authority and your officers opinion that the additional information supplied by NRIL is considered to have addressed the concerns (with the exception of the mitigation measures that are required for the preferred construction route).

4.2 The Committee should therefore be aware of Counsel’s advice to officers as offered on 22nd February 2010. Counsel’s opinion is that there is a lack of substance to the Council’s objections and a lack of evidence and without confirmation of the case by expert evidence there is little prospect of success at the Inquiry.

4.3 In terms of costs, Counsel have also advised that if the Council is to continue to the Inquiry with all the objections raised costs will be significant due to the need to assemble a team of consultants and for the necessary legal representation and pre-inquiry briefings and the need to obtain consultant reports to substantiate its objections and appoint witnesses for the Inquiry. In the event that the Council maintains only its highways objection and appears at the Inquiry the Committee are advised that costs would be in the region of £30,000 - £40,000. In addition to these costs there is the risk of a costs claim against the Council if its objections cannot be substantiated and are considered to constitute unreasonable behaviour.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The TWA Draft Oder is subject to a Section 106 Agreement as previously reported

6. FINANCIAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Applicants, objectors and other parties to TWA application proceedings normally meet their own expenses associated with an inquiry or hearing however any party can apply for costs if they consider another party has behaved unreasonably (Department of Transport Circular 3/94).

7. HUMAN RESOURCE AND EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are no Human Resource or Equalities issues.

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) 8. CONSULTATION WITH STATUTORY CONSULTEES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS

8.1 Hertfordshire County Council as Highway Authority: Do not raise objections to the Draft Order. Recommend conditions and alterations to the mitigation measures

8.2 Hertfordshire Police: Do not object to the Draft Order. Raise concern with regard to mitigation matters at Wilbury Hills Road.

8.3 Environment Agency: Have raised a holding objection to protect its interests

8.4 Hertfordshire Biological Records Centre: Confirm that they do not object. Comment that the attenuation basin could enhance the wildlife site.

8.5 NHDC Environmental Health officer: Comments will be reported at the meeting

8.6 NHDC Grounds Service Manager : Considers that concerns have been addressed and acknowledges Environment Agency advice.

8.7 Central Bedfordshire Authority: Formal comments are awaited

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 That the Committee withdraws its objections raised on Green Belt grounds to the Hitchin (Cambridge Junction) Order.

9.2 That the Committee maintains it objections raised on highway safety and amenity of local residents grounds to the Hitchin (Cambridge Junction) Order but only in respect of the inadequate details of traffic management and mitigation measures proposed for the preferred construction route.

9.3 That the Committee withdraws its objections raised on environmental grounds to the Hitchin (Cambridge Junction) Order.

9.4 That, the Committee authorise officers to continue negotiations with Network Rail and agree details of mitigation measures and level of contributions in respect of highway matters and in respect of the Application for Deemed Planning Permission agree conditions and Section 106 Heads of Terms matters.

9.5 That Network Rail be requested to consult with the Local Planning Authority on the preparation of the Environmental Management Plan and the Wilbury Hills Residents in the establishment of a Community Liaison Group prior to and for the duration of the construction works.

9.6 That the Department of Transport be informed of the Council’s withdrawal of its objections on Green Belt grounds and environmental grounds but maintains its objections on the impact on the highway network. That the Department of Transport is advised that that the withdrawal of its environmental concerns does not prejudice the Council’s role as landowner or affect its submissions to the Department of Transport as landowner and its

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10) appearance at the Public Inquiry commencing on 11th May 2010 in order to protect its financial interests.

9.7 That the Committee authorise officers to appoint, if required, appropriate advisors and consultants to represent the District Council if agreement cannot be reached with Network Rail on outstanding matters as set out in paragraph 3.3.33 prior to the commencement of the Public Inquiry.

10. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 The recommendations contained within paragraphs 9.1 and 9.3 are made following the submission of new information and advice received from officers and consultees.

10.2 The recommendations contained within paragraph 9.2 is made in accordance with advice received from officers and consultees.

10.3 The recommendations contained within paragraph 9.4, 9.5, 9.6 and 9.7 are made to protect the District Council’s concerns and financial interests.

11. APPENDICES

11.1 Appendix A - Minutes of the Planning Control Committee 2nd November 2009.

11.2 Appendix B - Network Rail Open Space Plan drawing No. N280-NRT-DRG- CN-000009

11.3 Appendix C – Network Rail Flood Risk Assessment map CX FRA 002 Issue 02

11.4 Appendix D - NRIL letter dated 26th February 2010

11.5 Appendix E – NRIL letter dated 25th February 2010

12. CONTACT OFFICERS

12.1 Tom Rea, Area Planning Officer, Planning, tel 01462 474565 email [email protected]

12.2 Mary Caldwell, Planning Control & Conservation Manager, tel 01462 474613, email [email protected]

12.3 Simon Young, Transport Policy Officer, tel 01462 474846, email [email protected]

12.4 Anthony Roche, Senior Legal Officer, tel 01462 474588, email [email protected]

PLANNING CONTROL (11.3.10)